Here's a little present for you (and anyone else who gives a [rhymes with "hit"]) to get more of a "clue" around here--your very own sony Quality and Reliability Handbook!
I stumbled on a site where I was able to down my very own, 240-page manual (2.34MB, PDF, for free!). Of small comfort to my current--and unresolved--dilemma are pages 53, 55, 63-65 and 111.
You know, after all these years, you-da thought somebody woulda come up with a better bondpad material than aluminum.
ALUMINUM.
Why does it have to be aluminum??? It's such a sensitive, tempermental and unforgiving metal when on such thin layers as bondpads on chips. Throw in some moisture for starters. And God help you if there's any chloride (present everywhere), bromide (flame retardant used in some plastics) or iodide (present in the adhesives of those bad CCDs)around!
Oh, and there are funky mechanical stresses peculiar to aluminun that you might find amusing.
Did I also mention "electromigration" of aluminum?
I have to say it's been fascinating reading your posts. Being the IT guy at a smaller electronics manufacturer, I have some clue (but only a little) of what you're talking about. Sounds to me like someone at Sony made the assumption that we nice money-laden consumers would just replace that nasty, obsolete 6-month-old camera with the lastest thing on the shelf long before those incompatibilities casued any trouble. OOPS!
Looks to me my policy of avoiding Sony products wherever I can is the right one.
A ray of hope here? OK. So I was pretty well giving up on my Nikon E5400 as my picture failure rate was about 90 percent and climbing, and I grudgingly had to settle for my company-issued Canon Powershot A520. It's an ok camera, but not that thrilling.
Meanwhile, what appeared to be the remnants of Hurricane John passed over the Verde Valley. Getting rather annoyed at how fast that Canon used up batteries (no lithium battery was supplied--and no lithium for my MOOD SWINGS either!!!), and I thought I'd try that sick old Nikon one last time.
I monkeyed with the settings and then I found something: I never used the 3.2 MP image size before (it essentially crops a bit off the top and bottom halves of a 5 MP picture to make it look like 35mm format). So I tried that setting and...
...for some reason the camera worked like a CHAMP again! My guess is that the defective bondpads (or whatever) are bypassed--by not being used--with that 3.2 MP setting. I took about 200 shots this afternoon of pets, bugs, storm clouds, my face, flowers and they ALL turned out without the slightest purple smearing or any lines! I did maybe underexpose some shots but heh-heh...
Heck, I'll take 3.2 MP over an otherwise dead camera any day!
Getting off the subject just a bit, those new-fangled FOVEON image sensors are bragged about as having over 10 MP. But I wish these guys would get their vernacular straight: stacking three different color filters within silicon just means you stacked "pixels" on top of each other. The footprint is still only occupied by some 3.4 MP, right? So on that note, I don't feel so bad about not having all 5 MP to use right now, although those Sigma DSLRs probably take much nicer images than my camera.
OK. So I was pretty well giving up on my Nikon E5400 as my picture failure rate was about 90 percent and climbing, and I grudgingly had to settle for my company-issued Canon Powershot A520. It's an ok camera, but not that thrilling.
Meanwhile, what appeared to be the remnants of Hurricane John passed over the Verde Valley. Getting rather annoyed at how fast that Canon used up batteries (no lithium battery was supplied--and no lithium for my MOOD SWINGS either!!!), and I thought I'd try that sick old Nikon one last time.
I monkeyed with the settings and then I found something: I never used the 3.2 MP image size before (it essentially crops a bit off the top and bottom halves of a 5 MP picture to make it look like 35mm format). So I tried that setting and...
...for some reason the camera worked like a CHAMP again! My guess is that the defective bondpads (or whatever) are bypassed--by not being used--with that 3.2 MP setting. I took about 200 shots this afternoon of pets, bugs, storm clouds, my face, flowers and they ALL turned out without the slightest purple smearing or any lines! I did maybe underexpose some shots but heh-heh...
Heck, I'll take 3.2 MP over an otherwise dead camera any day!
Getting off the subject just a bit, those new-fangled FOVEON image sensors are bragged about as having over 10 MP. But I wish these guys would get their vernacular straight: stacking three different color filters within silicon just means you stacked "pixels" on top of each other. The footprint is still only occupied by some 3.4 MP, right? So on that note, I don't feel so bad about not having all 5 MP to use right now, although those Sigma DSLRs probably take much nicer images than my camera.
Steve,
First of all, congratulations on your lateral thinking. It is wonderful that just changing modes gives you back quality images.
