Then write a letter or make a call. I don't think lighting a torch and crying lawsuit in a forum is going to help you. Have either of you tried asking Nikon directly about this before crying lawsuit here?
At what point do we say "This is not acceptable" - closed till Sat morning CET
(51 posts) (11 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Niko...already sent one, we'll see what the reply says when it comes back. I'm not crying Lawsuit Niko, never said anything about suing! Dissappointed in them Yes, definitely! Maybe they will do something about it if enough people say something, but I won't hold my breath.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Good then give them time to respond before we hang them in a forum after 2 hours of starting a thread.
Posted 3 years ago # -
PacificEagle said:
OK Everyone, After reading the 70-200mm VR II thread it got me to thinking. When do we all as consumers, and end users stand up for ourselves and say "ENOUGH!!!"Putting everything in perspective, and going over the view points of the 70-200 VR II discussion it hit me. We Nikon users, or Fanatics, (put yourself in which ever catagory you see fit), stand up and say this Lense/Camera is not what you said it would be and we want you to admit your mistake and provide us with what was orignally promised or advertised.
Not one of us would accept this with other large purchases. For example, you go and buy a new car(big ticket item) but you drive it off the lot and you find out its fantastic at 100MPH, but driving in the city at slower speeds it absolutely sucks. It handles like crap, sucks more gas than a Mac Truck, and doen't perform as advertised.Another example, you buy a nice new TV and component system at your favorite electronics store. You get the whole thing set up and to your amazment, the picture sucks, the sound is horrilbe, and your AV receiver just isn't cutting it.
How long do you think it will take you to either turn the car around or box up the entertainment package and return to the place you bought it and say "hey this is a piece of crap and I want my money back, or I want it fixed".
Believe me not long.
So my question is this, Why should we tolerate this from Nikon??? or for that matter anyone else!!! Perspective is a wonderful thing, and there is a ton of it in the 70-200mm VR II thread. I can see both sides of the argument, but what it all really comes down to is, perspective and Money. But just like a car or entertainment system, we have forked out a large sum of money for a product that simply put, isn't what it was advertised to be. So why would we sit and say "OH well I'll use it even though its not what was advertised, even if I need to add a 1.4 or 1.7 just so I get good results"
To me thats just another form of accepting a sub-par product. Again the corporate company wins!!! and we as consumers pay the price. When do you stand up and tell them, Keep your losey product, or fix it and we'll fork out the $2600 dollars then.
Why do we accept this kind of behavior? What happened to making them accountable!!!If they read this Forum, then why aren't we as Nikon Owners beating at their doors and making them stand behind the products?
Exactly exactly exactly PacificEagle! This I think is one of the things I was getting at although I never had the proper opportunity to say that. We absolutely should not tolerate this. 2300-2500 dollars for this lens is the price of some used cars and is often more than many home entertainment centers. This is why I said I'm glad I kept my VRI If I'm going to pay a premium price for an "upgrade" it had better be worth every single cent!
Posted 3 years ago # -
ShadeofBlue said:
I have to say, I haven't heard of anyone complaining about this issue outside of a testing environment. Every single complaint I've read (I have not read all of the ~100 threads on DPReview about this, though) has been people who heard about the issue, and then confirmed it with tests, not a single person who says that they noticed it in real life shooting.Um...we have a member on this forum who did exactly as you said you haven't heard anyone do and he posted shots from the shoot he did. I'm confused by your statement.
Posted 3 years ago # -
NikoDoby said:
Ted come on now you really believe the people in Melville live in a bubble and that they get don't hear feedback from their product's users?! Really? They want as much of your money as you are willing to give. If you don't like a certain product for whatever reason then DON'T BUY IT! There are plenty of other options to satisfy consumers.Well, the only thing I can say to that is that I hope that Nikon never adopts this philosophy. If they do I'll jump ship to Canon in a heart beat.
