A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Nikon D7100 refurbished

Jorge Arturo Perez Morales , Jul 02, 2013; 11:41 a.m.

Does anyone has a recent experience with a refurbished Nikon D7100 ?
Would you recommend rather than buying a new one? Seems like it is only $200 the difference...
I will appreciate your comments.


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Dave Wilson , Jul 02, 2013; 11:51 a.m.

Refurbished by who? If it's a direct Nikon refurb on their site I would consider buying it. $200 is subjective, to some that is a lot of money if they work and make $9 an hour minus taxes.

Rich Simmons , Jul 02, 2013; 12:01 p.m.

A refurb? Already. Hmmm....

Rick M. , Jul 02, 2013; 01:47 p.m.

Nikon Refurbs are fine. Who are you getting it from?

A refurb? Already. Hmmm....

Refurbs are generally not broken and repaired cameras. They are samples, demos and factory sold returns.

Michael Bradtke , Jul 02, 2013; 01:57 p.m.

My experience with a refurb has not been so great. Bought a D300s from Nikon when it showed up the camera would not turn off. Anytime a battery was in the camera it was on no matter the position of the switch. Sent it to Nikon for repair under warranty. They replaced a couple of things inside the camera. It is back and is fine but it kind of turned me off to the whole refurb thing.

Kent Staubus , Jul 02, 2013; 02:25 p.m.

I have bought a D300 and a D5100 as refurbs; never had a problem with them. I would not hesitate to buy Nikon reconditioned refurbs, but I would want to save more than $200.

Kent in SD

Rich Simmons , Jul 02, 2013; 02:55 p.m.

Not shrugging a refurb, but since the camera is so new, I'd take it with a grain of salt. I have zero problems with a certified refurb. The camera model has only been on the market for six months. My D5100 was a refurb. Never had an issue, but I bought it from a reliable camera store.

Michael R. Freeman , Jul 02, 2013; 03:47 p.m.

"A refurb? Already. Hmmm...."
"...but since the camera is so new, I'd take it with a grain of salt."

No "Hmmm" or grain of salt needed. Many of these refurbs are from buyer returns to vendors, and they can no longer be sold as new, so the vendor sends them back to Nikon for refurbishment. And thanks to generous store return policies, many buyer returns are not for defects. Often there's not a darn thing wrong with a camera that has to go back to Nikon for an inspection and "refurbishment". 6 months from release date is plenty of time for factory refurbs to find their way back into the supply chain.

$200 isn't a big saving over brand new (about 16.5%), particularly if the vendor doesn't top up the usual Nikon 90 day warranty to a full year. Your call.

Shun Cheung , Jul 02, 2013; 04:56 p.m.

For example, Nikon USA sent me a D7100 for review pretty much as soon as it was available back in March/April. I used it for a month and then sent it to Cara, photo.net's editor in chief. She had it for a few weeks. It is back to Nikon now.

What do you think Nikon does with those review cameras?

Of course there are a number of reasons that a fairly new camera becomes a "refurbished" one. The above is only one possibility, and there are others. Assuming that Cara didn't damage it, if you happen to get the one I tried, it should be great. I have since bought my own D7100 and that one has been fine also.

Michael Kohan , Jul 02, 2013; 05:23 p.m.

I buy refurbs all the time, computers (a MacBook pro 17" 2.2Ghz i7 for for$1900 US down from $2700), cameras, two D300s bodies for $1250 each shortly after earthquake/tsunami over two years ago when I saw that the D400 was going to be long delayed or never, and the prices would go up for existing stock. I was right and only now is the price down again. Both cameras are doing just fine.

    1   |   2     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses