Since the extended warranty adds two years, it's $75/yr. This seems reasonable and I guess it's always a hedge against "fate". I take good care of my stuff, but this ain't a cheap "toy". Has anyone had difficulties using the extended warranty w/ Nikon? Does it differ from the regular 1 year in any way? I assume Nikon *could* refuse to fix the banding issue if it cropped up after 1 year, whereas the two extra years would cover such eventualities? (I'm not thinking only of the banding, but it's the first topic that comes to mind.)
Really? Every retailer says it's a 2-year "extension". As far as I know, Nikon would not legally be able to refer to it as a 2-year *extended* warranty if it only extended the warranty by 1 year. Gonna have to dig up my D70 one to check this. My gut tells me it's like the lenses which come with a 1-year warranty and a 4-year extended warranty for 5 years total.
Edit: From Terms and Conditions...
"5. Coverage starts on the 1-year anniversary of the date on your bill of sale."
Yeah, I tried to talk 'em down, but they wouldn't budge. Ah well. I know $150 will be well worth it if something happens. unfortunately, however, I'm the type of guy that one Year 3, Day 1, I'll think "Dang. Could have saved $150." lol
I thought long and hard about this before purchasing.
A dealer I talked to wanted $150 for the Nikon 2-year. Instead, I went onto e-bay and purchased a Mack warranty (from Cord Camera) that was $65 for 3-years. On top of that, it is transferrable to another owner should I need/want to sell the D200. I couldn't turn that down.
Everyone I know who works in or with the retail industry (especially electronics and household appliances) confirms my gut feeling that such schemes are not worth the money you put into them as a customer.
And that's pretty obvious from the numbers. You pay a large amount of money (often based purely on the purchase price) for relatively limited coverage. Someone has to make a nice profit from that, so the average cost to the insurance (because that's what it is) company has to be lower per policy sold than the price of that policy. In actual fact it has to be a lot lower.
You're better off putting that money in the bank and drawing interest over it yourself. Given the chances of your ever getting a defect inside the "extended warranty" period that they'd agree to cover (they'll almost always be able to find a reason to refuse payout, combined with the very remote chance of something going seriously wrong that might theoretically be covered anyway) are extremely low you've just saved yourself 10% or so of the purchase price as a downpayment to yourself towards a replacement item.
any size is fullframe for a given definition of frame
You are exactly right that, for the most part, they're not worth the money. I have bought 4 extended warranties in my life: 2 were $5 each and the item was already significantly discounted (computer stuff) and both expired w/o being used. 1 was on my D70 last August. Still hasn't kicked in yet, but I'll feel better giving my D70 to my brother knowing if it suddenly dies, he's covered. #4 is on the D200. I always tell bestBuy, etc "I've saved so much money by NOT buying these warranties, I can buy this item 10x over." That being said, I have NOT saved $1700 in not buying them. Of course, full replacement would probably not be covered under this warranty, so that number's a bit extreme. But let's say the CCD craps out on my on day 366. I would much rather pay $150 to fix it (warranty) than what I assume woulf be close to $1,000. For something on ths financial magnitude, paying about 8% of the purchase price is OK in my mind to give me 3 years of service instead of two. Like I said above, I'll probably hit Year 3 Day 1 and realize I never needed it. But the piece of mind helps me a bit. This is far and away the most expensive tech purchase I've ever made. Since I couldn't even begin to fix the problem myself and I imagine something as simple as a button dying would cost more than $150 to fix, it's worth it to me. But yeah, you're right about most extended warranties and I appreciate the voice...
FWIW, Nikon's tend to run less than 10% of the purchase price, whereas most retail warranties seem to run 15% or so (based on my recollection, not fact).
I purchase a two week old D200, like brand new, from someone which I know means the original warranty is only valid for the original purchaser but what about an extended warranty? Am I able to purchase an extended warranty and put that one in my name?
Does the Nikon warranty have to be purchased from the same retailer as the camera? I am thinking about a D200 from Circuit City, simply because I have a TON of gift cards and the camera would cost me virtually nothing out of pocket, but they do not sell the Nikon Warranty. Could I purchase from B&H seperately? I'm assuming the answer is no, but just thought I'd ask. Also, would CC warranty be worth the money or not? Everything else I've ever purchased has been from B&H or Adorama.
Is there a time frame that you have to purchase an extended warranty in? My camera was purchased on 4-26-06 by the original purchaser. I would like to purchase a Nikon or Mack extended warranty from B&H and was wondering if I had to do this in a certain time frame?