< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Law firm collects Nikon D600 sensor dust/spot complaints for a potential class action lawsuit

Nikon-D600-dust-issue-class-action-lawsuit
The US law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein is currently collecting Nikon D600 dust complaints for a potential class action lawsuit - I personally don't think this will happen since Nikon has been responsive to customer's complains and has either fixed the issue (replaced the shutter) or in some cases replaced the camera.

Related stories:

This entry was posted in Nikon D600 and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • indi

    hopefully a wake-up-moment for conceited nikon.

    • it helps

      Nikon should make a public announcement of recall. Give D610, and be done. Its cheaper than fighting a law suit and losing customers – who would likely buy more stuff if their camera works well.

      • Jason Schultz

        Exactly. Why not look like corporate heroes instead of zeroes?

      • DL

        apparently you’ve never seen where these go. Lawyers get millions and customers get a coupon for 10% a new camera

        • make sense

          you did not get his comment…

          he is saying instead of paying lawyers millions and consumer 10%, give the consumer D610, and lawyers zero.

          • Naval Gunfire

            Nikons share price will tumble and given the fact that Nikon seems to be run by a bunch of accountants I can’t see that happening.

            • AM

              Well, this will create another problem to Nikon if they don’t manage this thing correctly.
              Just think about all D600 owners who have not sent their cameras to Nikon service for one reason or another.
              This class action lawsuit thing opens the door for all those owners to send their cameras for service and have proof that they also had the issue, hoping that if the case is settled favorably, they will get either their money back or a newer camera.
              So, now, if Nikon decides to drag this in the courts, they must be ready to receive a flock of D600′s for service. And that costs money.

            • Naval Gunfire

              The cost of repairing a percentage of the cameras purchased (not everybody can be bothered to send theirs in or indeed has any issues) is much less than giving everbody a brand new D610. There isn’t really any compelling financial reason for them to do that, maybe only PR and to be honest I think we’re long past the point where that would be effective. The D600 will always be viewed as a defective product.

            • AM

              I never said that Nikon should give every D600 owner a brand new D610. I said that if they don’t manage this thing correctly from now on, the financial impact can be worse.
              Since the beginning, Nikon has handled all this mess poorly. They should have acknowledged the problem, fixed it for good, and moved on. But it seems that after almost 18 months that the D600 was released, we are still hearing about people sending their D600′s to service for the dust/oil issue to have them back with even more issues.

            • guest

              Many times in cases such as this a bold and forthright move by the company, with minor up-front cost, is all that’s needed to calm jittery shareholders and avert share price meltdown. Unless you know the net cost to produce a 610 don’t underestimate the aggregate cost against benefits of such a move. Nikon needs true leadership; now might be a good time to show it.

      • Jon Ingram

        Well D600 owners would love that, but I seriously doubt it would be cheaper, at least in the short run. Maybe if this gets a lot of publicity it would be cheaper in the long run. Here is hoping

        • fred

          Nikon should have offered free cleaning of sensor for life of shutter (150,000 actuations).
          Anyway, a lot of the problem went away after 3000 actuations. Others had no problem.
          Some here even said their D600 shutter was replaced (probably with the one out of the D610).
          I don’t see this legal case getting legs, but Nikon should have treated EVERY customers complaint seriously.

      • desmo

        you’re assuming the D61o doesn’t have the “spot” issue???
        don’t be so sure

        • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

          we would know by now if the D610 had oil spot issues

      • Andrew

        I think from a legal standpoint, Nikon may come out on top. Nikon can easily argue that because of the widespread publicity, users were more likely to take their cameras in for cleaning than would otherwise have done including those that were not affected by abnormal spot accumulation, but the normal accumulation common to all sensors in SLR cameras.

        The legal profession is good at picking on terms like “in some rare cases” and play it to the hill. But the question is what is the definition of “rare cases”, is it 5%, 10%, or 15% percent of users? But in addition to that, the question is did Nikon honor its warranty. If a user only took their camera in twice for cleaning, does that warrant a complete recall?

        Also, it appears that the problem surfaced immediately on the new cameras among those that were affected. So users who experienced the problem but did not get a satisfactory solution immediately had the option to return their cameras to the dealers for a full refund. In addition, Nikon did equip their service centers to repair the shutters for cameras with persistent problems and among those affected, many reported that it solved their problem.

        Clearly this was an unfortunate incident for both Nikon and those affected and it is likely that the problem only surfaced on some cameras during large scale production and thus could not have been identified in the testing and quality control stage. And it appeared that Nikon needed to investigate the problem and equip their facilities before a satisfactory solution could be found; though it was reported that in one test, the spots went away on 5 out of 6 cameras after about 2,000 actuations.

        If I am to fault Nikon, it is the fact that they have to learn how to communicate more openly with their customers to give frequent updates when issues arise. But this lawsuit is not necessary. Nikon has stepped up its research and development and for once is releasing products at a more rapid pace than ever before in its history. The fact that they were recovering from two major disasters involving the Japanese earthquake and the Thailand flood to give us a rapid succession of products including the Nikon 1, D3200, D5200, D7100, D4, D800, and D600 (not to mention the newer products) is a remarkable accomplishment. I think we should be thankful that this great company exist. Look at Kodak, Minolta, and Polaroid, all formidable names that have disappeared though Minolta was consumed by Sony; and with companies like Pentax and Leica becoming niche players not to mention other brands. And then this lawsuit.

        • Majd Abu Rakty

          My D600 has been cleaned only twice since i bought the camera in September 2012. Why? because i moved to another country from where the camera was purchased which made the warranty worthless unless i send the camera back to where i bought from and that would take ages to go through.

          Instead, I sent my camera to be serviced where I am living now and I paid for it even though my camera was under warranty. I did that twice and the problem remains. Now I don’t shoot above F9 to avoid as many spots as possible. I will send it a third time soon hoping they will replace the shutter or something but again, it’s gonna cost me!

          Selling the camera is not an option so I will be stuck with this for a while until nikon does something about it.

          The legal case might see light if the firm handles it very carefully as Nikon really did a bad job to go around the problem rather than fixing it once and for all.

          • Andrew

            I understand your situation since as a consumer, I have bought many products from many different manufacturers over the years and had to deal with similar issues. I had to take a new luxury car in multiple times to fix a manufacturing defect, I experienced manufacturing defects from two printers, a portable music play, a television, etc.

            The fact is – as you stated, Nikon did issue a service advisory after they developed a fix for their customers to have the shutter replaced. I think Nikon should pay the cost of shipping for people in your situation. It is unfortunate that the problem occurred in the first place but this type of problem is common in the manufacturing industry. There is no report of Nikon refusing to honor their warranty which is their legal obligation to their customers. Before the fix was developed, Nikon provided free camera cleaning.

            Just because an issue is wildly blogged does not make it any more notable. For those asking for a complete replacement with a D610, it is just ridiculous in my opinion though I am certain nearly every D600 owner would love it. Nikon’s manufacturing is capable of producing over 50,000 cameras of a particular brand each month. Even if Nikon produced 200,000 D600 cameras at a manufacturing cost of $1,000 each, you are talking about a $200 million cost to Nikon.

            Again, sorry for your situation and inconvenience but I do not agree that Nikon went around the problem. When the problem first occurred Nikon did not have a fix. They simply cleaned the sensor and the problem went away for many users. When they developed the fix they issued a service advisory for those users still experiencing the problem.

            • Majd Abu Rakty

              As long as there are camera bodies suffering from the problem in the market then the problem remains not well addressed by Nikon. When I buy a product from a well established company such as Nikon, I will expect it to work properly or be fixed or replaced in the case of faulty application.
              You should notice also that I am not only talking about the financial inconvenience. Yes nikon could offer paying the shipping costs but I will be stuck with no camera for a month or two at least – Not an option in my situation.
              Finally, I am not really after a new camera from Nikon as I am supper happy with the performance of my D600 – aside from the oil issue that is. I am just saying that Nikon did go around the issue. They kept selling faulty D600 bodies even after the issue was confirmed creating a wider community with this problem which made the solution costlier with time. They didn’t act fast enough and kept playing around until the circle became tight enough and then they issued the shutter replacement solution.

              A corporation in Nikon’s size working in the creative industry where passion is the drive for most of their customers, Nikon disappointed many people with what they did. Especially with the target group of the D600 being enthusiasts who wanted to go full-frame without breaking the bank which means that those who bought it did so out of hope to move up and create pro-like results, not be stuck in this non-ending whirlwind of bad corporate QC and PR. I seriously have no words to express my disappointment.

  • Alex

    What kind of compensation do they want? If it’s fixing the problem on their camera (or Nikon deciding to replace the camera) that is fair. If it’s one of those $1 million for spilling a cup of coffee things, then America is even more friggen screwed up than we all thought.

    • Richard

      Who are “they”? The attorneys are in business to make money (as is perfectly normal). My guess is that Nikon USA will settle quietly out of court, without admitting anything for attorneys’ fees, and a small sum for each D600 owner. So Nikon JP learns no lesson and the attorneys move on to the next nice little earner!