Most cameras only capture in one resolution, that of the imager, and then they interpolate to different resolutions, usually downward. If this is the case, then the image processor section may be to blame, not the imager itself.
Sony had developed some chips that were dual personality resolutions, but I believe they were just for video applications.
I would suggest that you also try TIFF format for storage, to see if that is affected the same way as JPG.
First of all, congratulations on your lateral thinking. It is wonderful that just changing modes gives you back quality images.
Most cameras only capture in one resolution, that of the imager, and then they interpolate to different resolutions, usually downward. If this is the case, then the image processor section may be to blame, not the imager itself.
Sony had developed some chips that were dual personality resolutions, but I believe they were just for video applications.
I would suggest that you also try TIFF format for storage, to see if that is affected the same way as JPG.
Is it just me, or do TIFFs sometimes use more memory than RAWs?
Do you mean disk space? A Canon .CR2 raw file from a 20D is generally around 8MB. Converting that to an 8 bit TIFF gives 24MB and to a 16 bit TIFF gives 48MB. Big difference.
Do you mean disk space? A Canon .CR2 raw file from a 20D is generally around 8MB. Converting that to an 8 bit TIFF gives 24MB and to a 16 bit TIFF gives 48MB. Big difference.
Right, plus they have white balance applied, so they are potentially not much better than a low compression JPG.
My 5400 is DOA as of this morning
The title says it all.....my 5400 has the identical problem. I wrote a nice note to Nikon Service telling then that they ought to replace my sensor for free. Fat chance, I suspect, but you gotta try.
Yeah, FAT CHANCE! But maybe you can squeeze some more life out of that 5400 with the following (I hope you have an AC adapter that can supply 8.4VDC--center positive--for that camera; you may be able to see menu items in SETUP and in other menu functions):
In SETUP, set your Auto Off to 30 minutes
In MOVIE mode, choose Time Lapse Movie, and choose a short interval (between 30 seconds and 5 minutes)
Set the camera somewhere and let it do its thing ( keep the flash off--you won't need it).
What you're trying to do here is run the camera through a "burn-in", and let it go all night.
After you're done, format that CF card (way faster than deleting in the camera) and see if you get any improvement. If you see some, but it could be better, try fiddling with the Image Adjustment, Saturation Control, Image Quality/Size, and Image Sharpening.
You might find a way around this (Ziggy also suggested using TIFF [JPEG HI in this camera] but that didn't work for me [and makes files that are enormous--at least as large as RAW]).
Let us know if anything works for you. However, if it does, you may find the effect temporary (lasting just a couple of days like for my camera) but try another "burn-in" again and you may be able to restore operation (again).
You know, it's really a shame that this has to happen, as I had otherwise really liked my 5400!
The title says it all.....my 5400 has the identical problem. I wrote a nice note to Nikon Service telling then that they ought to replace my sensor for free. Fat chance, I suspect, but you gotta try.
Now I know why, sort of I like to watch 'Modern Marvels'on the History Channel and, last night, COPPER was featured. Near the end of the show, I was finally enlightened as to why copper wasn't originally used for bondpads.
Copper apparently has an annoying tendency to change the electrical properties of silicon--especially when "doped" to cause those electrical properties to begin with.
I have to dig a bit, but I so vaguely recall that copper may even be one of the "dopants" used in ion implantation of silicon chips. I could be wrong, though.
Anyway, there appears to be a process now that forms a microscopic barrier against copper-silicon interaction, which opens the door for the use of copper ON--rather than just AROUND--the chip. The advantages here are that, as copper can carry more current than can aluminum, the circuits can be made even smaller, and the clock speeds can be 40% faster than with chips using aluminum circuitry and bondpads--all while using less power.
There are other metallurgical issues that favor the use of copper over aluminum. As long as undesireable direct contact between copper and silicon can be prevented, you'll have a superior chip to before.
The story actually says the problem was between 200 and 2004. I bought my D200 in Feb 2006 I think...so it was built late 2005 or later. So I should be good to go.
Between 2002 and 2004. You are correct. And IF it's really true that Sony's revised their processes, you should forever be fine (if you don't drop your camera or boil it in oil).
The story actually says the problem was between 200 and 2004. I bought my D200 in Feb 2006 I think...so it was built late 2005 or later. So I should be good to go.
We had a problem over the summer with a Sony camcorder. The camera was a couple of years old and the issue had to do with a defective CCD. Sony had something on their website regarding the problem and how to go about having it corrected. The camera was out of warranty but they picked up shipping both ways and a full repair.
