Quote:
Originally Posted by jet_kit
Hi Derek,
It's not necessarily true. The criteria in my case was the acceptability of pre-77 Nikon glass. The D700 is the lowest spec camera Nikon make that will accept this. The quality, versatility, etc. etc. is all irrelevant if the prime function cannot be equaled or bettered. The D300s is a fine camera (I've got one of those as well), but it's not a replacement in every respect, and that's what the insurance is for.
The primary purpose of insurance is to place you in the position you would have been in had the incident not occurred which, with a 'new for old' means they've got to give you a new S3Pro, but if they can't do that it's got to be the next one up. Since they don't do the S5Pro any longer either, you just keep going up until all the criteria are met.
It took a lot of argument but I held out and got a new D700. It's a tough battle, but you have to ask yourself whether you just want an easy life, or whether you want what you've paid your premium for. If you want to put the pressure on, then tell them that you're hiring a suitable replacement camera until they sort themselves out and that you expect to be reimbursed for all costs.  |
I was always under the impression that Nikon has used the same bayonet fitting since the F which is way before 77 all be it youd have to manualy focus and set the apeture . obviously ive been mistaken . although id have to agree that if you have new for old then it should be replaced by at least a camera of equal standing if not then slightly higher . im not too aware of the S3 pro spec but surley even though it was considered pro at the time pro cameras have moved on a fair bit since 2008 . ive got a leica r4 and if this was damaged it wouldnt be realistic to ask for it to be replaced by leicas current model they would simply laugh at the request . insurance companies arent camera experts or enthusiasts so they would look at spec and compare it they would simply look at the mega pixel factor and think this simply alone would compensate plus save them money . my camera was covered under my home insurance contents for being away from home for either theft , accidental damage or loss . mine was stolen from a hut on the river tay whilst we were having lunch the said hut was 15 yards away the insurance company said that they might not do it as they couldnt decide whether id lost it or it was stolen the reason for the loss theory was because the hut wasnt locked up. i informed them after asking for a manager that it shouldnt matter one way or the other as i was covered under both eventualities . i was told it had to be either one or the other and as when making the claim originally id said theft . like ive said insurance companies are snakes they take the payments but usually dont want to pay out .