bobfriedman
Well-known member
mine is unaffected as well, purchased late summer 2022
Z9 Service Advisory for Lens Release Button
- Thread starter Warren D
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
cchuck
ChuckCarlson
I think you’re right! Thanks for the correction.
ccyeung
Active member
I purchased mine in Mar/22 and it is unaffected.
Cindy
New member
Well boo hoo! Mine is affected. I just got my Z9 the end of October 2022. Actually, when I change lenses it has felt very "tight". Almost to the point of not being able to remove the lens. So I'm happy there is a fix. Not happy about being without my camera. :(
Thanks very much for heads up. Fortunately, mine unaffected.
O
Well-known member
This type of issue i recall has been around from time to time with other Nikon bodies, right back and beyond the D810 days which i recall used the design button in the image below, this button is not used in the Z9 as i understand looking at the D3X, Df, D7100, then the D850 and Z9.
I feel its allways been a very vulnerable component especially if the ball drops in QC as it has in this case and has done in the past.
I recall being told getting the lens off to fix the faulty button assembly was the real challenge.
Its been a while since this issue has raised its head again.
D810 and most commonly used button https://www.aliexpress.com/i/32964496987.html
At this price point it should NOT be happening PERIOD.
Yes things happen, yes its new technology, yes its great Nikon is stepping up, that's all fine to say, at $9000 AUD its not.
You are on your dream safari, you have your $24000 AUD lens stuck on your Z9........who your going to call, Ghost Busters ?
Ideally QC means things should be detected before they reach the market not after.
At this price point for an A grade level product the standard of QC inspection should be set much much tighter to a target of 0.5% like it used to be, its common to do so with high value quality items, other Big Brands do it successfully.
Only an opinion
Last edited:
Roy
Well-known member
Min was delivered end of 2021 and is uninflected
O
Well-known member
Hows this, my Z9 is uneffected
Sony has had a few recalls in their history,My Sony A1 are not affected
Sorry, that was too tempting
Sincerely sorry for those who have a concerned Z9
Sony Recalls 350,000 Digital Cameras
ust 3, 2007 — 7.55pmSony is recalling 350,000 digital cameras because the case may warp, creating an edge that can cut or scratch the user's hands, the company said Thursday.
The company will replace the bottom casing, where the problem occurs, at no cost.
Sorry, too tempting
Last edited:
Good here, Z9 #3012XXX Purchased July 2022, U.S. Purchase, Local Nikon Authorized Dealer
DsD
Well-known member
Interesting how the serial number sequence goes. Mark got his through US AD in July. Mine came direct from Nikon USA June 15th (ordered April 25,2022) and is serial #3020xxx. Maybe Nikon ships after dealer allotments are made.
O
Well-known member
Tempting is right,
Ripper time for another rant LOL this is your holiday season special........LOL
Many Quality Control practices have been over the last plus decade largely outsourced where possible to the consumer and measured by feed back/backlash complaints over faulty products mainly at the lower priced or budget end of products.
This is often charted on a graph from social media chatter and other means.
Plastic especially, metals, precious metals just to mention a few, are often subjected to having some, or None, regrind or recycled materiel content, sometimes that content can be excessive by accident, or choice and vary dramatically in consistency of cocktail content and quality.
Often its a result for margin needs out of necessity or just greed, or poor QC, by chain suppliers to the end manufacturer.
The consequences if something is off point can result in product distortion, memory reshaping after cooling or being subjected to heat after manufacturing, issues related to cold molding, pores materials affecting tensile or contact performance, dry solder joints, poor quality control in the supply chain and or the product simply not performing.
Recalls are usually insured so it wont effect share prices LOL. Just a lot of unnecessary hassle for customers who are just a victim of circumstance.
As consumers if we don't hit back hard and quick at faulty goods being supplied, manufacturers be they direct or indirect will keep pushing the line.
In cases Even final product design is often finished in the consumer field, one example............ some of our cameras others are software giants.
The lower the product price point the more frequent issues may arise, the higher the less it should arise.
Only an opinion, happy Holidays
Last edited:
AnnetteJane
Well-known member
Thanks for posting this ! Checked and not affected !
Got my camera in February
Got my camera in February
Ashlandish
Member
An update on a Z9 sent to Nikon based on this service advisory--shipped to Nikon on 12/17, logged into Nikon on 12/22, shipped back from Nikon 12/27, estimated arrival back home, 1/3. Quicker than I expected, especially considering the holidays--soon more learning and play...
KP Birder
Active member
My Z9 was purchased in November and was affected. 
It is at Nikon Canada now. Hoping I will have it back next week.
It is at Nikon Canada now. Hoping I will have it back next week.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
the good thing about all this, is while i see a variety of folks were subject to the recall, i haven't heard any first hand reports of people getting their lenses stuck, so this whole exercise seems to be proactively avoiding problems
O
Well-known member
Regardless of issues i have always said/found Nikon is really good with their standing by you and service, i hope that never changes, That's the pat on the head LOL.....
Here is the stick LOL,
With this level product we shouldn't see issues of this nature, not if supply contracts and good protocols are in place,
Hypothetical, Not Brand specific, So you pay $24,000 AUD for a exotic lens with a built in TC, you pack up for your wild life trip worth $20,000 AUD, hypothetically you experience and issue where your lens doesn't focus, possible cause ? dry solder joint, excessive or poorly mixed recycled material content becoming an issue with distortion effecting contact integrity, such a simple thing..........
Hypothetical Example only:
Zero QC inspection of every individual component in a consumer product under a certain value is cheaper to just replace it when its returned, it costs to much to slow production.