We had a problem over the summer with a Sony camcorder. The camera was a couple of years old and the issue had to do with a defective CCD. Sony had something on their website regarding the problem and how to go about having it corrected. The camera was out of warranty but they picked up shipping both ways and a full repair.
I mentioned in an earlier thread how I was a reliability technician for Intel Corporation back in the late 80s. One of my unique studies involved what happens in the aluminum bondpads that the hair-thin gold bondwires are attached to (usually by thermosonic processes). The bondpads are on the surfaces of various sorts of electronic "chips", such as the ones described below.
The articles regarding the multitudes of defective Sony CCDs that I've read about over the last two days strongly implicates the erroneous use of an iodine-bearing adhesive used to bond the cover glass to the package containing the CCD chip. A most unfortunate choice of adhesive, methinks.
You see, aluminum and halogens don't get along very well. Usually it's chloride ions (they're everywhere, and thus hard to get rid of) that may get on the external leads of a package due to improper handling (your sweaty fingers are LOADED with chlorides). The chloride ions migrate toward the aluminum bondpads especially when electrical energy is applied. Once they reach the bondpads, they chew the aluminum up and cause bondlift failures.
As the iodide ions present in the adhesive that Sony used are also halogens, if they reach the bondpads (with the help of humidity and the passage of a little time), KISS THEM GOODBYE! Only we're not talking about ionic migration up leadframes, but rather the introduction of moist halogen-bearing gases right in the chip cavity!
Somebody at Sony should have known about the potential incompatibility between these materials!
Is all this starting to make anyone else sick, or is it just me?
I was wondering if you resolved your problem with your 5400 I am starting to have the same problems with mine finally dies with a light flickering in the lcd screen and no picture focus any info would be appriciated.
coolpix5400-ccd failure
Steve-o,
I own a 5400 that had rotten ccd too. Nikon charges nothing to look at a camera. I called company, explained problem, got run through a few tests and service person asked me to send camera in with cover letter stating problem. I sent letter telling them that I thought a camera that cost as much as a Nikon should last longer than 17 months. Also that I was aware of the recall on their other cameras (5700, etc) and that since my camera was manufactured in the same time frame and used same Sony CCD, I was sure the cause of failure was the same. They sent my estimate by snail mail and I replied in email. They KNOW they have a problem but just wont aknowlege it publically. By the way,Cost-$00000000 They were very nice over the phone to talk with. My camera was back in 5 days.
mako-mama
Steve-o,
I own a 5400 that had rotten ccd too. Nikon charges nothing to look at a camera. I called company, explained problem, got run through a few tests and service person asked me to send camera in with cover letter stating problem. I sent letter telling them that I thought a camera that cost as much as a Nikon should last longer than 17 months. Also that I was aware of the recall on their other cameras (5700, etc) and that since my camera was manufactured in the same time frame and used same Sony CCD, I was sure the cause of failure was the same. They sent my estimate by snail mail and I replied in email. They KNOW they have a problem but just wont aknowlege it publically. By the way,Cost-$00000000 They were very nice over the phone to talk with. My camera was back in 5 days.
mako-mama
There you go Steve. Send your camera to Mako-Mama, and everything will be alright. (I do suggest maybe dinner and a dance for compensation?)
... Or, just do the same thing, be nice, and see what happens.
ziggy53 (They don't call me "Trouble" for nothing.)
I just got back from Vegas after 5 days of tech meetings there.
Looks like you had a much better response than I did! As I have a plastics plant to sample this month in Commerce CA, I could hand-deliver the camera to the El Segundo (LAX area) Nikon service center and...
Steve-o,
I own a 5400 that had rotten ccd too. Nikon charges nothing to look at a camera. I called company, explained problem, got run through a few tests and service person asked me to send camera in with cover letter stating problem. I sent letter telling them that I thought a camera that cost as much as a Nikon should last longer than 17 months. Also that I was aware of the recall on their other cameras (5700, etc) and that since my camera was manufactured in the same time frame and used same Sony CCD, I was sure the cause of failure was the same. They sent my estimate by snail mail and I replied in email. They KNOW they have a problem but just wont aknowlege it publically. By the way,Cost-$00000000 They were very nice over the phone to talk with. My camera was back in 5 days.
mako-mama
I just got off the phone with Fuji Canada. They are denying that my FinePix A607 is affected. Judge for yourselves. What has to be done to get these guys to fess up and add the A607 to the service advisory?? Do I need to actually sue them or something?