      • Alex

        Looks like you were able to answer your own question.

      • jr456

        Exactly. These lawyers would jump at the chance of settlement. This is business as usual for them. Nikon owners will get nothing and company will only learn to protect themselves by hiring more lawyers.

        Things like this don’t solve anything.

      • http://pixelhub.me/nseika/ Seika

        The article’s wording does make it sounds like it’s the attorneys who are bringing this case up instead of the customers.
        The law firm see an opportunity and is now rallying supporters so they can get the money from filing a lawsuit.

    • frank

      The McDonald’s coffee law suit has become the poster child of frivolous law suits. However, a documentary on the case showed that the public has unfairly assumed the plaintiff to be just a litigious fool due to poor reporting by the media. On the contrary, McDonlad’s own internal records show that they knew that their coffee was being brewed too hot. They also were aware of how many other customers had been burned by their hot coffee. The woman in the lawsuit underwent surgeries to repair the damage to her groin area and legs. Photos of the damage was quite gruesome.

      • Kristian

        Coffee is hot right? If you can’t handle something that is hot then you can’t blame others for screwing up that obvious.

        • Rob

          You really ought to look at the actual story.

          • Kristian

            From Wiki:
            “Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[9] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin”
            Can McDonalds really be blamed for such stupidity? I suppose that is only possible in the US.

            • Kristian

              Okay, “stupidity” is maybe a little harsh, because we can all have a day with bad luck, but I still fail to see that McDonals can be blamed.

        • http://www.flickr.com/photos/kgnixer niXerKG

          The documentary frank is talking about is Hot Coffee, do yourself a favor and watch it.

          It’s actually a good documentary about Tort reform. But after seeing it you won’t sound so completely ignorant.

        • mikeswitz

          It must be nice to live in such a simple world where everything is just black and white

        • zoetmb

          There are appropriate temperatures for hot coffee. This far exceeded it. And I don’t know whether it’s the same case, but in at least one instance, the coffee was so hot that it melted the styrofoam cup and the bottom fell out, which is how the person got burned. IMO, that certainly deserves a lawsuit.

          Having said that, I’m generally opposed to class action lawsuits because the plaintiffs get next to nothing and the lawyers make $millions even when the case is legitimate.

        • Mansgame

          Read the case before you embarrass yourself. She ended up getting much less money and was severely injured.

          • Not to blame

            Doesn’t matter such cases would not have any chance in a civilized world outside of the US.

            The USA drives by money and nothing more then money. That’s actually pretty sick IMHO.

            • Mansgame

              That’s a generalization those have who have never lived here…or secretly want to live here but can’t come over here so they try to talk badly about it. Trust me, I don’t sugar coat our problems here and am pretty liberal, but fair is fair. Nikon is a Japanese company doing business in the US. Maybe in their home country, they can get away with mistreating customers, but in the US, people stand up for themselves and our court system is one way the little guy has power over big companies.

              And where pray tell are you from that is so superior??

            • Jorge

              Here! Here! +1000
              Many complain and belittle the US. But under whose skirt do they run and hide under when there is trouble? Yeah the US. Where do they go when the. Need money or aid? Yeah the US.

            • Dpablo unfiltered

              I would not admit coming from the land of golden arches if it were avoidable…

        • Alex

          In other countries, people know coffee is hot and are careful not to spill it. Then again, they aren’t too lazy to get out of the car to go and buy it or make it themselves. Which makes sense, because if they want to make $1 million, they know they have to WORK for it. Babies shouldn’t be drinking coffee!

      • basics

        If this goes the McDonald way, Nikon’s expense will be equivalent to giving free D4s for oily D600.

        Cheaper for Nikon to do a public recall and offer D610 in exchange.

        • desmo

          that’s why courts award those high amounts they know that companies duck their responsibilities and hope the large award will compel them to do the right thing upfront.
          only a small amount of corporate malfeasance ends up in court

      • Alex

        When everyone in the rest of the world reads or hears about the McDonald’s lawsuit, do you know what they say? “Only in America!”

        • mikeswitz

          Not the “rest of the world” who understands nuance. While the McDonalds law suit did very little for the plaintiff, it forced them to finally change a policy that was harming a number of innocent people.

          • Alex

            No, seriously. People don’t think of filing lawsuits in countries with common sense for $1,000,000 over coffee! You know when you hear people think America is crazy? That’s one of the example people pull that epitomizes their point! It is usually followed by the story of the man in the Winnebago setting cruise control. I believe this story is fake, but these true stories aren’t much better, and they just reinforce people’s negative opinions.

            • mikeswitz

              When you hear people think america is crazy they are thinking of Alex who thinks it was a lawsuit over coffee.

            • Alex

              Funny, I am not even American. Try again. On second thought, stay in your little bubble.

            • mikeswitz

              I never thought you were an American, probably a not very well informed Brit who has troubled with nuance. Or just your average Australian.

            • Alex

              If you didn’t think I was American, why on earth would you say “they are thinking of Alex (when they think of America)?” Come on man, use your friggen little brain! You assumed I was American, you were wrong. Admit it like a man and let it go! Or you could sue me for $1 million for getting so butthurt over nothing. ;)

            • mikeswitz

              Christ, you are stupid! I guess it was the third possibilty. “When you hear people think america is crazy they are thinking of Alex who thinks it was a lawsuit over coffee.” Read it again. It does not say anything about Alex being an American. “When you hear people think america is crazy they are thinking of Alex who thinks it was a lawsuit over coffee.”

            • Alex

              LOL I read it fine the first time. Just admit that you are wrong, loser! You know it, I know it. Stop trying to save face, I don’t even know you dude. It happens from time to time, it’s ok to admit that you are wrong. Now you want an intellectual comparison between you and someone you don’t know on the Internet. You think that makes you any smarter? Should we compare academic achievements? Just get over it and get some sleep retard!

            • Canadian

              all of which are incredibly much more intelligent than the smartest yank. particularly the Canadian.

            • yank

              but canadians are so slow….

            • David

              You’re just making stuff up. The lady only sued for medical expenses (~$40k) and a few months worth of lost earnings. She even went to McDonalds two times to settle the case, but they refused both times. Then it went to court and it was the jury who decided the reward, which was equal to two days worth of McDonalds coffee profit.

              So the lady wasn’t greedy at all. She didn’t decide to sue for a massive sum. It was a jury of 12 people who decided the appropriate amount.

          • ex-liar-lawyer

            Only a personal injury lawyer (garbage of the earth) would argue about nuances about a spilled hot coffee case. McDonalds was not “harmiing a number of innocent people” as you contend–the case was appealed then remanded, then settled before the retrial for substantially less than the original jury verdict–please stop the legal argument bs.

            Hope you never get into an auto or other accident and are at the receiving end of a medical mill lawsuit–one where the injuries have been fabricated out of thin air after the plaintiff sees a number of “medical specialists and experts” and develops “injuries”, all connected and referred by the attorney. Only in America.

            • mikeswitz

              I can see why you are an ex-liar-lawyer. Do you really know the facts of the case? Did you follow it in the New York Times and Washington Post? Did you see the documentary “Hot Coffee.” Or were you too busy tipping your tea bags in cold water, if you get my drift. I am neither an ex-lawyer or a right wing nut job looking to sell corporate spin on places like Fox News.

            • halo9

              Come now children, play nicely. No point crying over spilt milk (or coffee). I don’t know the case, haven’t seen the documentary and frankly couldn’t really care. I do have a few points though. There is no objective media anymore, it is all subjective so you never really know what happened and this includes documentaries as they are the producers point. So seeing reading/watching something does not give you ALL the facts.

              Secondly mikeswitz, take your racism and get lost. It doesn’t matter what nationality you are, there are idiots and there are good people, of which you are neither. Your generalising of nationalities is not welcome and offensive. Goodbye.

            • mikeswitz

              And you know no one gives you all the facts because….? Alex was the one who brought up nationalities, not me. And there was nothing I said that was racist. The thing about Austrailians was clearly a joke and not at all racist. I didn’t say all Brits were uninformed or all Canadians were stupid. I’m not sure you know the meaning of the word racism. Also I have made a number of documentaries and presented all the facts as I understood them. Good journalists may have a point of view but that doesn’t preclude telling the truth. 60 Minutes used to do that all the time.
              I find your generalizing about my comments unwelcoming and offensive. Goodbye.

            • halo9

              Sorry mikeswitz, a bit harsh on the racist call there. Us Australians do have a hard time grasping this silly language. I still stand by my call on truth in media though. The news 30 years ago was about bringing objective stories that were backed up and verified before being published. Today’s fast paced news world is all about who can be fastest to the web/press. Not sure about a source or story or if it really happened…. who cares, make it up or print it, just get it out there you can always change it later. On top of this what is truth? You even said you present facts as you understand them. Then you have to presume that when you try and explain it, the next person understands exactly what you are trying to say (we all know how well that works on the web : ) Look at any comments section, haha)
              One thing about psychology that always interested me was when you say something to someone and they nod and say they understand…. is it exactly what you had in your mind or their recreation of what was said based on the definitions of words they know and experiences that have shaped those meanings for them. How do you really know that they know what you meant. I’ve spent many a night debating this with friends, a truly intriguing topic. Take my use of the word racist, maybe a little over the top, but breaking down and making reference to the intelligence of people based on their nationality….. well it kinda fits. But yes, a bit over the top and you have my apologies.
              Oh yes truth. The only real truth is watching something in real life or seeing the actual footage of something happening. Anything thing else is just a version of it and yes as a documentary maker you do try your hardest to make it as accurate as possible (if you love your art).

