About the D3: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=30767884Some interesting set of replies: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=30786540I'm not trying to make it look bad for Nikon... I think this whole build quality thing is a marketing trick more than anything these days with all DSLR manufacturers. As long as the camera doesn't crack and make the lens fall down I'm happy!Just saying...GTW -- http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter

They also make ambigious claims about 16-bits to fool idiots into thinking it was 16-bits capture. Also make claims about D3x comparable to MF cameras in IQ.

You people need to get a life! This Canon vs. Nikon thing is nothing but childish and very, very silly.

N/T = No Text

I guess every brand can have bad samples. Most likely this one unit has had a leaking seal or something similar. Just too bad it's next to impossible to detect those in the service, and impossible to prove after the service is done. And the service center has no real info of how the camera was treated (like dropped into water or something) so they have no other option than to charge these non-varranty expences.

genotypewriterwrote:I think this whole build quality thing is a marketing trick more than anything these days with all DSLR manufacturers. As long as the camera doesn't crack and make the lens fall down I'm happy!I am somewhat on the same boat with you. Of course there are many pros and even amateurs who put their gear through all kinds of abuse and thus need everything to be very sturdy.But I think vast majorty of photographers rarely wonder off the beaten path. They keep their camera safely tucked in the bag, on the back seat of their car, only to take it momentarily out to take shots of their kids, relatives, monuments and whatever. Do they really need a super-rigid, weather sealed, military grade magnesium alloy body?Everyone always blasts the xxxD/Rebel series for their bad build quality and plastic-y feel, but let me tell you: As a hopelessly clumsy individual, I have dropped my 350D numerous times, once even down a 20 meter cliff. It has been covered in wet snow and I´v e had a full glass of beer spilled all over it. And it has never let me down.Now YMMV and I am certainly not advocating doing all that to your camera. And I know many peole simply like the feel of a heavy and solid (at least perceptually) camera, even if they do not really need one. But I do feel bulid quality is too often measured with just gut feelings instead of actual mechanical facts.

What a pity! Although it may just due to minority sample variation (or QC issue), it should not happen to such a pro body. I've used my 1DMarkIII under heavy snowfall and tested it's really weather-sealed. I've the intention to switch to Nikon and D3 (or D700) would be my option(s). Now I've to re-think again.

steraswrote:You people need to get a life! This Canon vs. Nikon thing is nothing but childish and very, very silly.You're assuring my observations though... that a lot of Nikon fanboys can't even read.GTW -- http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter

genotypewriterwrote:steraswrote:You people need to get a life! This Canon vs. Nikon thing is nothing but childish and very, very silly.You're assuring my observations though... that a lot of Nikon fanboys can't even read.GTW -- http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriterAgain...the Canon vs. Nikon thing. (Btw, I read your posted words and understood all of them).

pc168wrote:I've the intention to switch to Nikon and D3 (or D700) would be my option(s). Now I've to re-think again.Did you think that Nikon is 100% perfect, cannot fail, never needs repair etc? That is not true...

I'm not trying to make it look bad for Canon... I think this whole image quality thing is a marketing trick more than anything these days with all DSLR manufacturers. As long as the camera doesn't come out with black frames we all should be happy!My advice: use your tool in the best way possible and you won't be dissappointed.And for taikonaut: Canon is MUCH BETTER than Nikonbest regards Claus

...the recent thread where a fellow's sensor's AA assembly cracked during cleaning. Which is to say, absurd because it's so atypical.Instead, the value of the thread is in observing Nikon's response to the problem and considering to extent to which one can expect "warranty" service for problems stemming from use in conditions that clearly exceed the operating range, even though it may be encouraged by marketing materials.genotypewriterwrote:About the D3: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=30767884Some interesting set of replies: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=30786540I'm not trying to make it look bad for Nikon... I think this whole build quality thing is a marketing trick more than anything these days with all DSLR manufacturers. As long as the camera doesn't crack and make the lens fall down I'm happy!Just saying...GTW -- http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter

I agree that the Nikon response is the essence of the thread. But I disagree that this is a case of exceeding the operating range. So much was made of the 5D2 not being weather sealed well enough for pro usage. Now it turns out that Nikon doesn't believe their D3 is sealed enough to withstand any water at all. I say that based on the fact that Nikon says the warranty was voided because they determined the camera got wet. So much for weather sealing... and warranties. Their response basically says that the D3 cannot get any water on it or the warranty is void. You call it marketing hype where they stipulate that the camera can "protect against invasive moisture"... I'd call it a binding contract.Kabe Lunawrote:Instead, the value of the thread is in observing Nikon's response to the problem and considering to extent to which one can expect "warranty" service for problems stemming from use in conditions that clearly exceed the operating range, even though it may be encouraged by marketing materials.

