I sent my camera in on monday July 27. I just got mine back on Wed Aug. 5th The only concern I have is that it didnt have any paperwork or anything that says what they did or what was fixed. I dont even know if they did anything to the camera.
Holly #### on a cracker. Nikon just sent me another service advisory for an additional and enhanced procedure for the one they already did. Seems like they have developed another repair procedure " further elevates the D5000's resistance to the power issue identified in the original Avisory." and they want me to send my camera back to them again, this time next day air. UPS is about as bad with packages as baggage handlers at the airport. I'am surprised my camera made it back the first time in one piece and now they want me to send it back again. What the h-e-double hockey sticks is going on. I just got my camera back on the 5th and now it will be gone again for a week. The only place I feel like sending my camera back to is Costco and getting my money back.
In the interest of getting our members better informed, can someone please forward me the e-mail or notification of the second round of repairs? You can use the e-mail or Personal Message icon at the top right corner of any of my posts. Your identity will be held completely anonymous. Thanks!
Thanks to this forum I could return my D5000 to the store and buy a D90 instead... Story is I bought the D5000 on July 25th and then read this forum during the same week-end. This is when I found out about the recall.
When I returned the camera, the store employees did not know there was a recall. They started to check every D5000 serial number they had in stock only to find out all were concerned by the advisory ...
I was so glad I found this out here. Thank you "niconians.org" for being there ! I am now a member and it is my best investment ever since I own a Nikon.
By the way my D90 is a real jewel! I'm glad I got it instead of the D5000.
I decided not to send back my camera even if it's included in the advisory. I'm still shooting away while keeping my fingers cross. Nikon should consider giving away rebates with all the hassle they put the customers through.
>I decided not to send back my camera even if it's included in >the advisory. I'm still shooting away while keeping my fingers >cross. Nikon should consider giving away rebates with all the >hassle they put the customers through.
You should send it ASAP. I had the same tought until my camera died when I was shooting pictures in MoMA. I was very unhappy at that time. I also agree with the rebates idea since Nikon doesn't seem giving effort to resolve this issue other than "limited to two days in transit shipping", unless they want beginner dslr users to switch to another brand.
>>I decided not to send back my camera even if it's >included in >>the advisory. I'm still shooting away while keeping my >fingers >>cross. Nikon should consider giving away rebates with all >the >>hassle they put the customers through. > > >You should send it ASAP. I had the same tought until my camera >died when I was shooting pictures in MoMA. I was very unhappy >at that time. I also agree with the rebates idea since Nikon >doesn't seem giving effort to resolve this issue other than >"limited to two days in transit shipping", unless >they want beginner dslr users to switch to another brand. > You're right! After months of shooting with my D5000, my camera totally gave up this morning. I couldn't get it to start up in the middle of trying to take a shot of a woodpecker. Oh well, I guess I have no choice now but to send it back and go back to using my D40x for a while.
Several respondents have remarked that they have received their D5000 back from Connecticut with no documentation and no evidence of what (if anything) was performed. The same occurred with my D5000.
Generally when parts alerts are issued by electronics parts manufacturers, the fault applies to a limited number of "lot numbers." All electronic parts (of any significant quality level) are produced one "lot" at a time and those lots are documented in case there was a specific problem found in any specific lot.
The first step in identifying the potentially faulty parts in a product is to identify what serial numbered products (in this case cameras) the part type was installed in. Because the camera industry may not apply 2-way-traceability, they may not be able to tell lot numbers of these parts were installed in what serial numbers of cameras.
So, the next step is to recall the cameras and open it up to see the lot number of the parts installed in the camera. This may be as simple as removing a cover and visually inspecting the part in question (the lot number is usually printed or etched - depending on the size of the part - onto the part). It is entirely possible that those cameras that returned very quickly (as mine was), was inspected and found that the part was not of the suspect lot number.
Subsequently, the part manufacturer may have identified other suspect lot numbers and thus the second recall notice may have been issued.
This is entirely speculative as it may apply to Nikon, but this is what some companies would do (I'm not going to name names) in this case. Sorry about the long dissertation. Perhaps it will be educational to some users.
Do you know how I can find out if the D5000 I'm going to buy is affected by this Advisory BEFORE I actually purchase it?
Don't have the money for the D90 Body, and from what I've read, the Low Light Capability is basically the same for both the D5000 and the D90. I'm aware of the lens restrictions with the D90, and the difference in the LED display screens. Recording Video with these cameras is meaningless to me. And from what I gather, I should see a BIG difference in improved Low Light Capability between my old D70s and a D5000.
All in all I'm leaning toward the D5000 body, and will continue to use my AF-S Nikkor 18-70mm lens, and SB-600 Speedlight.