            • desmo

              your out of line

            • halo9

              sue me : p

          • Dpablo unfiltered

            When will somebody then sue about their burgers?

            • mikeswitz

              As soon as someone can prove they grew an extra head from eating too many of their cheeseburgers.

            • Dpablo unfiltered

              It would be really bad if the second head were able to actually think…

              Just think of what might happen. Oh, wait…

        • desmo

          your right because tey’re equally uninformed as most Americans

    • fjfjjj

      I filed some of the initial paperwork that got this rolling. Due to Nikon negligently shipping a camera with known defects, and then repairing them on a case-by-case basis rather than offering immediate replacements, many consumers suffered loss-of-use type damages which were not due to their own fault or any exceptional circumstance but only the negligence of Nikon. Those damages are what we seek to recover.

      • just saying

        amen.

        Living under kings in europe, maybe they are historically used to bending down.

      • DL

        wow, you became an attorney after one contracts class. Congrats

        • fjfjjj

          I am not an attorney. You?

          • Mansgame

            Then why are you pretending? :)

            • fjfjjj

              Just doing my best to recount the argument. I had attorney help.

            • Thom Hogan

              Clearly. But you need a better attorney ;~). US law basically disallows the unfit for purpose claim if the company in question repairs the product under warranty.

            • so?

              what if it does NOT repair? i.e. issue recurs?

              then the consumer is stuck in fine print?

            • Thom Hogan

              @so? If an item is “repaired” and continues to have a problem, US law gets a little complicated, because we have a lot of states that have so-called “lemon laws.” The standard tends to be California’s law, which says that on the third repair attempt the product needs to be replaced, not repaired.

              To my knowledge, if your original repair at NikonUSA failed and you contacted them about the failure, they pay shipping back and attempt to repair it again. If that fails, on the third attempt they’ve been replacing bodies. So essentially they’re following California law.

            • told

              thanks Thom! 3rd strike = replace. Good to know!

            • Thom Hogan

              The advice is somewhere in the thousands of articles on my site ;~). But this is a good time and place to reiterate it: if you have a camera or lens that goes back for repair a third time, you should insist on replacement.

              The tricky part of this is focus problems. I’ve seen too many examples where “doesn’t focus right” turns out to be a combination of things, none of which are exactly a problem with the camera. Thus, replacement doesn’t actually fix anything, and Nikon will tend to push back. That’s why I believe that you have to visually document focus problems in ways that eliminate all but the variable in question (as I told people to do with the D800 problem).

          • ninny

            obvious to us you ninny.

      • ShaoLynx

        Compensation for damages: yes. Getting 300K, no. That’s over the top. Hence: “Only in America”. Yes, we Europeans say that. Perhaps these huge fines, causing these large corporations to finaly change their policies, should go to charity or something like that. That would yield an entirely different impression.

      • aussie aussie

        -100

        Fiji (or whatever), do you deliberately intend to sound like an ignorant yank? (a tautology if I’ve ever heard one).

        I agree with your logic on compensation due to losses other than material, but to say that that is the american way (btw America is a combined continental land mass not a country you ninny) at the exclusion of other countries is so george bush – arrogant and ignorant. Educate yourself first that consumer laws exist outside yankland, even in europe. Thus to most non yank readers, what you propose is logical albeit unlikely.

        • fjfjjj

          I’m from Germany and I live primarily in Switzerland, you ignorant Australian brute.

          • syd

            I can see where he got confused. He confused your bad english for Amerispeak. Plus you sound like you’re defending them and abusing europeans. I know Germany once thought it was above europe….

            • fjfjjj

              Would you point out my bad English please?

            • syd

              every single post you write you use “fjfjjj”. What the hell kind of English is that? …..sounds like a volcano :)

        • Patrick O’Connor

          I find this whole subject amusing (and I own a D600) but I think you’re picking nits here. Everywhere I’ve traveled, the terms “America” and “American” are understood to mean The United States of America and it’s Citizens.
          I do, however, agree with your final sentence. I won’t be joining this lawsuit. While I have empathy for individuals who’ve suffered similar to fjfjjj’s scenario, I don’t think this lawsuit will help anything.

          • syd

            “Americans” collectively refers to Alaskans, Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, etc. Funny but I don’t know how to refer to those from USA other than Yanks.

            • Patrick O’Connor

              Technically, but not commonly. And, by the way, Alaska is part of the USA. Also, I’ve never heard anyone, from the countries I’ve visited, refer to Americans (that is citizens of the USA) as “Yanks.” Where are you from, that “Americans” and “Yanks” are used that way?

      • Eric Calabros

        havnt you see Pulp Fiction? Zed is dead baby, zed is dead

      • Alex

        I don’t like the homicide rate in America. What are you going to say about that? “This is American logic and if you don’t like it, you can move to Europe. You must be a fanboy if you don’t like it.” The American sue-crazy culture is screwed up. No wonder America doesn’t have its own massive electronics companies. Who would be stupid enough to take the risk?

        • AM

          Apple, Google, Microsoft, to mention some.

          • Alex

            As far as I am aware, the only product made here from either of those three companies is the Mac Pro.

            • AM

              They are American companies and are liable no matter where they build their products.

    • Robert

      Do you actually know anything about that “$1million for spilling a cup of coffee things”? Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the a few of the details of the case [quotes from the wikipedia article]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

      “Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[11] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting.”

      “Other documents obtained from McDonald’s showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald’s coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000″

      • D600 owner

        Then again, why not blame the manufacturer of the chairs.
        This chair had no coffee holder…..

        You can’t blame a company over your own stupidity.
        Who in the world holds a cup of coffee in between your legs, while you could have put the cup on a table.

        Such lawsuits are only possible in America.
        This women would have made zero chance in any other parts of the world. In those countries she would have blamed herself.

        • Fred

          I think McDs should be sued for calling a cup of dishw ashing water coffee.

    • Andrew

      Please educate yourself on the coffee spilling, that lady didn’t want nor deserve the negative impact of incorrect publicity had on her life. She was hurt VERY badly and media blew it completely and hugely out of proportion, including fase reports on how she was compensated. The coffee was too hot for production reasons, they knew it, and McD ignored MANY complaints…she was just the first to get publicly hurt by their negligence.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2470792/Stella-Liebecks-hot-coffee-McDonalds-lawsuit-The-truth.html

      That’s just one of the ‘truth’ pages on that lawsuit. I’ve seen better, including a long documentary about it.

      What’s screwed up is Nikon sending out thousands of cameras with a major flaw, then doing little to fix it besides selling more cameras with an “update”. It’s no secret that Nikon hasn’t made the best decisions regarding mechanical flaws in their products.

    • Mike

      There is a documentary on that McDonalds coffee spill. It is not as stupid as the McDonalds and the media made it out to be. The old lady had serious 3rd degree burns and $45k in medical bills for skin graphs. She didn’t want to sue for $1M. She only wanted McDonalds to help cover the cost of those medical bills.

  • Mike

    While I think there’s no excuse for Nikon’s blunder with the D600 and folks who bought this camera should have any related problems fixed gratis, this litigious BS gets old. Let’s see how this will pan out… Nikon will be sued for millions, individual customers will get $20 each, and the law firm will pocket the other $100 mil.

    • ROI

      That’s why the law firm is working hard… to collect the “service charge” $ for the building the law suit.

      Nikon can be smart. Instead of paying lawyers, Nikon can better spend their money by providing replacement D610… and this will have better returns on money spent because a satisfied customer will buy more.

      • Thom Hogan

        The law firm in question is fishing, and I wish that Admin hadn’t posted this; it basically just gives the law firm plenty of free access to D600 owners. If they find enough of them, they’ll file a suit regardless of whether there’s legal standing for it or not.

        Note that in the US, if a company fixes defective products under warranty, there is no legal recourse to fitness or suitability for purpose: the fixed product is regarded to be fit/suitable.

        The usual path this sort of thing takes is: get lots of interviews with customers. Probe for any single instance where Nikon goofed up, then file that as a class action. Without a goof on Nikon’s part, most courts would probably throw a suit out under summary judgment. With a goof, that gives the lawyers enough of a case to begin deposition/inquiry, and the very first thing that will happen is a request for all emails and internal communication that the company had regarding the problem. In other words, the fishing expedition moves from customers impacted to internal smoking gun. That’s usually where the out-of-court settlement comes, because it’s usually cheap enough to settle and that leaves the communications private. I’m pretty sure Nikon wouldn’t want anyone to know how many D600′s they sold and how many had problems, for example.

