Better that Japanese corporate culture give up its unproductive practices and attempt to understand its customers. It's not my job to understand them. It is their job to understand me and my DSLR & lens needs !!
Unless websites across the world had not posted complaints about the D600 oil splatters and similar issues, the problems would never have been fixed.
I confess to frustration with a swelling crisis. This crisis relates to recurring production problems with otherwise superb Nikon products. The VR problems arising with the in so-many-ways-superb 300 f4 PF underscores the issues at stake. Here we have a great, innovative product, which no shortage of Nikon CLIENTS seek to own, and so try and get together the considerable lump of cash. Yet the frustration arises where a core problem remains problematic and contentious. What do we hear from Nikon Public Relations on this? Silence to my knowledge. Such a crisis calls for a proactive response by the Corporation responsible. In this respect, Corporate/cultural sensitivities etc are trivial. CLIENT relations rank paramount, or rather they shound do. Yet in this case, one is lead to believe the feedback to complaints treats CLIENT concerns as superfluous. Nikon charge a small fortune for this 300 f4 PF so at very least they should demonstrate professional commitment and responsibility.
The issues and problems raised here and elsewhere on the www are not unfounded. All of us have better things to do than as PAYING Beta-Testers one diagnoses production problems that are Nikon's.
Many of us have relied on Nikon exclusively for photography. In my case for over 30 years and much of this for scientific imaging (macro etc) of biological specimens and landscapes including study sites and landscapes in a geomorphological/geological context. Where time and resources have permitted, and here I've been very fortunate in central Africa, I have used manual telephots for wildlife photography. A privilege. There are many thousands who make up the committed user base of Nikon - and especially Nikkor. We longer term users, who keep upgrading to new products are devoted CLIENTS of the brand. In my case, many are devout, in fact zealous to the Nikon brand. And like so many, I have also benefited from other Nikon products in the digital revolution e.g the Coolpix 950 etc and AW1, which are indeed superb for scientific fieldwork and recreational photography.
These new AF-S, G lenses and fantastic digital DX and FX products each cost thousands of US $ today. Many of us could only dream of owning such a lens when studying and starting to earn etc. Now those Nikon CLIENTS who can afford them (well sort of/just!) have to endure being used as experimental subjects on products in which production problems (or whatever they really are) could be more easily solved without recourse to Forums. This is if the manufacturer handled the problem with due serious before it becomes a crisis.
But we little option. Not all of us are privy to the inner workings of Nikon, nor have direct access to key office bearers in Repairs etc. The very fact that these complaints and error reports appear are on Forums is due to (1) Truth-seeking by the product user seeking confirmation that the technical problem is real and not due to user error etc (one I often make, so I seek peer review!) This is especially where one has shelled out a small fortune on the likes of a 200-500 or 300f4 PF, and (2) More seriously, and more to the point, CLIENT support is inadequate, in some cases we hear of dismissive, if not arrogant denials. What, one can only ask, has happened to professional CLIENT relations?
I will remain with Nikon for Macrophotography - my optical equipment will last my life time and more. And other flash systems will work. Equally, I will remain using Nikkor AFD lenses where these work (med range zooms and especially the Defocus-Control 135 and 105) And I one am loath to be forced to buy Sigma telephoto lenses but this is now the logical option one is being forced toward by more and more evidence for Nikon's tactics that uses the BUYER as product tester. aka Microsoft selling the first software iterations to consumers to test and fix- What Dave Cutler architect of the VAX on DEC and WinNT calls eating dogfood....
And yes Canon, Fuji, Olympus etc are there as excellent viable systems for telephoto photography. I cannot afford a 600 f4 Nikkor with its superb AF etc, so the 300 PF with a TC on a DX is the logical alternative. And after so many decades let alone years, I am loath to switch brands. But I will! At least 4 Nikon stalwarts I know have already made this choice, and as it stands I give them hell, but who can blame them? One is forced to take this route, but the way the forum pitch rises more and more Nikon CLIENTS will have no option.
Only at its peril that Nikon can try and modulate genuine CLIENT complaints through the lens of corporate culture. The perception of the Westener to tactics of denial and obfuscation etc is to take this as a lack of concern, or even disinterest by the manufacturer, at worst the complaintant, often in high spirits given the costs involved feels treated with arrogant contempt. This is a terrible shame and plain bad manners, given how the new generation of corporate representatives abuse the reputation of the Nikon brand!
The main reason is declining quality control and mounting frustrations among dedicated CLIENTS. Here again Nikon would be wise to stand up and take this very seriously. Many such CLIENTS are inaugural purchasers of these big lenses. As soon as they run initial tests they post their finds and gripes on Blogs...and no surprise, these swing opinions of emerging photographers. If favourable, many of the latter will buy into such expensive lenses - and thus the BRAND. So no mystery here, they become future Nikon CLIENTS, but as they stand - before purchase - they rank among the vast ranks of CONSUMERS of lenses and related products in the cut-throat market of digital photography. Brand loyalty for these markets is fickle and brutal for the seller. Lessons? Witness cellular phones and other IT products, Nikon.
It is at their peril Nikon makes the risky mistake of lumping loyal CLIENTS into the amorphous sea of CONSUMERS. For its own corporate survival, let alone professional integrity, Nikon needs to overhaul how it handles its relationships with its core base of CLIENTS. As it stands, our brand loyalty is a precious resource. We have invested thousands of dollars in what is still in key aspects an outstanding product. This loyalty to the brand deserves professional service. Nevertheless, there are OTHER options.....
Speaking as a scientist, let's close with two hard facts:
(1) the core way to maintain product quality lies in Honest, Rigorous testing, coupled with professional service with newly released products (something Nikon can do very well, OR did?). The BUYER can indeed participate in testing but only where this delicate process is performed honestly and professionally. Such a Beta-process testing (to borrow Software terminology) can be iterative but it sure is risky. Trying to such Beta-Testing anonymously is precarious at best, engaging paying clients requires strict controls and guidelines in place. A Golden Rule would be to handle what is less than FREE feedback with respect.
(2) In the spirit of Admiral Rickover, the architect of nuclear power and strategic submarines, and in the words of Richard Feynman (ironically a key architect of the Manhattan Project) "Reality takes precedence over Public Relations, for Nature cannot be Fooled!"