Yep. That looks like a sh**ty image sensor struttin' its stuff to me.
Instead of trying to sue these yayhoos (trying to organize a class-action suit might be a good idea if you can find enough Fuji camera owners similarly afflicted--and an attorney willing to fight pro bono [to you]), just show off the fine Fuji product in as many digital photography forums as you can get into. They may get the message through the grapevine.
I don't know why these camera makers are covering up for Sony so much, unless Sony has such a tight grip on imager manufacturing that they've become the de facto supplier monopoly, Foveon notwithstanding.
I just got off the phone with Fuji Canada. They are denying that my FinePix A607 is affected. Judge for yourselves. What has to be done to get these guys to fess up and add the A607 to the service advisory?? Do I need to actually sue them or something?
Even I am facing the same problem with my Nikon 5400 .. I have given replacement for the cost of $200+.. Now I should do something to ask my money back. how do i go about.. i am helpless?? .. pls advise..
I've uncovered a pandemic here, involving Sony CCDs built between 2002 and 2005, affecting many different camera types. Now the problem may not manifest itself until after the warranty expires (what a surprise) but, if your camera is on the GROWING list of cameras that Sony supplied CCDs to, you should be able to get the defective CCD replaced at NO CHARGE to you.
Here's the problem:
Sony supplied multitudes of plastic-encapsulated CCDs (rather then the true hermetically-sealed CERAMIC packages) for its own cameras, as well as Nikon and a bunch of others (see www.engadget.com/2005/10/10/sony-comes-clean-about-CCD-defects.html). The problem with plastic encapsulants is that, over time, moisture will--I say again: WILL--make its way through and start ADVERSELY affecting the electrical properties of the CCDs and other chips.
I know: I was a plastic package reliability technician for three years at Intel Corporation (Chandler, AZ) during the '386 and '486 heydays. I assisted in numerous studies involving different temperature-humidity conditions and their effects on plastic-encapsulated components (which are cheaper, of course, than hermetics). And, while I'm at it, I was also involved in studies on how well multi-layer leadframe insulators based on 3M Kapton polyimide and Upulex (Japanese polyimide) performed under various temperature-humidity conditions. They didn't do so well--a fact that would manifest itself in very unpleasant ways in the AIRLINE industry, which had used polyimide as wiring insulation (the stuff is hard to burn, but moisture will embrittle it over time).
I showed this picture in an earlier thread from my Nikon Coolpix 5400; this behavior of banding, smearing and off-coloring of my images started a month ago, and has been getting worse in frequency (see below).
Now be aware that there's been NO ANNOUNCEMENT of a product recall (like there has been of Nikon EN-EL3 batteries, or certain Dell laptop computer batteries that have had a nasty tendancy to burst into flame), so you have to do some digging. If you DO have a product with a Sony sensor built between 2002 and 2005, and it's starting to give you fits :bash , you might want to see if it's included in any service advisories. Unfortunately, my camera hasn't YET been included (only the Nikon Coolpix 3100 and 5700 are officialy "advised" for FREE sensor replacements) and I had a bit of an argument with Nikon Service Relations about it, who claim ignorance at this point. Oh sure, they said I could send it in, and see if the problem is one that they can add to the service advisory.
That's right: IF!!!
You know what would happen, right? They'd claim some other problem that I'd have to shell out some BUCKS for--and they'd already have my camera.
Nice try, Nikon. You haven't scored any brownie points with me today!
So, here's that picture. If you want to see other expamples, I'm getting more and more...until that fateful day when I'll be greeted by the "Black Screen of Death".
You know, they should have at least used conformal coatings (like they do for chiefly automotive electronic components) to seal out the moisture.
But that would have made too much sense, RIGHT Sony and Nikon???
Even my camera nikon 5400 has a problem
Even I am facing the same problem with my Nikon 5400 .. I have given replacement for the cost of $200+.. Now I should do something to ask my money back. how do i go about.. i am helpless?? .. pls advise..
Thread #48 below, by Mako Mama, suggests a ray of hope. I haven't had time to pursue this yet.
However, if I'm reading this right, you already had your CCD replaced and Nion stuck you with the bill.
Somebody's playing Dirty Pool here but, if you can get some info from Mako Mama (so far, this person hasn't sent me whatever documentation used--I need that to prevent Nikon from pulling a fast one as they apparently did you; if you had the same documentation showing some precedent, you may be better positioned for a REFUND).