        I’m comfortable that Nikon has been trying to repair problematic D600′s. I don’t like that they had the quality control problem in the first place and never clearly communicated that they did and what users should do. But after many hundreds of reports, I know of no instance where Nikon didn’t fix a camera, or eventually offer a replacement.

        • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

          I am not really running this site to hide or censor information. I report, you decide. When I find something interesting, I will publish it on the blog. Unlike other website, I have no relationship with Nikon to compromise. If Nikon has put an effort to fix all issues, there should not be a problem and if they didn’t, there should be a lawsuit – as simple as that.

          • Eric Calabros

            of course. but not reporting something, is not censorship always. It may called filtering. for example, AdBlock plugings are not censoring, they filter

          • J.

            I fully support the admin’s perspective on this. The item was out there and this is a “Nikon News” site. The broad scope of coverage in NR is what makes the site unique. I monitor several Nikon-related sites and NR is different in that the Admin does not display the megalomaniac tendencies found among those who want to censor or select what they publish, supposedly because they “know better”.

          • Thom Hogan

            The law firm in question really isn’t so interested in helping Nikon users, it’s interested in making a bunch of money. In essence, you gave the law firm a giant advertisement for free. That’s the tricky part of this.

            I had to consider the same thing. The lawyers certainly contacted me. I had to think long and hard about whether this is indeed useful news, or a veiled attempt at obtaining free advertising. I decided this: if a suit is filed, I’ll report it. But given that I’m not aware of Nikon actually doing something illegal, all I’d be doing by promoting people contacting a law firm like this is supporting a part of our tort system that is broken.

            • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

              This is the current system – you like or not. There also many other things I do not like, but this is not the forum to discuss them. Just to be clear – nobody asked me to post this online. A law firm (not sure if it was LCH&B) also contacted me few months ago to ask for my opinion and that was it. They did not ask me to make a post or anything like it. This post was based on a comment from a reader form few days ago who pointed to that page. Like you said already in other comment – don’t blame the messenger.

            • agreed

              Admin – you’re fair and balanced!

            • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

              :)

        • Spy Black

          “Note that in the US, if a company fixes defective products under
          warranty, there is no legal recourse to fitness or suitability for
          purpose: the fixed product is regarded to be fit/suitable.”

          Except their “fix” doesn’t “fix” the problem. Sensor cleaning doesn’t fix the problem, and apparently that’s what Nikon has been doing, at least initially. Even if they did replace a shutter, the replacement apparently had the same symptom. So, no real fix.

          If nothing else accepting the cameras “for repair” may legally cover them in a case like this where they can say they addressed the issue.

          I bought a D600 knowing the problem full well. I didn’t give a crap because I know how to clean a sensor and I realized just how great a camera the D600 is otherwise. Even though I don’t worry about it, it certainly would be nice if Nikon offers to replace my camera with, say, a D610 if this lawsuit gets traction. This way I wouldn’t have to be cleaning my sensor SO often. :-) Otherwise this lawsuit wouldn’t do anything for me.

          But most people of course did not buy the camera under the same mindset as mine.

          • Thom Hogan

            Like I wrote, if the law firm can find some true legal ground to form a case with, the real fishing expedition becomes seeing how much they can get out of Nikon’s internal communications on the issue. This is usually where some employee somewhere wrote or said something that the law firm will concentrate on, even if it was just an employee expressing an opinion.

            I suspect that Nikon’s thinking was this: the shutter eventually stops shedding, thus if the unit has enough clicks on it a cleaning might be enough. If not, the unit will come back and we’ll just replace the shutter. In essence, minimization of cost. I happen to know of some D600′s that did “seem fixed” by cleaning after at least 5,000 shutter activations.

            And again, I still know of no instance where Nikon didn’t eventually resolve the customer’s problem.

            • more..

              the problem is just not clearing the oil… its also the following:

              1) not stopping the entire batch to reach customers, when Nikon knew the problem was widespread. i.e. purposeful transfer of QA/product verification responsibility to the customer.

              2) customer’a cost and hassle to pay for shipping, be without camera for prolonged time while waiting for repair… multiple rounds

              3) reselling same defect as re-fubs

            • Thom Hogan

              1. Essentially that’s a recall. Nikon doesn’t tend to sit on a lot of inventory, it’s usually moved into dealer hands fast. If it were my product, I would have pulled everything I could and checked it (I actually did that twice in my career).

              2. I agree. Once it was clear there was a widespread problem, Nikon should have been proactive, and that should have included paying for shipping on first repair.

              3. This is a relative of #1. Here’s the problem: the defect shows up after thousands of shutter activations. So basically you’d have to run shutter off of cameras. Nikon tried to visually inspect instead, but I’m not sure that’s even possible to determine whether a shutter has the problem from just observation.

            • Spy Black

              Yeah, well, it’s the fact that people send stuff back because the problem wasn’t initially solved is where I think the legal wiggle room will come from. I still don’t think there is a lot of traction here, but who knows.

              Unfortunately there won’t be any real resolution for customers if the law firm could win the case, only a cash pot for them, the customers will still have to deal with the defected camera and some small, essentially worthless monetary compensation.

            • Thom Hogan

              That’s why I mentioned the lemon laws. They formed exactly because of the “repeat repair but not fixed” problems that came up with many automobiles. Unfortunately, those laws vary from state to state. Most companies use California’s law as the template, because it’s pretty clear and severe. In Nikon’s case, they have a presence in California, so that’s another reason why they’d need to comply.

              And yes, that’s exactly my point. A legal case really doesn’t do much for the customer that has the problem. In the best possible outcome, which would be highly unlikely, they’d still end up having to send a camera in and have it swapped. The much more likely scenario is that there would be some minor payment that comes with strings (e.g. coupon against new purchase), and they still have a camera that may have to go through Nikon repair at some point.

              My sense is that most of the people that are all for a law suit are looking for some way to punish Nikon. Frankly, I think Nikon has already been punished. Their reputation for quality in high end products is gone at this point. D800 focus, D4 focus nubs that fall off, D600 dust/lubricant, etc. THAT’S the thing Nikon needs to address. A law suit is likely to just put them in a more defensive mode, at least temporarily.

            • Spy Black

              They also have to be part of the group of corporations that accept responsibility and acknowledge their problems. Just like Dell acknowledged they had a problems with their laptop batteries years back and addressed the issue, as opposed to companies like “you’re holding it wrong” Apple that refuse to admit their products have any problems. Nikon is in the latter camp now, I’d like to see them in the former.

        • AM

          Well, this law firm doesn’t seem to be small nor inexperienced, so they know they have a case and good chances to make a buck or two out of this.
          We can debate hours and hours whether if this is legal or ethical or whatever, but the reality is that Nikon thought they had a door out of this mess with the D610, and at the end, the poor way they handled the situation since the beginning is coming back to bite them in the butt.
          And as for Nikon trying to repair problematic D600′s, that’s not a true assessment. I know one individual who didn’t know his D600 had a problem until I showed the problem to him. He wasn’t even aware that this was a known issue with many D600′s. How many like him are out there? I don’t know. Was he reached by Nikon to try to repair his camera? Nope. Somebody else had to tell him that his camera was defective in order for him to send it for repair. The proper way to handle all this would have been Nikon recalled all the D600′s, and repaired them or replaced them as necessary.

          • Thom Hogan

            I’ve never said Nikon didn’t make a mess of the D600 problem and their handling of it. I’m only saying that I don’t know that they’ve done anything that a court would find actionable. Of course, with a jury you never know, as there are four possible outcomes that depend entirely on opinion.

            It doesn’t matter whether a person knows or doesn’t know about the problem. If they don’t see a problem, there isn’t one ;~). The exceptions to that tend to involve actual physical risk or harm. What you’re arguing is that Nikon should have recalled the D600. I agree, they should have; that’s part of their botched handling of the issue. But I know of no legal construct that says that had to recall the camera.

            • get it

              There is no legal construct for recall. For sure.

              Nikon’s lesson if this law suit happens — recall, if you have a pervasive problem, because its ethical and smart business – even if its not legally required.

            • Thom Hogan

              I don’t actually think a recall was necessary, at least when the problem first appeared. Just a clear and communicated position of the problem and what would be done about it if you encountered it would have been nice ;~).

            • Milos

              How about this scenartio:
              Nikon releses D610, then Nikon releses financial report that says things aren’t so great, then someone of the competition says: Let’s f.ck them up and make more room for our products, like Minolta was f.cked up??????

            • Thom Hogan

              If you’re talking about shelf space in the US, Canon and Nikon have the loyalties of dealers at the moment, and a lot of that is that they’re only one of three who still have a full rep contingent servicing stores (Sony is the other). Shelf space is expensive. Moreover, if the stuff doesn’t sell, the dealers simply won’t take it.

              For all the negative things that we’ve been writing about Nikon vis a vis consumers, most dealers will tell you that Nikon is one of the better, if not the best, in dealing with them. Canon has these MAP requirements that they don’t consistently enforce, meaning that dealers suddenly find that they have an online competitor that is underselling them, for example.

