...the manufacturer won't cash.But seriously, if you were a camera manufacturer with designed-in protections against moisture intrusion that you'd tested and were quite confident in, and you had a camera returned to you with obvious damage from water intrusion but don't find any of the environmental seals compromised, you would be left to only conclude that the camera's exposure to moisture exceeded the limits assured by the designed-in protections.Granted, I think that the owner of a $4K camera that is advertised heavily to be moisture-resistant should be given the benefit of the doubt and at least one such incident should be repaired as a courtesy–my experience is that this is Canon's stance–but I don't think Nikon is totally unsupported in the conclusion it has drawn.But they are shooting themselves in the foot from a customer relations standpoint.DaveWCwrote: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.

Kabe Lunawrote: ...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. --I have to agree with this train of thought - even though we all can sympathize with the original thread's poster (esp chris - a well known nikon fan .. ) seals are only as good as the day they are put into the camera .. they get brittle, wear, break and then can leak water into the camera .. however the fact that he had to pay for the repair was the shocker.Moral of the story, under both camps we'll find great stories and bad stories of repair facilities.I for one have always thought though in the last 3 or so years, nikon's terminology for weatherproofing on cameras and lenses has been abnormally vague to the extreme.

I don't know enough about the situation to know what Nikon found when they looked at the camera. But if there is moisture behind the rear screen then doesn't that mean that the environmental seals were compromised? Unless there's a customer created puncture in the shell of the camera isn't it likely that water got past the seals?The part that bothers me is the idea that since the camera was built to keep water out, and water got in, then inevitablly the customer is at fault & the mfr is blameless.I'd agree with you that it's a mistake on their part.Kabe Lunawrote:...the manufacturer won't cash.But seriously, if you were a camera manufacturer with designed-in protections against moisture intrusion that you'd tested and were quite confident in, and you had a camera returned to you with obvious damage from water intrusion but don't find any of the environmental seals compromised, you would be left to only conclude that the camera's exposure to moisture exceeded the limits assured by the designed-in protections.

I was given as a gift last year a D2Xs and did not know when it was originally bought so had no idea of the warranty, yet the worked on it due to a focus issue under warranty. They said as it was a gift, they would cover this repair.I have had great service from nikon over the last 6 years, when needed.I have seen many threads here complaining about Canon QC, service, etc. I doubt it was indicative of the brand as a whole, just isolated issues.

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!That's pretty much the truth. Lot's of people worry more about "build quality" than "photo quality" these days!In my view it really doesn't matter much at all which system you use. Clearly there are great photographers making outstanding photographs with both Nikon and Canon systems. You pick one, commit to it, and go about making photographs.Dan

Canon's service is one reason I would not consider a brand switch. Had to send in a lens which was just out of warranty by a fraction, and they fixed it as a 'courtesy repair'. Even on repairs that I have had to pay for, I have always thought the service charge was reasonable.

I think it's funny that my post is getting so much mileage.BTW, I think the D3 is a great camera and the seal leak is probably an anolomy. However, I think the attitude of Nikon repair dept. needs to be visited much more often, -- Chris, Broussard, LA

Nikon does make a fiine camera, but sometimes its the little things, such as customer service, etc. that makes a difference.

Agreed. This is what I would expect as well. It wouldn't have cost Nikon too much to have fixed this thing and they would have has a satisfied customer out of the deal.This all assumes that it is as the poster said and Nikon, on their investigation, did not see reason to assume obvious abuse of the camera.