Posted 3 years ago # -
PacificEagle said:
Niko, Just saying, So don't buy it then" or "take it back" solves nothing!!! Neither does saying nothing. In the end they continue making the same mistakes, and doing nothing about the end users issues.
I am in a corporate environment, and a single persons complaint is easy to deal with. Most of those are emails or phone calls and can be dealt with easily and quietly and not be in the public eye. Now occasionally someone goes after a corporation very publicly, and when that happens, people pay attention!
My point is not just about the one lense, its about providing the end consumer with the product that was advertised. Returning the lense is fine, get your money back, but what does that solve when the next lense comes out? Will it be everything they say it will? or will it be another instance of the 70-200 VR II. When do we make them accountable for their products? or just accept that we have no say, and they will do what ever they want anyways, which is the more likely result here anyways.
This forum provides a place to voice opinions, and discuss issues, and isn't that what we are doing?
I see polls for nikon on here, I just took the one that NR posted for the D300s. So whats wrong with making nikon know that the problems are and telling them our real opinions? It has been said they read this forum.Another good point. When a segment of the market, no matter how insignificant it may seem to some are left out, that segment finds another brand plain and simple as that. This is why most wildlife shooters use Canon today. For too many years Nikon paid little attention to them so all of these sales went to their competitor. Only more recently as Nikon is at least pretending to listen to this group are wildlife shooters starting to return to Nikon or decide Nikon as their first choice. It's funny what can happen when they listen to the consumer.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Adamz, it may not be as bad here in the US, but it is known that Nikons service is worse than Canon's in this country. Canon has great costumer service in the US. Gee, reading this thread is beginning to make me rethink my choice in brands haha.adamz said:
pacificeagle - do You really think that they care, maybe in US or in some other "civilized" or should I say "consumer-oriented" countries they do, as for Poland Nikon doesn't care about their customers - it's a little bit off topic, but try to service something in Polish Nikon Service Center, and You will find out that the only part they care about You is the pre-buy time, not after (check this: http://polishnikonservice.com/)
either we like it or not, companies are marketing oriented, and You are important to them only till the time You are a potential buyer, and most of them will do whatever they can to get the money from You, once You turn into customer You become a problem to the company, as You may potentially need something from them, which will cost them money.as for comparing cars and cameras... well, to be honest, it takes me much more time to buy a lens, than to buy a car or tv, maybe because I don't care about many aspects about my car or my tv set.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I'm going to ruffle a few feathers here but so be it. I have a real issue with some trying to stifle a discussion that they do not agree with. Yes I'm saying that because I know with certainty that if we were all in agreement on this issue, no attempt would be made to shut a member up. How do I know this?
NikoDoby said:
There was a discussion on this topic before. It depends on some conditions but for the most part image quality benefits from having VR.It was acknowledged that a discussion had come up before but because it didn't involve any heated debate, no one attempted to try to shut the OP up. Saying things like "let's not discuss this any further" is not only hypocritical, it's not fair at all! PacificEagle made it clear that this goes beyond the issue with that lens. Yet for some reason this doesn't seem to sink in. Yet when another user brought up their opposing point of view on the same lens:
No one told them not to talk about it anymore. That was somehow acceptable. It seems as though some want to shut people up if they don't agree with them. I've bit my tongue on this issue for a very long time but now it needs to stop...seriously.ShadeofBlue said:
I have to say, I haven't heard of anyone complaining about this issue outside of a testing environment. Every single complaint I've read (I have not read all of the ~100 threads on DPReview about this, though) has been people who heard about the issue, and then confirmed it with tests, not a single person who says that they noticed it in real life shooting. To me this suggests that it's not a big deal. I do understand that it sucks to have paid $2500 for something that potential underperforms, but I'd think hard about how much the issue is actually going to affect me before I'd return it.Even more telling is that it seems that all IF lenses have this issue to an extent. It's a nature of the design (and some lenses like the 18-200 apparently have it just as bad as the new 70-200). The fact that it hasn't been an issue at all until now also tells me that this is just some hysteria.