            • Milos

              My bad choice of words, i was thinkig more something like -now is a good moment to cause Nikon more financial trouble>less money within Nikon>more trouble in every segment for Nikon.
              Good way to k.o. competition at least for some time an gain yourself some momentum.
              –I’m not defending Nikon for not doing the “right thing”(as you clever stated) on D600 issue, but if anyone suffered anykind of loss because of D600 issue, i’m sure that that someone would already sued Nikon for that, like in “Hot Coffe” example -700/1- , but this potential class action looks like bussiness deal more than protection of consumers, to me.
              Yes, Nikon is strong, as is two others, but then again Minolta was also stong, and it would be enough for “them” to cause only one series of product to be skipped by Nikon(e.g. no D5400) + flods + earthquakes + + +…
              and Nikon has no other ways to compesate the loss like Canon or Sony have, they make only cameras.
              I hope i’m just paranoid :-)

            • Thom Hogan

              I think you’re being paranoid.

              I would be more paranoid about Panasonic and Sony. Both are in positions where they seriously need to rethink whether they’re in the TV and camera businesses. Panasonic already pulled the plug on plasma TVs. The simple fact is that both those companies would be better off financially by not trying to sustain in businesses where they’re spending more than they take in.

              The problem is the down camera market, first and foremost. Call it saturated, mature, disrupted by smartphones, whatever, but there are just fewer camera sales this year than last. That’s the environment you have to live in.

              Nikon has no choice. 75% of their sales are in cameras. They can’t back out of that business. This is one reason why I’ve been so critical of many of their actions: they’re not creating good faith in existing customers, and they’ll need them.

            • Milos

              Unsubscrie

        • D700s

          I agree Thom.

    • Mansgame

      this litigious “bs” is the only way companies will do the right thing.

      • Jon Ingram

        Yup, money is the only thing that really holds big companies accountable

        • Mansgame

          We’d like to believe that they do the right thing but they’re not people as Mitt Romney said.

          • AM

            It was originally the Supreme Court that said that corporations are people.

            • grsnv

              Nonsense.

            • grsnv

              I’ll elaborate, to give some context to my one-word comment. For several years now I’ve heard people complaining that the Supreme Court or Romney or conservatives wrongly think corporations are persons. The treatment of corporations as persons has nothing to do with political ideology. A corporation is a person in the sense that it can sue and be sued, like a person. If a corporation weren’t a “person” in this sense, there would be no legal recourse against a corporation in cases like this one. Corporations would also be unable to enter into contracts. There effectively would be no corporations if the law didn’t treat them as persons. The law treated corporations as persons long before the Supreme Court made any pronouncements on the topic, and will always treat corporations as persons, notwithstanding the complaints of people who do not understand the law.

  • Bret

    Just a fart in the wind…………..

    • AM

      Not at all, class action lawsuits work pretty well.
      Few years ago, my wife received a notification that she was entitled to get a full refund for one pair of shoes she had bought and worn for almost three years.
      She didn’t know what the CAL was all about as she didn’t fill out anything. Somehow the manufacturer or store knew that she owned that pair of shoes. So, she went to the store, returned the shoes, and got her money back. No questions asked.

      • Mansgame

        Sketchers?

        • AM

          Yep.

    • Spy Black

      Wasn’t that a song?
      “♫…Farts in the wind, all we are are farts in the wind…♫”
      …or something like that…

      • desmo

        no it’s dust,
        or was it oil?

  • Hans Einar Johannessen

    Why on earth do people in the US always have to have a lawsuit…. This is only lawyers who want to fill their own pockets….. Strange, this US

    • not so

      Class action Lawsuit = when a big company forces a defective sale to a small consumer

      Yes, lawsuits can be expensive and lawyers make the most bucks.

      That is why smart global companies ” acknowledge and recall” … thereby investing in customer relationship, instead of paying lawyers.

      • Bram Mosterd Na de Maaltijd

        The US is driven by money only – this is why so many people have a tendency to hate the US.

        You can’t accidentally make a mistake without somebody to make money out of it. That’s actually pretty sick.

        • get it?

          Nikon did not “accidentally make a mistake”… it was purposeful sale of $2000 camera even when they knew the problem was wide spread….

          don’t blame the US for your lack of understanding of legal options.

        • Jorge

          Blah Blah Blah. Everyone hates the US.— That is except when they need support, aid, help, money, etc. Then they greedily take what we give. I say screw everyone. Keep it here within our borders but my government won’t allow that.

    • fjfjjj

      The tendency in the US to think in terms of liability is deeply intertwined with its nature as a capitalist state. That lawyers often profit the most is a deep flaw in the current system.

    • Mansgame

      Well stay in Durkadurkastan or whereever you live in where consumers have no rights.

    • Oregon Native

      Clearly we don’t always have to have a lawsuit, if you’ve been a Nikon user of any number I years you would know this is just one of many screwings that Nikon has blessed us with.

      When enough is enough and there is wrong doing we attempt to do something about it, not always the correct way, but we try. If you don’t know that about Americans by now, well I can only suggest paying more attention to the world around you.

      The shipping loss and time lossed without the NEW camera should be enough to warrant the class status, however they continued to ship even after countless complaints and finally saying that the same customer that they told for many years should not clean their own sensor, that they should clean it and move on. Now this claim they got them back and resold them without fixing the issue. Yeah I hope it’s a huge settlement, because clearly all Nikon’s loyal customers complaining and asking for better QA and better service has not worked.

      Finally, I’m assuming you don’t live in the US so you wouldn’t understand how we do things here or why. For those that do live here and came from somewhere else… if you don’t like how we do things here in the USA, please go back to wherever you came from.

      • Last Mohican

        Go back wherever you came from? PowWow.

        • desmo

          good advice,

          you should take it

          • Last Mohican

            You too. See you in Africa.

  • frank

    If this goes to court, which it may not if Nikon decides to settle, then the real numbers of just how many customers were affected by the dust issue will become public knowledge.

    • Mansgame

      I can’t wait. Everybody who sells the cameras was downplaying it. The people at BH pretended that it wasn’t a big deal; the Canadian guy who does the videos on the Camera Store was making fun of his customers, and Nikon Reps were saying it wasn’t a widespread problem. Judging by the D600 owners I know and myself I say the number is closer to more than half of the users having problems and sending it in and many more unaware of the problem.

      • Jon Ingram

        It probably was a very widespread problem. The issue I see is that most D600 owners probably don’t check for oil spots. They aren’t connected to all the problems. They just use it for their own purposes and go about their lives. The serious photo-enthusiasts or professionals are the ones that notice the problem and deal with it (me, you, and our friends). But sadly, we are the minority. So even if this gets publicity, the magnitude of the problem will still be under-reported.

        • desmo

          Bingo,
          most of what I shoot it doesn’t show up,
          only portions of sky when small aperture is used,
          I really like the camera,
          but it still isn’t right and the whole scandal has cost me significant value should I choose to resell and upgrade

  • lan ban

    d800 d800e d4 d4s Nikon Apple Inc hhhhhh

  • LarryC

    I do not own a D600 but I do not think this is a frivolous lawsuit, if in fact customers were sold known defective units, then there may be real damages to recover including incurred costs to repeatedly send the camera in for servicing, or for those cutomers that repeatedly sent in their camera but did not receive a replacement shutter. However, this is not a $100M lawsuit. I think damges will be limited to reimbursement of shipping costs, free shipping to have an existing camera with existing problems to get a free replacement shutter, warranty extensions or possible vouchers or discounts torwards the purchase of the D610 – a common solution in defective product litigation. No one will collect for lost income from spotty wedding shots, etc. Yes, the lawyers will get a large piece of the settlement (probably the typicaly 30%), and owners will probably not feel they were “made whole”, but in the end litigation is the only way to make Nikon step up and take financial responsibility for the significant lost value, lost time, and costs their initial delays and denials costs some number of D600 owners.

    • Thom Hogan

      Again, US warranty laws come into play. And in some states, lemon laws come into play (California has a three strike replacement rule). I believe Nikon’s policies are consistent with both of those, and as long as Nikon followed those policies, they have implied protection from suit just because the product received by a customer was initially defective. Obviously, as in all law, there are complications and exceptions. For example, the if the device was something that put a person’s life in jeopardy and the manufacturer knew about it in advance, we get into negligence and other liabilities.

      When this law firm contacted me, I said this: as far as I know, Nikon has always attempted to repair D600′s with the problem, and I know of no case where that wasn’t eventually resolved.

      • Maji

        Thom, good explanation of product liability and warranty related legal obligations.

      • js200022

        Thom, as always, you make good points. The problem here is that Nikon has never acknowledged any problem with the D600 and quietly replaced it with the D610 just after a year. The product clearly had a manufacturing defect and the company has never addressed properly the issue.
        It seems, potentially, a good case in court. And, sadly, also it will damage even more Nikon’s reputation.
        It’s just my two cents.

        • Thom Hogan

          Again, from a legal viewpoint, what Nikon has done would appear to be their prerogative; they haven’t done anything that is illegal or actionable that I can see.