Even I am facing the same problem with my Nikon 5400 .. I have given replacement for the cost of $200+.. Now I should do something to ask my money back. how do i go about.. i am helpless?? .. pls advise..
Note that Canon, Fuji, Minolta, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Ricoh and Sony products are listed. I would bet that more models will be listed as the scope of the problem manifests itself through time.
Products include digital cameras, both digicams and one dSLR, camcorders and PDAs are listed.
ziggy53
Since we have a large number of new folks here, I thought I would resurrect this thread as a public service.
The cameras affected list in the link above was last updated Feb 2007, so some additional cameras were added.
Comments
Hey Chris,
Here's a little present for you (and anyone else who gives a [rhymes with "hit"]) to get more of a "clue" around here--your very own sony Quality and Reliability Handbook!
I stumbled on a site where I was able to down my very own, 240-page manual (2.34MB, PDF, for free!). Of small comfort to my current--and unresolved--dilemma are pages 53, 55, 63-65 and 111.
You know, after all these years, you-da thought somebody woulda come up with a better bondpad material than aluminum.
ALUMINUM.
Why does it have to be aluminum??? It's such a sensitive, tempermental and unforgiving metal when on such thin layers as bondpads on chips. Throw in some moisture for starters. And God help you if there's any chloride (present everywhere), bromide (flame retardant used in some plastics) or iodide (present in the adhesives of those bad CCDs)around!
Oh, and there are funky mechanical stresses peculiar to aluminun that you might find amusing.
Did I also mention "electromigration" of aluminum?
So download your FREE copy of that manual at http://products/sel.sony.com/semi/PDF/quhb.pdf , while I throw up some more!
:puke
I would guess that aluminum is easier & cheaper to get than the "proper" material, whatever that may be.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
Why they didn't go with copper before is beyond me!
OK. So I was pretty well giving up on my Nikon E5400 as my picture failure rate was about 90 percent and climbing, and I grudgingly had to settle for my company-issued Canon Powershot A520. It's an ok camera, but not that thrilling.
Meanwhile, what appeared to be the remnants of Hurricane John passed over the Verde Valley. Getting rather annoyed at how fast that Canon used up batteries (no lithium battery was supplied--and no lithium for my MOOD SWINGS either!!!), and I thought I'd try that sick old Nikon one last time.
I monkeyed with the settings and then I found something: I never used the 3.2 MP image size before (it essentially crops a bit off the top and bottom halves of a 5 MP picture to make it look like 35mm format). So I tried that setting and...
...for some reason the camera worked like a CHAMP again! My guess is that the defective bondpads (or whatever) are bypassed--by not being used--with that 3.2 MP setting. I took about 200 shots this afternoon of pets, bugs, storm clouds, my face, flowers and they ALL turned out without the slightest purple smearing or any lines! I did maybe underexpose some shots but heh-heh...
Heck, I'll take 3.2 MP over an otherwise dead camera any day!
Getting off the subject just a bit, those new-fangled FOVEON image sensors are bragged about as having over 10 MP. But I wish these guys would get their vernacular straight: stacking three different color filters within silicon just means you stacked "pixels" on top of each other. The footprint is still only occupied by some 3.4 MP, right? So on that note, I don't feel so bad about not having all 5 MP to use right now, although those Sigma DSLRs probably take much nicer images than my camera.
Steve,
First of all, congratulations on your lateral thinking. It is wonderful that just changing modes gives you back quality images.
Most cameras only capture in one resolution, that of the imager, and then they interpolate to different resolutions, usually downward. If this is the case, then the image processor section may be to blame, not the imager itself.
Sony had developed some chips that were dual personality resolutions, but I believe they were just for video applications.
I would suggest that you also try TIFF format for storage, to see if that is affected the same way as JPG.
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Is it just me, or do TIFFs sometimes use more memory than RAWs?
Do you mean disk space? A Canon .CR2 raw file from a 20D is generally around 8MB. Converting that to an 8 bit TIFF gives 24MB and to a 16 bit TIFF gives 48MB. Big difference.
Right, plus they have white balance applied, so they are potentially not much better than a low compression JPG.
Trying the TIFF file format is just a test.
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
The title says it all.....my 5400 has the identical problem. I wrote a nice note to Nikon Service telling then that they ought to replace my sensor for free. Fat chance, I suspect, but you gotta try.
- In SETUP, set your Auto Off to 30 minutes
- In MOVIE mode, choose Time Lapse Movie, and choose a short interval (between 30 seconds and 5 minutes)
- Set the camera somewhere and let it do its thing ( keep the flash off--you won't need it).