Still, it's good that info is getting out there, people just need to be a bit more rational about it.
Now before any of you pull that "Gentoo you're a moderator crap" with me, save it! The perception of treating certain members unfairly is much more unbecoming of a moderator than me expressing my concern with it.
Be consistent or don't say anything.
ok rant over.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Melville is marketing in US for Nikon. Of course, they'll listen, it's their job to listen. Whether this issue is deemed sufficient to involve engineering resources is another issue and maybe we'll see in the future. While some users are disappointed in the new lens and are concerned about this issue, others seem to love the new lens and feel that from a practical standpoint the lens works perfectly for them. Too bad Nikon didn't do a better job of disclosing all the specs ahead of time.
Having read quite a bit from those using the lens, I'll still order one.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Gentoo said:Now before any of you pull that "Gentoo you're a moderator crap" with me, save it! The perception of treating certain members unfairly is much more unbecoming of a moderator than me expressing my concern with it.
That may be true, but posting 6 times in a row is extremely unbecoming of any poster, much less a moderator. This is my problem with the subject of this lens, people posting have far too strong opinions about it to facilitate reasonable discussion. We're bouncing between people wanting to sue Nikon to people stating that, unequivocally, there is nothing wrong at all. Obviously, neither case is true.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Well if I have 6 different things to say that don't quite go together than I will post 6 different times. No one will tell me how to express myself. I'm not saying you were, just explaining why I did that.ShadeofBlue said:
That may be true, but posting 6 times in a row is extremely unbecoming of any poster, much less a moderator. This is my problem with the subject of this lens, people posting have far too strong opinions about it to facilitate reasonable discussion. We're bouncing between people wanting to sue Nikon to people stating that, unequivocally, there is nothing wrong at all. Obviously, neither case is true.
Besides, what's the use of a forum if members or moderators alike cannot express themselves the way they want? I will never subscribe to the "post this way" or "don't post that way" mentality. Sorry if that bothers anyone.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Gentoo that quote of mine isn't even from this thread?! And you conveniently leave out my next response after that quote which was
NikoDoby said:
The search doesn't really help since I'm pretty sure the discussion came up within another topic. I can't remember which though and I don't feel like digging through several pages of search results to find it :^(So feel free to just discuss it here. I guess this is an example of why we mods should keep threads on topic ;^)
I was NOT trying to stifle anyones discussion!
So I don't see what the problem HERE is? PM SENTPosted 3 years ago # -
Gentoo said:
Well if I have 6 different things to say that don't quite go together than I will post 6 different times. No one will tell me how to express myself. I'm not saying you were, just explaining why I did that.Besides, what's the use of a forum if members or moderators alike cannot express themselves the way they want? I will never subscribe to the "post this way" or "don't post that way" mentality. Sorry if that bothers anyone.
Are you kidding me? I'm talking about basic etiquette, not putting down your posting freedom. I guess I understand the people who wanted concrete forum rules much better now. I thought this forum was a bit more mature than the others out there. Apparently not.
Posted 3 years ago # -
ShadeofBlue said:
Are you kidding me? I'm talking about basic etiquette, not putting down your posting freedom. I guess I understand the people who wanted concrete forum rules much better now. I thought this forum was a bit more mature than the others out there. Apparently not.I'm not sure if I follow you.
Posted 3 years ago # -
ShadeofBlue....well the last time I checked this is a place to discuss issues and opinions about Nikon products and others for that matter.
So I would like to know how can you make the generalized statement:
"I haven't heard of anyone complaining about this issue outside of a testing environment. Every single complaint I've read (I have not read all of the ~100 threads on DPReview about this, though) has been people who heard about the issue, and then confirmed it with tests, not a single person who says that they noticed it in real life shooting. To me this suggests that it's not a big deal."
How do you know what photos I have shot with my lens and what the results were? or for that matter what others have shot. Thats a big conclusion, you never asked me what my results have been, or for that matter how many people have you asked if their opinions are based in your premise ot there own results.
Its pretty small minded of anyone to assume that one persons problem with a specific product is based on someone elses opinion of a lense or camera and not there own personal experience. If they do make assumptions based that way then I would agree with your statement, I how ever base my opinions in my own personal experiences and not someone elses.And people are permitted to have strong opinions, and voice them as they want.(hopefully respectfully though) Its called freedom of speech, and we all have it thanks to those who fought for it for all of us.
The one thing you did get correct it that there is a problem and it does fall in between something is wrong and nothing is wrong. That we agree on.
The point of my starting this thread was to bring forward a discussion on why should we have to accept sub standard products. It wasn't about specifcally one lens, although Niko thought it was. It was more to the point of why do we as a consumer group accept them selling us expensive professional photography equipment that does not meet their advertised specs and not stand up and tell them we are not happy with the item we received.
You can see this behavior in all forms of commerce, and the general public on the whole accepts when this happens, So I say why do we? Why don't we take a stand and make the manufacturers accountable, instead of just going with the staus quo.And Gentoo, Appreciate the comments.
Posted 3 years ago # -
thats probly better go to the 70-200 topic but since we are are talking here about moral issues, which is so far based on one solid example of the latest 70-200mm
from Tom Hogan's web site:
"Meanwhile, it seems that the number one topic of discussion on the net at the moment is the new 70-200mm VR II. Lower vignetting. Sharper in the corners. Better VR. But it loses focal length as you focus closer. That last bit has a lot of folk howling (at the closest focus distance the new lens is apparently about 128mm in equivalent focal length). There are pluses and minuses to that last bit. The VR II is sharper close up than the VR I according to reports I trust. But it does mean that you have to move closer and change perspective to get the same "subject size" at the 200mm marking and closest focus distance. How much closer? Well, if I'm calculating correctly, no more than 2.5' in any condition (but again, perspective will change if you move).Let's deal with one aspect of the howls of protest: that Nikon is marking the lens deceptively. No, they're not. The standards that all the camera makers use for marking lenses states that focal length is defined by the distance from the rear nodal point to the focal plane when focused at infinity. The standards also allow for a lot of rounding, which means you can claim a 190mm lens is "200mm." This is why we can pick up five lenses marked "200mm" and get five slightly different results, even at infinity. etc etc etc "
Im not an engineer but that kinda make sense to me... maybe the issue is not the lens but users expectations ?Posted 3 years ago # -
nau said:
thats probly better go to the 70-200 topic but since we are are talking here about moral issues, which is so far based on one solid example of the latest 70-200mmfrom Tom Hogan's web site:
"Meanwhile, it seems that the number one topic of discussion on the net at the moment is the new 70-200mm VR II. Lower vignetting. Sharper in the corners. Better VR. But it loses focal length as you focus closer. That last bit has a lot of folk howling (at the closest focus distance the new lens is apparently about 128mm in equivalent focal length). There are pluses and minuses to that last bit. The VR II is sharper close up than the VR I according to reports I trust. But it does mean that you have to move closer and change perspective to get the same "subject size" at the 200mm marking and closest focus distance. How much closer? Well, if I'm calculating correctly, no more than 2.5' in any condition (but again, perspective will change if you move).Let's deal with one aspect of the howls of protest: that Nikon is marking the lens deceptively. No, they're not. The standards that all the camera makers use for marking lenses states that focal length is defined by the distance from the rear nodal point to the focal plane when focused at infinity. The standards also allow for a lot of rounding, which means you can claim a 190mm lens is "200mm." This is why we can pick up five lenses marked "200mm" and get five slightly different results, even at infinity. etc etc etc "
Im not an engineer but that kinda make sense to me... maybe the issue is not the lens but users expectations ?OK I read that too nau, but you forgot the rest of Thom Hogans statement about the lense you only put the first half in, and there is much more that Thom says, so here's the rest of it.