          That said, I’ve been clear from the beginning that they handled this completely wrong and continue to handle it wrong. There’s a difference between “legal” and “right.” Companies that stop doing the right thing tend to have severe problems with their customer base downstream. Much of the commentary here about hoping that Nikon will get a comeuppance are essentially customers telling Nikon they didn’t do the “right thing.” I believe that’s the more commonly held view about Nikon now: they don’t do the right thing when there are problems. It doesn’t matter whether or not that’s actually true or not, it’s perception that counts.

          When I wrote about “leakage” from DSLRs to mirrorless, I meant it. Canon and Nikon have tolerated this leakage to date, but in the case of some of their decisions they are now actually encouraging it. I find that absolutely head-scratching at a time when everyone is looking for a way to increase sales. I can’t begin to count the number of emails I get that have the construct “Since Nikon did X, I’ve decided to look more closely at Y mirrorless.”

          Simply put, Nikon did the wrong thing with the D600 problems. Not an illegal thing, but a wrong thing that severely impacted their reputation amongst some of their most valuable customers. That’s going to continue to blow back against them whether a class action suit happens or not.

          Indeed, now they have potentially a worse problem. Consider this: the class action suit does happen and Nikon settles out of court in a way that creates something stupid for those impacted, say a US$50 coupon good for a future Nikon purchase. Would THAT be the right thing to do? No. It would be another attempt, just like the D610, to just try to put the problem behind them and pretend it wasn’t a big deal.

          I’ll believe that Nikon’s serious when Kimura-san directly addresses the D600 problem with (1) an apology; (2) a clear statement of the problem; (3) a clear statement of what Nikon has been doing and will continue to do not to just deal with the D600 problem but to prevent and address similar problems in the future; and (4) some clear offer to those affected. At this point, it has to come from Kimura-san as most Nikon users, including myself, believe the problem to be institutional.

  • Spy Black

    Mansgame just had an orgasm…

    • mikeswitz

      In his case the D600 caused impotence….

      • proctologist

        When nikon decides to dole out D4s for defective D600… impotence can become orgasm….

    • Mansgame

      It IS valentines day weekend.

  • erick_e

    It’s not frivolous. I just got my D600 back from Nikon for the second time. The first time I got it back, it was just as bad as when I sent it in. Well see how long it lasts this time before I have to spend more time and money sending it back to Nikon without being fixed. It is a defective design that Nikon should address accordingly.

    • Disservice

      “The first time I got it back, it was just as bad as when I sent it in.”
      That’s not at all unusual for Nikon repairs, whether D600 or not. Even stuff sent in on an NPS ticket doesn’t get fixed in 1 attempt.

      • not acceptanble

        same here… nikon does not fix lens properly in first round.

        but, norm does not mean its acceptable.
        it reflects Nikon’s wide spread apathy to do the right thing.

        • Thom Hogan

          It probably represents the fact that they’ve been subcontracting a lot of repairs due to the volume and the subcontractors aren’t meeting expected standards.

          Before the D600 thing, my surveys showed a slightly high, but constant, level of “didn’t repair right first time.” I’m about due to repeat that survey again, we’ll see if the D600 changed anything.

          • Disservice

            An NPS repair, repair, repair……… on a 600 VR, subbed out?
            I really don’t think so only Nikon has the tooling to work on those, at least in the UK.

            • Thom Hogan

              We’re discussing the D600, not the 600mm VR.

            • Fixated

              That’s non sequitur, Thom. The discussion had already moved on to Nikon repairs in general.
              The guy is dead right Nikon repairs frequently take more than 1 attempt. That’s not acceptable and it’s symptomatic of their approach to customer relations.

    • Mansgame

      Give it 2 weeks. New shutter, new cleaning, none of it matters. This was a doomed product.

  • broxibear

    If the lawsuit happens or not at least the issue get’s more publicity. That publicity alone might make Nikon look at the way they deal with future product problems…and that’s good for all camera users not just Nikon users.
    In a perfect business world Nikon would have replaced everyone’s D600 with a D610, I don’t know of any company that’s done something similar in the past (I’m sure someone will post the details if it has happened)…it’s just unfortunate, disgraceful, annoying, wrong, cheating ?…you choose the word…that Nikon has let it get to the stage that D600 owners feel they have no other choice but a lawsuit.
    I’m not a D600 owner, I wish them well in the lawsuit…buying a camera to take photographs shouldn’t be causing these type of problems for people.

    • Thom Hogan

      This is one reason why I’ve been on Nikon’s case from the minute that it was clear there was a real, and substantive problem. The formula for a company to deal with that is clear, is taught in every business school, and it generally works. Why companies think that they can do otherwise I just never get.

      Funny thing is, I got one heck of a lot of fan-boy flack for my taking Nikon to task on this. But I think I represent all the Nikon community when I say that all we want are consistently good products and a company that communicates clearly with its user base when there are issues. Then corrects those. We’ll be happily loyal to the company when they do. We’re not so loyal when they don’t.

      • broxibear

        Hey Thom,
        You make an interesting point with “all we want are consistently good products and a company that communicates clearly with its user base when there are issues.”
        All the recent “problems” (I put problems in inverted comas because I know some people debate if they are real problems) Nikon have had, 1 series cameras, D400 ?, D700 replacement, Df, D800 focus, D4 screen cast. All these have been picked up by blogs, forums and along with general dislikes for multi coloured coolpixes, cameras like the P7000 which nobdy seems to buy but recieves updates, exotic lenses that can’t focus properly…all this adds up to an overall feeling of a company that’s lost it’s soul.
        I work as a photographer, I’ve used Nikon’s for over 20 years, I’ve been lucky in that I’ve never had any problems with my equipment. I’ve never questioned the quality of Nikon equipment, but now for the first time I’m wondering if my next Nikon body might have issues.
        All the bad press has a corrosive effect, and if it has a small effect on me (someone who’s never thought about switching to Canon), then the effect on a relative newcomer, someone who has no brand history, will be massive.
        I don’t read much about Canon so I don’t know if they’re doing much better as far as brand loyalty is concerned.
        I still think they make way too many cameras, and bring out updated models way too quickly…go back to what you do best…high quality products that work really well.

        • Eric Calabros

          I dunno if it applies to “they’re dong much better” about Canon or not, but I know a repair guy who is connected to Canon MiddleEast, in just one case, their hot selling powershot sx280 has a ridiculus issue: turns off after few seconds of full hd video recording! and you need to turn it on again. I see lots of people come to this guy for only this issue, and nobody cares in the internet, and no law firm collecting their complains. in their EOS line, I get shocked when I see how many photographers come for Error messages their body shows after mounting a lens! However he also repairs Nikon cameras (connected to Nikon India for software fixing), did you know video recording with D7100 for more than 20 seconds will generate hot pixel in its sensor? the longe you distance from that 20 second red line, more likely your sensor populates with hot pixels.
          After watching people who desperately come to this guy, I realized other’s grass is not greener at all. Nikon was Bad Luck Brian this time

        • Thom Hogan

          This is why I think Nikon is so wrong to continue to try to paper over even small problems. The user brand loyalty is slowly turning against Nikon.

          I can’t say that I haven’t been part of that, as my documenting all these issues certainly has had an impact. But then again, that’s a bit like saying that the New York Times is responsible for the problems in the Middle East. Don’t shoot the messenger.

          • Full Flood

            I don’t think that user brand loyalty is slowly turning against Nikon. It’s a rush that’s rapidly gaining momentum.
            Nikon should (but won’t) be profoundly disturbed by the enthusiasm in this thread for the class action. Enthusiasm, not because anyone expects a meaningful payout, but because “Nikon deserves a kicking”.

          • broxibear

            Hi Thom,
            I’m not saying shoot any messenger, far from it.
            People come to blogs and forums for information, information that they can’t get themselves…whether it’s positive about a company or negative isn’t relevant as long as it’s an honest piece.
            After reading various blogs and sites for long enough you do understand which ones have a bias and for what reasons (I’m not suggesting yours…or this one Peter, lol).

      • Omar Barcenas

        A company already listens to its customers and even repairs the problem no questions asked… It’s Fuji.
        they repaired my second hand x100 without receipt for sticky aperture blades. Got it back in 3 days. Not to mention their latest x100 firmware update. Although I didn’t buy the x100s (yet) because the x100 is holding up well, I did buy the xe1, xe 2, and 3 lenses, all because I know how hard Fuji works for customer satisfaction. I’ve spent more money on Fuji in the last year, than with Nikon in the last 6 years.

        • Thom Hogan

          No doubt. But Fujifilm sold 700,000 cameras in a period that Nikon sold over 12,000,000 cameras in similar classes. There’s always the issue of scale involved with support. It’s far easier to be good at support when you’re small than when you’re big. If Fujifilm ever gets to the millions of units a year size, let’s revisit your experience and see what happens.

          That’s not to let Nikon off the hook. Apple sells far more products than Nikon and manages to get service and support mostly right.

  • Friend Across the Water

    Wrong side of the pond for me, but I really hope this lawsuit goes ahead and Nikon’s butt gets a severe kicking.

