Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BackdoorArts" data-source="post: 213396" data-attributes="member: 9240">My understanding is that the D610 shutter is completely different and would not work with the D600.&nbsp; If it did then I suspect they would have simply used it in the D600 and retrofit anything sent back.&nbsp; If the D600 shutter was a &quot;fixable&quot; situation I suspect they would have remedied it, but to my eyes and ears it appears that mechanism couldn't be tweaked &quot;as is&quot;, or that the manufacturer (which I'm assuming was a contractor) couldn't supply a consistent level of QC.&nbsp; I don't absolve Nikon for the way in which they handled the situation, but I can understand recognizing that they needed to move past it.&nbsp; What they didn't need to do was leave D600 owners in the dust.&nbsp; As for a suit, I'm not a fan of making lawyers rich.&nbsp; There are lemon laws that might apply to owners who send them back multiple times with no correction, and extended warrantees through some credit card companies could cover an extra trip or two, but it's a major hassle regardless.&nbsp; What bothers me most is that those in industry tend to call it a &quot;dust issue&quot; when there's nothing I've seen that implies that the D600 is more succeptible to dust than any other camera.&nbsp; The problem is a shutter issue, but to call it that invites lawsuits like the one suggested.&nbsp; Nikon did their research in how to follow things up, fixing the issue that was an issue (the shutter) and one that likely wasn't (sealing), instilling some level of confidence in the new model and burying the old in the dust without ever admiting guilt.&nbsp; With the D600/610, the lawyers that put that release package together are the ones that made money.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BackdoorArts, post: 213396, member: 9240"] My understanding is that the D610 shutter is completely different and would not work with the D600. If it did then I suspect they would have simply used it in the D600 and retrofit anything sent back. If the D600 shutter was a "fixable" situation I suspect they would have remedied it, but to my eyes and ears it appears that mechanism couldn't be tweaked "as is", or that the manufacturer (which I'm assuming was a contractor) couldn't supply a consistent level of QC. I don't absolve Nikon for the way in which they handled the situation, but I can understand recognizing that they needed to move past it. What they didn't need to do was leave D600 owners in the dust. As for a suit, I'm not a fan of making lawyers rich. There are lemon laws that might apply to owners who send them back multiple times with no correction, and extended warrantees through some credit card companies could cover an extra trip or two, but it's a major hassle regardless. What bothers me most is that those in industry tend to call it a "dust issue" when there's nothing I've seen that implies that the D600 is more succeptible to dust than any other camera. The problem is a shutter issue, but to call it that invites lawsuits like the one suggested. Nikon did their research in how to follow things up, fixing the issue that was an issue (the shutter) and one that likely wasn't (sealing), instilling some level of confidence in the new model and burying the old in the dust without ever admiting guilt. With the D600/610, the lawyers that put that release package together are the ones that made money. [/QUOTE]

Verification