This clearly is an anomalous incident. Do a search and see how many other episodes you find of D3 LCD failure. My D3 was used outdoors in the snow and freezing rain of a northwest winter and from Cancun to Tulum in the humid heat of a Mexican summer without a single hiccup, and I do meant the camera never missed a beat. And my D300 and D700 have been soaked through with rain, using unsealed lenses, and with prudent handling in the field and after coming indoors, no issues with them, either. But I could say the same of my 5D, which successfully endured 80% of the same indelicate treatment over the course of 3 years with only a single incident (lost all the data on a memory card in the camera after using it outdoors for about 30 minutes in10-degree fahrenheit temp), which couldn't be definitively attributed to the camera rather than the CF card.If you're seriously this afraid of the potential for manufacturing defects disabling your gear in harsh conditions, better to avoid digital photography altogether, because this could easily happen to any camera from any manufacturer, including the ones you already own.pc168wrote:What a pity! Although it may just due to minority sample variation (or QC issue), it should not happen to such a pro body. I've used my 1DMarkIII under heavy snowfall and tested it's really weather-sealed. I've the intention to switch to Nikon and D3 (or D700) would be my option(s). Now I've to re-think again.

...the warranty is voided. Two different things, and not unreasonable considering the kind of (ab)use to which you'd need to subject your D3 to get enough water inside to cause damage. Read your Canon warranties and you'll find Canon leaves themselves protected from abuse/misuse as well. Olympus, Pentax and Sony, too.Of course, this all is predicted on the environmental seals all being intact, but as was observed by one fellow in that thread, without being able to confirm the condition of those seals, the user who doesn't take further measures to protect their fully electronic camera in the rain–particularly nearly a year after its purchase under who knows what conditions, nor the impact they might have had on those seals–is rolling the dice. There's a good reason professionals have their gear serviced every 12-18 months.DaveWCwrote: I agree that the Nikon response is the essence of the thread. But I disagree that this is a case of exceeding the operating range. So much was made of the 5D2 not being weather sealed well enough for pro usage. Now it turns out that Nikon doesn't believe their D3 is sealed enough to withstand any water at all. I say that based on the fact that Nikon says the warranty was voided because they determined the camera got wet. So much for weather sealing... and warranties. Their response basically says that the D3 cannot get any water on it or the warranty is void. You call it marketing hype where they stipulate that the camera can "protect against invasive moisture"... I'd call it a binding contract.Kabe Lunawrote:Instead, the value of the thread is in observing Nikon's response to the problem and considering to extent to which one can expect "warranty" service for problems stemming from use in conditions that clearly exceed the operating range, even though it may be encouraged by marketing materials.

I think the issue was not so much the failure of the LCD seals but the fact that Nikon refused to honor their warentee. It was bad buisness on their part IMO.

What a silly post. I've owned virtually all of Nikon and Canon DSLRs. Over the years each company has had some very bad accidents happen to my cameras. Dropped from heights, gotten wet not drowned and various other bumps and bruises. I can only recall one problem was with a Canon 10D where the LCD screen on the back shifted down slightly. But the camera continued to function perfectly as have all the cameras I've had accidents with over the years. Quite to the contrary I am amazed at the build quality by both companies in that in spite of what happens the camera keeps functioning perfectly. I've broken more lens (although thankfully mostly filters) than cameras. And most of those were of the plastic body construction. Comparatively when similar things happened to some of my film cameras, they went back for complete repairs often times..The bulk of the problems I've had that required cameras to go back were mostly of the original design flaws. Banding, Focusing issues (you know who), and dead sensors..

Kabe Lunawrote:...the warranty is voided. Two different things, and not unreasonable considering the kind of (ab)use to which you'd need to subject your D3 to get enough water inside to cause damage. Read your Canon warranties and you'll find Canon leaves themselves protected from abuse/misuse as well. Olympus, Pentax and Sony, too.That's an incredible train of thought. The camera is marketed as being weather sealed and protected against invasive moisture. In other words you can use it in adverse weather & it will keep the water out. But if it doesn't keep the water out then that means you abused the camera. The existence of water in the camera is sufficient evidence of abuse. Using that logic every camera is equally weather sealed & water resistant. They might as well all make that claim since the only evidence possible that their camera is not adequately weather sealed... i.e. water getting into the camera, is proof of customer abuse.It may be that all mfrs have the same clauses in their warranties. But all that means is that no camera has any guarantee whatsoever when it comes to their weather sealing. Is it any wonder the marketing depts make outlandish claims?p.s. manufacturer defect could also be a reason the seals failed & water got inside.

...that even though they'd let me know the repair is technically not covered by the warranty, they'd do it as a "courtesy" repair.David Hullwrote:I think the issue was not so much the failure of the LCD seals but the fact that Nikon refused to honor their warentee. It was bad buisness on their part IMO. --