"Things get worse at closer distances. Optically, you have lots of decisions to make. It appears that one of the decisions the Nikon designers made was to try to improve close focusing performance. In doing that, they also shortened effective focal length by an amount large enough that a lot of people have noticed (much like the 18-200mm controversy a couple of years back--it does the same thing at close focus distances).
At issue is whether the design change between the original and new 70-200mm is significant in practice. I can't say for sure yet, as I haven't fully tested the new lens and won't for a bit yet (I've got too many other things that you've been asking for me to finish first). It strikes me, though, that the primary thing that is being compromised here is perspective. For very close subjects, you're simply going to have to move a bit closer with the new 70-200mm. That's going to give you better sharpness, brightness, and less vignetting, but it's also going to change your perspective. The unanswered question is whether this is enough to cause real issues for most shooters. My guess is no, but it's only a guess at the moment. Bottom line: the new 70-200mm is going to change some shooting habits somewhat (you're going to get closer to near subjects), but that doesn't make it the terrible update that some seem to think it is"
Even Thom is making his statement on what others have said, and even he admits its a guess on his part. FYI But this Is Not about the VRII, its about something different.
Posted 3 years ago # -
nau said:
thats probly better go to the 70-200 topic but since we are are talking here about moral issues, which is so far based on one solid example of the latest 70-200mmfrom Tom Hogan's web site:
"Meanwhile, it seems that the number one topic of discussion on the net at the moment is the new 70-200mm VR II. Lower vignetting. Sharper in the corners. Better VR. But it loses focal length as you focus closer. That last bit has a lot of folk howling (at the closest focus distance the new lens is apparently about 128mm in equivalent focal length). There are pluses and minuses to that last bit. The VR II is sharper close up than the VR I according to reports I trust. But it does mean that you have to move closer and change perspective to get the same "subject size" at the 200mm marking and closest focus distance. How much closer? Well, if I'm calculating correctly, no more than 2.5' in any condition (but again, perspective will change if you move).Let's deal with one aspect of the howls of protest: that Nikon is marking the lens deceptively. No, they're not. The standards that all the camera makers use for marking lenses states that focal length is defined by the distance from the rear nodal point to the focal plane when focused at infinity. The standards also allow for a lot of rounding, which means you can claim a 190mm lens is "200mm." This is why we can pick up five lenses marked "200mm" and get five slightly different results, even at infinity. etc etc etc "
Im not an engineer but that kinda make sense to me... maybe the issue is not the lens but users expectations ?Hilarious that Hogan mentions that 190mm can be called 200mm. But this is 128mm!
It's really time to just say the truth.1) Nikon 70-200 II zoom range specified as 70-200mm
2) Nikon claims ENTIRE focal range is available at close focus
3) ENTIRE focal range isn't even available at 30 feet, let alone 4.6
4) Nikon's website lied
I'd like to hear anyone with a clear understanding of the English language to dispute this. Nikon is getting a TON of bad feedback on this and lenses are being shipped back. No matter how well reviewed this lens is, it will also always be tainted due it's unique focal length issue. Oh well....shooting with my tainted 70-200 VR II tomorrow anyway!
Max Green
Posted 3 years ago # -
Again lets keep this thread on topic (as best as that's now possible) and not about the 70-200 VRII lens which you can discuss in the original thread here:
Posted 3 years ago # -
Niko....I do believe that max was on topic, he may have used the VR II as an example, but you can't argue with his logic, everything he said is factual, and along the lines of what I am speaking of, Making Nikon Accountable!!
Good Point by the way Max
Posted 3 years ago # -
I'm not arguing with his logic Pac but if you guys insist on discussing the "problems" with the 70-200 VRII then this thread will be closed. You guys can continue the discussion in the original one.
Last warning
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
If you're going to be difficult about it then how about you just rename the thread?
Posted 3 years ago # -
The devil is in the details on so many levels.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