    • Nik

      I could’t agree more

    • D700s

      Me too. Then maybe Canon can take over the market and we’ll all be subject to inferior products with no recourse. Let’s hope this goes in the consumers favor regardless of facts or consequences .

  • Jon Ingram

    Why are people saying this Lawsuit is frivolous? Some people I know personally, and many on this forum have been sold defective D600′s which Nikon has refused to replace, or has cleaned only for the problem to return. Many people have had multiple repairs or cleaning charges. Nikon all the while refused to own up to the severity of the problem, and shuffled the burden onto the customer, while continuing to sell defective units. I have been very disappointed with the way Nikon handled this issue. Yes, we all know that the lawyers will get most of the money. However, I for one am glad that Nikon will at least have some repercussions of their underhanded business practices. It may be a small slap on the wrist, but at least it is some vindication to the customers.

    • Alex

      Not saying it’s frivolous, the point is if the compensation is too much then it could be. The compensation should be to ensure the person has a fully-functional camera, and not be awarded $1 million.

      • Jon Ingram

        I can assure you that individual customers won’t see that much money because the reward will be divided out amongst a lot of owners. I would be very surprised if anyone receives even $100. The only people who will see a large individual sum of money is the lawyers. That’s just the way the world works.

      • Michael Sloan

        Alex, large settlements may seem unfair on the surface, however, they serve as a stark reminder to corporations that the consequences of their actions (in this case, inaction) can have severe financial impact. It is a sad world we live in today, when very few do the right thing anymore on their own accord. Lawyers are a necessary evil, a virtual club which must be waived on occasion, the stark reminder to do what is right or be bludgeoned.

        What irritates me is Nikon’s position on the stopping of repair parts sales to small specialized, third party camera repair facilities. Then, as Thom suggested, outsourcing the warranty repair work to someone(s) whose work ethic and quality is severely lacking. Shipping your D600 camera in for repair is not only nerve racking, it is costly, and frustrating, especially when one considers the price of these units.

        Users moving up from DX to a prosumer FX, like the D600 have been left with a very bad experience. How many of those aspiring photographers do you think will stick Nikon throughout the rest of their lives? For myself, the reason I originally selected Nikon was because of its reputation for making the best made photography equipment. The fact that camera repair facilities would repair Nikons in the first place, suggested to me that Nikons are quality tools that are worthwhile investments that will provide years of service. Today, that message rings hollow with Nikon products, a reputation severely tarnished by their own doing, a status that has been lost and only reachievable with extensive hard work and expense. In my eyes, Nikon has fallen to prostitution, turning tricks for a quick buck, and whoring themselves out for their numerous pimps (shareholders). In many ways it is ironic, the relationships between the financiers and the corporations; the financier wants the maximum profit with minimal risk, but is so shortsighted when it comes to supporting the companies that must support their loyal customers. Like the pimp, the shareholders will abandon their whores when they are no longer profitable.

        Now here is an idea; all of the Nikon loyalists out there who believe in the company should form an investment group whose sole purpose is to buy enough stock in Nikon in order to get control and steer Nikon once again towards greatness! It could be grass roots movement where Thom Hogan and Peter lead the charge. ;-) If nothing else, it might raise enough awareness to a systemic problem many corporations face. Then Thom and Peter could run polls among this forward thinking group of investors on what Nikon should do in terms of products they should bring to market, or how to remediate issues as they arise. I for one, would invest $5K today, for such an opportunity!

  • Gavin

    Contrary to what NR has posted, I think this has potential.

    I sent my camera into NPS (nikon professional services) 4 months ago requesting that they fix the camera, and not simply clean it. I received my camera back 4 days later with an invoice saying they replaced the shutter mechanism and cleaned the sensor.

    Fast forward 5 days and 3000 shots later – the sensor dust / oil spots reappear. Did they actually change the shutter? Or did they replace a defective D600 shutter with another defective D600 shutter?

    Nikon did make an “effort” to clean my camera but in my honest opinion, not enough. I have heard that some people were getting new D610 replacements in the past month or so, but when I contacted nikon through their service page they responded to the support ticket and said that those are only rumors, and are dealt with on a case by case basis. Unless im getting a for sure yes on the replacement im not spending the money and losing the time to send my camera in.

    Nikon, I love you, I always have and always will… were just going through a little lovers quarrel

    This class action has potential.

    • nik

      Nikon needs a hard leson

      • AM

        Nikon needs something hard up where the sun doesn’t shine.

  • rt-photography

    this will be a huge blow to nikon. but they shot themselves in the foot.
    they left people feeling betrayed. with a D610 over the D600. the SB910 over the SB900 ,the stiff cam on the 24-70, the af issue with the D800. its obvious nikons is cutting corners. all these new primes with cheap plastic hoods bodies and threading. whats the deal with the 58mm 1.4 for $1800? performance is dreadful. looking to make an easy buck. not the quality nikon I know.

    its just a non stop downhill for camera. I used to believe in nikon. they need to fire some managers there and wake up and get back to their roots of quality. I think this quarter revenue will be down as well. wake up nikon.

    • MB

      58mm 1.4 is actually really good, you haven’t tried one your self obviously … it just isn’t 1700$ good …

      • rt-photography

        you hit the nail on the head. it isnt worth $1700. I didnt see anything the 50 1.4g couldnt do or at least 95% of it. I think the build quality needs some beefing up though for that price. the noct is built like a tank. for $1700. its all plastic, but at the very least make the thread metal.
        but the reviews say it all. some reviews liked it, but mostly they were meh.

  • Ehsan Persian

    Finally Nikon will pay for its negligence!Nikon ignored D-400 lovers and made billions of dollars of profits on its worthlessly mirror less cameras!Now D-400 lovers’ coarse will make Nikon to vomit that swallowed huge amount of money !

    • insane bot

      there you go… the circle is complete with D400 inserted in yet another unrelated context

      • AM

        So far nobody has mentioned the Df. Oops! I just did.

      • Eric Duminil

        Since there’s no rumor/announcement of D300/D700 successors, discussions about them are bound to be in an unrelated context. I see no problem with that.

  • Mansgame

    Lawyers will ultimately be the ones who make money off this and D600 owners may get a few pennies out of the deal, but it’s still a good thing to teach Nikon a lesson. I myself am no longer part of this disaster but it took more than a year of getting Nikon to resolve the problem. There is no excuse for putting out a defective product, denying the problem, and then just putting on band-aids on it in hopes that people will forget about it after spending $2100.

    Nikon needs to fire anybody who had a decision making power with the D600 and this should become an MBA Harvard Business case to be studied in what not to do for future generations.

  • Jeff Hunter

    This could be interesting. In the early 2000s Canon beat Nikon to market with the first full-frame DSLR sensor (Nikon didn’t even have one in development) and gained significant market share. This resulted in all Nikon upper-level management being replaced. If this lawsuit has legs, maybe Nikon is due for another house cleaning at the top!

  • rt-photography

    the biggest issue is not the immediate money theyll have to pay to the lawyers, but the tarnished reputation theyll get. many who are new in photography who were considering nikon will look elsewhere.

    and the publicity for the D600 will also wake bad feeling and anger for those who own the 24-70/SB900/D800. it will emphasize problems in these products as well adding a turbo effect to the whole situation.

    so the loss of the money for damages is only the first hit and minor blow. the 2nd is the ongoing loss of money from the bad reputation that will last for YEARS.

    its almost like a slow killing disease..

  • Jon Ingram

    I’m glad to see it happen, but nothing will change with Nikon. Nikon will receive a small slap on the wrist, or settle out of court, and then carry on like nothing happened.

    • Guest

      No doubt about that. But it is significantly bad PR for a company they has developed quite a negative reputation in the last couple of years for just about everything they have done. Having a faulty product you refuse to recall that goes to class action lawsuit is not a good look. It’ll hurt. But there is no such thing as admitting fault at Nikon.

  • Jon Porter

    I think there’s a precedent here. Didn’t Nikon replace the shutter on the D2H free for owners who had some kind of problem with it?

  • stormwatch

    It was about time!

  • ideal67

    thanks for making my next camera more expensive (not). why not just send it in and get it repaired? was this your first camera and your feelings were hurt? really, grow up. i’ve been sending my nikons in for warranty service since my first F3 back in 1983. every 5th or 6th body I bought had something that needed fixing. i don’t get it. at least you weren’t around in D200 banding days, I would have never been able to afford my next 5 Dslrs.

    • Neville

      First of the fanboys sounding off.
      It’s taken quite a while.

    • AM

      Did you need to send your cameras for service practically out of the box or after many months/years of use?

    • desmo

      sent it in,
      oil came back(its not dust),
      first video I made found out the microphone was inop
      (it was operative prior to the repair) :(

  • AM

    Nikon’s worst nightmare will be when we start hearing on TV or radio those ads saying “If you own a Nikon D600, please contact the law offices of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein. You might be entitled to a compensation.”

