Surface Studio vs iMac 5K comparison review: Apple and Microsoft all-in-one PCs battle it out
Hello, I have an on going problem and not sure what to do about it. Really need some good advice.
I brought my NikonD700 in for sensor cleaning and to glue the grips. When I picked it up two weeks later, I notice while I am downloading some photos that my Metadata has another persons name. Which I found odd. I double checked my warranty card from Nikon and my serial number matched the one on the bottom of the camera. I ran the software "shutter clicks" and quickly found out that my camera had 111,250 clicks while the one in my current possession has only 14,000 clicks. Confirmed its not my camera.
I march off to the store to inform them of this mix up and please get my camera back. Three weeks goes by and the store says they got a hold of the person who has my camera and he has sold it.!!!!!What the hell!!! Now my camera has passed thru two owners and they want me to bring it in and swap it? Should I just keep the one I have and forever ignore requests from the store to bring it back?
They outsource the repairs and the repair man has admitted that he messed up and had two identical cameras in the shop the same week and that he takes the housing apart when he does the sensor cleaning. Hence, where the serial numbers got switched. I have phoned Nikon and a couple of camera stores and they say you only would take the housing apart if it was broken and that they would notify you for the removal of the serial number. What to do? All comments and ideas would be greatly appreciated.
* I double checked my warranty card from Nikon and my serial number matched the one on the bottom of the camera*
Which would suggest it is your camera.
Reading what's been stated, seems rather confusing as to what as actually happened.
What I would suggest is that you take any evidence to your local CAB or Legal Advice Centre, and ask there for advice?.
HondaMan..he has explained how numbers may have been switched although I have to admit it is very confusing.
If, as I suspect, this is a genuine error, then IMHO you should allow them to rectify and help them minimize the damage. They, in turn, should offer some sort of recompense - even a free repair.
Quite why they removed the housing from 2 cameras is not clear, but these actions have clearly been the cause of the confusion. Nevertheless, I think you would be treading on very thin ice if you did not return the camera as requested, and you need to think about the actual owner of the innards you now have, who is currently the only sufferer of your refusing to return the camera.
If the number on the warranty card (which supposedly was completed on purchase) agreed with that on the base of the camera he received back after repair, then surely it MUST be his original camera.
Of course, one solution is that the camera repair shop switched the shutter mechanisms and are trying to avoid forking out for a new shutter mechanism for one or other of their customers.
i wonder if any criminal offence has taken place here again the FE would know theses things
I've cleaned my senor on numerous occasions and I can confirm there is no reason whatsoever to disassemble the camera for this simple job.
Also if your camera definitely had only 14,000 shutter operations and this one definitely has 111,250. you can check by using Opanda assuming you have a second memory card that's not been used on your 'new camera'exif reader.
The rated shutter life of your camera is an expected 150,000 operations, so draw your own conclusions as to what you should do. Although the rated life of the shutter is 150,000, I have a friend who's shutter actuation is far in excess of this number.
To look at it another way a camera with just 14,000 shutter actuation's is still virtually a new camera even though it came out in 2008. Which I guess prompts the question are you really sure the count is only 14,000
FE - the font of ALL knowledge ;-)
Probably not a criminal offence, but certainly gross negligence but as the OP seems to have benefitted from this he is unlikely to take action. However, the other poor chap might well have a case!
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.