The higher the price point, product size and branding power the higher the QC inspection rate usually should be.
Pace makers require 100% testing at every stage of component making or assembly and then again before release, the use of virgin material is critical.
Formula one racing, many critical components are xrayed - scanned for flaws or imperfections before using them, the use of virgin material is critical, these teams cost hundreds of millions of dollars a year to operate, a pin stuck or a dry solder joint is inexcusable. Yes they have DNFs but that's more under a development program.
The old days of 1 in 100 hand inspection has been replaced with robotics, ultra sound scanning etc.
The use of recycled material content is more common, be it copper wire, precious metals, metals, plastics etc.
There are different grades of recycled material, virgin regrind is the material reused from the initial manufacturing product and stage, its considered high grade and worth more as its clean, then you have a blend of 20% universally sourced material that is used to cocktail with grade A, then there are more tolerable blends 50% then 75% then 100% for lower grade made goods, with no virgin content, each has its place and limitations where used, above all it has its cost benefits and or green house gas emissions credit value.
In each of the many stages of blending cocktail different grades or material, if their is a laps, there is often an issue or exposure, how far or tolerable that gets before it arrested is the issue.
In a low budget consumer item often made form 100% recyclable content, he its under the returns policy simply replaced, happy days, if its a pace maker there may be a funeral god forbid, if you on your Antarctic trip of a life time or traveling in Africa with your loved one doing photography with your expensive exotic gear etc and you have a issue, you really ticked and really out of pocket.
So my point is and its NOT brand specific
At $10,000 AUD for a high tech pro quality camera body, given the ultra high AI technology for manufacturing and QC inspection monitoring, arresting issues in the field shouldn't really occur.
If so You either have a laps in QC protocol policy, AI systems, contractual arrangements, baring to much cost pressure on suppliers.
As a consumer of high end Pro gear i feel at the high end level, having a QC issue surface in the field is not acceptable and with the hi tech AI resoruces we have today issue at this level are and should be easily avoidable.
Sadly to day the trend is for a constant push for margin and profit balanced against the complaint/issue level, if making 1.5% greater return for 0.0345% compliant or issue level seems to be a no brainer in today's world of thinking, the only fear can be branding damage exposure.
Only an opinion
Here is the stick LOL,
With this level product we shouldn't see issues of this nature, not if supply contracts and good protocols are in place,
Hypothetical, Not Brand specific, So you pay $24,000 AUD for a exotic lens with a built in TC, you pack up for your wild life trip worth $20,000 AUD, hypothetically you experience and issue where your lens doesn't focus, possible cause ? dry solder joint, excessive or poorly mixed recycled material content becoming an issue with distortion effecting contact integrity, such a simple thing..........
Hypothetical Example only:
Zero QC inspection of every individual component in a consumer product under a certain value is cheaper to just replace it when its returned, it costs to much to slow production.
The higher the price point, product size and branding power the higher the QC inspection rate usually should be.
Pace makers require 100% testing at every stage of component making or assembly and then again before release, the use of virgin material is critical.
Formula one racing, many critical components are xrayed - scanned for flaws or imperfections before using them, the use of virgin material is critical, these teams cost hundreds of millions of dollars a year to operate, a pin stuck or a dry solder joint is inexcusable. Yes they have DNFs but that's more under a development program.
The old days of 1 in 100 hand inspection has been replaced with robotics, ultra sound scanning etc.
The use of recycled material content is more common, be it copper wire, precious metals, metals, plastics etc.
There are different grades of recycled material, virgin regrind is the material reused from the initial manufacturing product and stage, its considered high grade and worth more as its clean, then you have a blend of 20% universally sourced material that is used to cocktail with grade A, then there are more tolerable blends 50% then 75% then 100% for lower grade made goods, with no virgin content, each has its place and limitations where used, above all it has its cost benefits and or green house gas emissions credit value.
In each of the many stages of blending cocktail different grades or material, if their is a laps, there is often an issue or exposure, how far or tolerable that gets before it arrested is the issue.
In a low budget consumer item often made form 100% recyclable content, he its under the returns policy simply replaced, happy days, if its a pace maker there may be a funeral god forbid, if you on your Antarctic trip of a life time or traveling in Africa with your loved one doing photography with your expensive exotic gear etc and you have a issue, you really ticked and really out of pocket.
So my point is and its NOT brand specific
At $10,000 AUD for a high tech pro quality camera body, given the ultra high AI technology for manufacturing and QC inspection monitoring, arresting issues in the field shouldn't really occur.
If so You either have a laps in QC protocol policy, AI systems, contractual arrangements, baring to much cost pressure on suppliers.
As a consumer of high end Pro gear i feel at the high end level, having a QC issue surface in the field is not acceptable and with the hi tech AI resoruces we have today issue at this level are and should be easily avoidable.
Sadly to day the trend is for a constant push for margin and profit balanced against the complaint/issue level, if making 1.5% greater return for 0.0345% compliant or issue level seems to be a no brainer in today's world of thinking, the only fear can be branding damage exposure.
Only an opinion
Last edited:
Maybe Nikon should apply next year for the Deming Award. That might get their quality control back on track.
Winning the lottery isn't all that it's cracked up to be. If I ever won $1-million, it would be $1 per year for a million years...
Ashlandish
Member
Z Beast is back home--11/17 ~ 1/3 is quicker than I anticipated, considering the holidays. These cameras today are far more complicated than the ones I grew up with-- am thankful there aren't more issues, across brands. Also thankful Nikon put the possible problem out in the open rather than quietly responding incident by incident.
- Status