  • MO

    Next lawsuit against Canon T4I faulty grip, consumer will pay for all these lawsuits by paying more for future cameras and the winner : LAWYERS

  • Maji

    The ambulance chasers are now chasing shutterbugs!

  • BluePlanet

    About time!!

  • Joseph Li

    The biggest winner of all this is going to be blood sucking lawyers. We will get $3 per person at best even if they win. Nikon lost big $$, layoff more people, provide worse service, charge higher for repair and you as the customer get paid $3….it’s a bad cycle. Nikon goes in a downward spiral with all the bad decisions they made, and lawyers walk away with millions. Just switch brand or dump d600 if you really think it’s a big deal

    • Spy Black

      I think Nikon is covered on this one, I don’t think the lawsuit will have any traction.

      • iamlucky13

        With luck though, maybe it will make Nikon realize their lack of communication about issues like this not only makes matters worse, but can get them dragged into court fighting a lawsuit playing on the frustrations of customers who don’t know what’s going on.

        • Harry

          I dont think either is true :). Nikon is not covered because their “shutter replacement” ain’t working. If it did, they wouldn’t have had to release a D610 (allthough one might argue it was a face-saving act). That said, I dont think Nikon is get dragged to court. The lawyers will try to settle outside, get big money paid and like a lot of ppl have said, get everyone a 10% discount (except the primary class-action folks who probably get a better deal which I am hoping to be one!)

        • Michiel953

          Inadequate communicatíon will not constitute liability.

    • Zoron

      I want my $3…

    • AM

      Which in certain way is fine. Nikon will have to cough up anyhow and that will teach them a lesson… hopefully.
      The problem with settling this with an advantage only to the lawyers is that it will send an even worse signal to customers. It will be an an admission that they have a complete disregard of their customers and only care about corporate and legal issues.

  • saywhatuwill

    My first D700 had oil on the sensor. When I tried to clean it I made a mess of things. I ended up scratching the glass that’s over the sensor. I sent it to Nikon and explained what happened and they fixed it up.

  • MMS

    It is a little early for everyone to get excited. This law firm is just fishing for possible plaintiffs, and if it does not get a critical mass of them, they will just forget about it. And everyone should understand that the law firm will try to settle the case with Nikon for the cost of its legal fees (hundreds of thousands is this really gets going) and very little to the class members (like a free cleaning, or a coupon for a discount on your next camera, etc.) Not to mention that it will probably take more than a year to even get anything done. And all this can happen only if a court certifies the class action status of the case. If you are sitting there with a defective D600, better to take direct action yourself by calling management, sending your camera in for repair and demanding a replacement. Waiting for these lawyers to save the day for you will be a waste of time.

    • Harry

      agreed. I have sent my camera in a second time with the same problem and asked for a replacement (a D610). If they oblige, great. If not, I would not have a choice.

    • desmo

      you can bypass class action and sue them in small claims

      it’s already been done by a Honda Civic Hybrid owner,
      who won

  • Ernesto Quintero

    Law firm Dewey, Cheetham & Howe will take on Nikon’s lawyer Sosumi Areti

  • nikonluvr

    I’m not sure what the right thing to do is, but a class action lawsuit isn’t it. These thing are just legalized theft for law firms. In the end, the lawyers will get millions of dollars and the folks who got screwed on their camera will get 10% off a d610. Take it to the bank!

  • Horshack

    Sources of damages might include:
    * Shipping costs for those not issued a shipping label by Nikon USA.
    * Loss of resale value, esp for those who sold their D600 during the class period (compare the D600′s loss of value vs similar industry products during the period, including the D610).
    * Time and expense of cleaning the sensor and/or removing spots in post-processing.
    * Loss of use.

  • AM

    Meanwhile, there are reports that Kickstarter site was hacked. Anybody who pre-ordered the Petzval lens through Kickstarter should be worried and must change their password right away.

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      yes, this hacking business is getting out of hand

  • Misho

    To me a two jews want to cash big bucks on Nikon! A kosher mafia !

  • tnt

    I love this! Hope this will make BOTH Canon/Nikon and all camera makers to think twice before they pull another stunt like Nikon did with the D600!

  • Harry

    I just re-sent my camera for the second time. I sent it back in November (after a lengthy process where I had to prove that the “dust” existed in order for them to pay shipping and received it about 2 weeks later. The repair work showed that the shutter had been replaced and the LPF had been cleaned. I then put the camera strictly under lab environment with just my 24-85 lens. Initial results showed all was okay. Subsequently, as I turned the speed on and went on constant shooting (with RAW disabled), I was able to shoot about 70-80 shots continuously at 5FPS. After about 1000 shots, the same pattern showed up again. It has, in my opinion, become clear that the issue is NOT fixable. That was the reason Nikon had to switch to a D610 and probably change the underlying design.

    This time, I have clearly stated that I want the camera replaced with a D610 or my money refunded. Let’s see how it goes.

  • VNADFW

    I’m in.

    I’m not a big fan of lawsuits,but Nikon deserves its ass kicked. Japanese arrogance.

    • Patrick O’Connor

      You were fine until “Japanese arrogance.” There are arrogant and modest companies and individuals of all nationalities.

      • VNADFW

        You are right- Noted. I guess I’m still seething with anger with Nikon.

  • Harry

    I just submitted my information. Not a fan of class-action lawsuits that typically favor the lawyers and give the class-action folks pittance. Hopefully, it will be a better deal where the camera is replaced with a D610

  • Dan

    I do hope that Nikon pay for this dearly. Regardless of who get the money in the end. It is the only way greedy fuckers running Nikon understand. Nikon is not what the brand used to be. Unfortunate but true.

    For those defending Nikon, it’s quite easy to see how their lives and business can be negative effect by the corrosion of this brand.

  • SorryNotSorry

    This would hurt Nikon and that can only be bad for consumers as it detracts from their ability to make better camera’s…

    But. I hope it happens as Nikon thoroughly deserve it. And i’m not a Nikon customer because they have consistently failed to innovate of video so i went elsewhere.

    Sue their pants off and let the duopoly finally fall so the smaller more innovative companies get stronger.

    Because that is probably the only thing that’ll make Nikon a better company, one that needs to fight for its place at the top instead of the lazy, complacent mess they have become.

  • Morris

    wonder if the delay of the D4s is due to extended checking and fixing (d600 oil, d800 focus)

  • Morris

    whether they fixed the problem OR NOT, i’m very afraid, when the FREE CHECK and CLEAN ends and the problem comes back (let’s say in 3-4 years) i will have to pay for cleanings or expensive cleaning producs, we should have either (1) full refund, (2) d610, (3)lifetime -of this camera- free check and clean once a year, and i have been kind with the requests.

  • Brandon

    The only benefit to class action lawsuits are the lawyers. However, it depends on the amount they sue for (I see them going for 2-5 million) but lets be realiistic. Nikon will take the chance of the lawsuit verses refunding or upgrading customers affected by the D600 oil issue. Comeon…its Nikon after all, they have an army of lawyers waiting in line like the DMV

    • Billy

      They will never admit to a mistake and will spend millions in legal fees
      before doing so; this is a different culture. Get ready to pay big
      buck$ on future Nikon cameras if this goes forward. The lawyers will win; customers will lose, company could care less.

  • Finnick

    I’m in. Absolutely agree that Nikon deserves this. Nikon’s office in my country can do only the cleaning service. Very disappointing indeed!

  • Zoron

    Guyss…any other camera other than D600 we can sue them over?

    • http://z7photo.com/ Csaba

      Well, I guess it’s too late to sue for the d800 AF issue. Or the sb-900/910 fiasco (very similar to what happened with the d600/d610).

  • Photomic F 1968

    I do not agree with how Nikon handled the issue but I do know this. Lawyers do not do it for justice, they do it for money, and lots of it.. If this comes to court or settled out of court the costs will be spread out over the Nikon line and the lawyers will be laughing all the way to the bank.

    • Carlos

      I don’t care if the lawyers do it for money. Nikon didn’t fix the D600 sensor problem and this is a shame! And about the consumers rights? Is not fair to sell a deffective camera and do not pay for it.

  • Ridicule

    Only possible in the USA….

  • John

    i have not read everything which was posted here, all i can – and would like to – say:
    I was very disappointed with the D600, i bought it thinking it would be a high quality full frame. I did not want to go thru the hazzle of sending it in multiple times so i sould it again after a few month. It was always my opinion that ALL D600 had the oil spot issue and just some users did not notice!. This was proven to me when Nikon released the D610 and apparently fixed the issue. It was a big disappointment for me that Nikon did never acknowledge the issue but instead just released D610 and left the D600 buyers which did not actively approach Nikon with claims out in the rain.
    All together Nikon failed for me and i just don’t like to buy a Nikon cam again. I was just that disappointed.

  • Jose Colucci

    When are we going to have an action class lawsuit on the D800 focus? First, arrogant Nikon refused to acknowledge the issue. Then, silently, they accepted it for repair. Only they botched the repairs. At least they did mine and a friend’s. Center focus sensor was good, side sensors bad. They came back reversed. I could have done it myself. They tired me out.

  • Back to top