What you're trying to do here is run the camera through a "burn-in", and let it go all night.After you're done, format that CF card (way faster than deleting in the camera) and see if you get any improvement. If you see some, but it could be better, try fiddling with the Image Adjustment, Saturation Control, Image Quality/Size, and Image Sharpening.
You might find a way around this (Ziggy also suggested using TIFF [JPEG HI in this camera] but that didn't work for me [and makes files that are enormous--at least as large as RAW]).
Let us know if anything works for you. However, if it does, you may find the effect temporary (lasting just a couple of days like for my camera) but try another "burn-in" again and you may be able to restore operation (again).
You know, it's really a shame that this has to happen, as I had otherwise really liked my 5400!
Oh, and welcome to DGRIN!
I like to watch 'Modern Marvels' on the History Channel and, last night, COPPER was featured. Near the end of the show, I was finally enlightened as to why copper wasn't originally used for bondpads.
Copper apparently has an annoying tendency to change the electrical properties of silicon--especially when "doped" to cause those electrical properties to begin with.
I have to dig a bit, but I so vaguely recall that copper may even be one of the "dopants" used in ion implantation of silicon chips. I could be wrong, though.
Anyway, there appears to be a process now that forms a microscopic barrier against copper-silicon interaction, which opens the door for the use of copper ON--rather than just AROUND--the chip. The advantages here are that, as copper can carry more current than can aluminum, the circuits can be made even smaller, and the clock speeds can be 40% faster than with chips using aluminum circuitry and bondpads--all while using less power.
There are other metallurgical issues that favor the use of copper over aluminum. As long as undesireable direct contact between copper and silicon can be prevented, you'll have a superior chip to before.
Take more pictures!
Yep, if a Sony product is on their service advisory list, that's a very good thing--especially since WARRANTY is not an issue here!
My camera's not made it yet on Nikon's service advisory. Waah.
I was wondering if you resolved your problem with your 5400 I am starting to have the same problems with mine finally dies with a light flickering in the lcd screen and no picture focus any info would be appriciated.
Thanks Robatash
Steve-o,
I own a 5400 that had rotten ccd too. Nikon charges nothing to look at a camera. I called company, explained problem, got run through a few tests and service person asked me to send camera in with cover letter stating problem. I sent letter telling them that I thought a camera that cost as much as a Nikon should last longer than 17 months. Also that I was aware of the recall on their other cameras (5700, etc) and that since my camera was manufactured in the same time frame and used same Sony CCD, I was sure the cause of failure was the same. They sent my estimate by snail mail and I replied in email. They KNOW they have a problem but just wont aknowlege it publically. By the way,Cost-$00000000 They were very nice over the phone to talk with. My camera was back in 5 days.
mako-mama
There you go Steve. Send your camera to Mako-Mama, and everything will be alright. (I do suggest maybe dinner and a dance for compensation?)
... Or, just do the same thing, be nice, and see what happens.
ziggy53 (They don't call me "Trouble" for nothing.)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Looks like you had a much better response than I did! As I have a plastics plant to sample this month in Commerce CA, I could hand-deliver the camera to the El Segundo (LAX area) Nikon service center and...
...check your private message: I need a favor!
Dinner and a dance, you say? I'll ask my WIFE for permission, but I'm sure she wouldn't mind.
Instead of trying to sue these yayhoos (trying to organize a class-action suit might be a good idea if you can find enough Fuji camera owners similarly afflicted--and an attorney willing to fight pro bono [to you]), just show off the fine Fuji product in as many digital photography forums as you can get into. They may get the message through the grapevine.
I don't know why these camera makers are covering up for Sony so much, unless Sony has such a tight grip on imager manufacturing that they've become the de facto supplier monopoly, Foveon notwithstanding.
Even I am facing the same problem with my Nikon 5400 .. I have given replacement for the cost of $200+.. Now I should do something to ask my money back. how do i go about.. i am helpless?? .. pls advise..
However, if I'm reading this right, you already had your CCD replaced and Nion stuck you with the bill.
Somebody's playing Dirty Pool here but, if you can get some info from Mako Mama (so far, this person hasn't sent me whatever documentation used--I need that to prevent Nikon from pulling a fast one as they apparently did you; if you had the same documentation showing some precedent, you may be better positioned for a REFUND).
Since we have a large number of new folks here, I thought I would resurrect this thread as a public service.
The cameras affected list in the link above was last updated Feb 2007, so some additional cameras were added.
Good luck amd good shooting,
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums