A Nikon DSLR story

[RichA]

Guy buys a D800. Has the left-focus issue. Gets a new one. Same
issue. Guy sends new one in for fixing. They send it back, but now
the focus is off (not by as much) everywhere. Seems they tried to
"average" the error. Guy goes to Nikon directly. He's asking them,
"just give me a new body." They are hemming and hawing.
In comes some photog with their new 800mm lens. Plops it down on the
counter and tells them there is something wrong with it, not
functionally, something physical. Camera repair people run off to get
a manager or something to deal with the guy who wants a new D800
body. The guy wanting the new body and the (evidently, his
description) "internet camera bigwig" start talking to each other.
Manager comes out and insists that they will repair the D800 the guy
already has, but won't give him a new one. Internet guy shouts, "Just
give him a new body!" Nikon gives the guy a new D800.

[Bowser]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:22:43 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:

But did it fix the AF issue?

[RichA]

On Apr 19, 7:31 am, Bowser <id...@think.so> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:22:43 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>

He said that this current one is as good as he's seen. It still has
the left-side issue to a degree, but it's better and the other areas
are fine. He said based on the conversations he had there, it's
impossible with the current camera to fix it completely. I'd really
love to know the mechanics of what has happened, just to know if it
will require a brand new design to correct it. If Nikon releases a
D900 with notable changes, that could be the reason.

[Bowser]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:24:14 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Apr 19, 7:31嚙窮m, Bowser <id...@think.so> wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:22:43 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>

>> >Guy buys a D800. 嚙瘡as the left-focus issue. 嚙瘦ets a new one. 嚙磅ame
>> >issue. 嚙瘦uy sends new one in for fixing. 嚙確hey send it back, but now
>> >the focus is off (not by as much) everywhere. 嚙磅eems they tried to
>> >"average" the error. 嚙瘦uy goes to Nikon directly. 嚙瘡e's asking them,
>> >"just give me a new body." 嚙確hey are hemming and hawing.
>> >In comes some photog with their new 800mm lens. 嚙瞑lops it down on the

>> >counter and tells them there is something wrong with it, not

>> >functionally, something physical. 嚙瘠amera repair people run off to get

>> >a manager or something to deal with the guy who wants a new D800

>> >body. 嚙確he guy wanting the new body and the (evidently, his

>> >description) "internet camera bigwig" start talking to each other.
>> >Manager comes out and insists that they will repair the D800 the guy

>> >already has, but won't give him a new one. 嚙瘢nternet guy shouts, "Just
>> >give him a new body!" 嚙瞇ikon gives the guy a new D800.

>>
>> But did it fix the AF issue?
>
>He said that this current one is as good as he's seen. It still has
>the left-side issue to a degree, but it's better and the other areas
>are fine. He said based on the conversations he had there, it's
>impossible with the current camera to fix it completely. I'd really
>love to know the mechanics of what has happened, just to know if it
>will require a brand new design to correct it. If Nikon releases a
>D900 with notable changes, that could be the reason.

Pretty embarassing for Nikon. The introduce a potentially killer
camera and it's handicapped with an AF issue. What a shame. I'd never
pay that much for a camera and have to work around something as
fundamental as an AF issue.

[RichA]

On Apr 20, 9:27 am, Bowser <id...@think.so> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:24:14 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 19, 7:31 am, Bowser <id...@think.so> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:22:43 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>

> >> >Guy buys a D800. Has the left-focus issue. Gets a new one. Same
> >> >issue. Guy sends new one in for fixing. They send it back, but now
> >> >the focus is off (not by as much) everywhere. Seems they tried to

> >> >"average" the error. Guy goes to Nikon directly. He's asking them,
> >> >"just give me a new body." They are hemming and hawing.
> >> >In comes some photog with their new 800mm lens. Plops it down on the

> >> >counter and tells them there is something wrong with it, not

> >> >functionally, something physical. Camera repair people run off to get

> >> >a manager or something to deal with the guy who wants a new D800

> >> >body. The guy wanting the new body and the (evidently, his

> >> >description) "internet camera bigwig" start talking to each other.
> >> >Manager comes out and insists that they will repair the D800 the guy

> >> >already has, but won't give him a new one. Internet guy shouts, "Just
> >> >give him a new body!" Nikon gives the guy a new D800.

>
> >> But did it fix the AF issue?
>
> >He said that this current one is as good as he's seen.  It still has
> >the left-side issue to a degree, but it's better and the other areas
> >are fine.  He said based on the conversations he had there, it's
> >impossible with the current camera to fix it completely.  I'd really
> >love to know the mechanics of what has happened, just to know if it
> >will require a brand new design to correct it.  If Nikon releases a
> >D900 with notable changes, that could be the reason.
>
> Pretty embarassing for Nikon. The introduce a potentially killer
> camera and it's handicapped with an AF issue. What a shame. I'd never
> pay that much for a camera and have to work around something as
> fundamental as an AF issue.

Ironic that the cheapest cameras in the line don't seem to have these
issues, or is it that their users don't notice them?

[PeterN]

Ironic that ou post an undocumented story, and forget to mention tht the
issue has been fixed. Or, have you stopped reading DP Review.



--
PeterN

[Bowser]

I read DP Review, and still see many, many complaints about the two
latest issues, the AF issue on the D800 and the "ink spots" on the
D600. As far as I can see neither has been completely fixed. Then
again, maybe I missed that story. Can you post a link to anything that
confirms the AF fix? Not being sarcastic, but I really want to know
since my brother is in the market for one.

[PeterN]

I do not have that issue on my D800. When i first got it I brought it
into Nikon repair, and they carefully checked it out, while I waited.
One of my friends, who is quite picky, also has one, and has not had the
issue. Went out shooting this morning with two D600 owners, who have not
voiced any complaints. Perhaps certain batches have the problem. This
afternoon I am going to a presentation by a Nikon sponsored
photographer, with whom I have had some very nice conversations in the
past. I will try to tap him for more information.



--
PeterN

[PeterN]

Sorry, I tried, but could not get more information.

--
PeterN

[RichA]

Hopefully, he's not too "Nikon sponsored" to provide the straight dope.

[PeterN]

Unfortunately, we were unable to have a conversation. [-(

I have had the pleasure of meeting several photographers who were
sponsored by different manufacturers. In private, all were quite
realistic about their the strength and weaknesses of their products.


--
PeterN

[RichA]

Other than the focus issues of the Nikons and the sensor issues of the
Canon's, what else is a weakness of either brand?

[PeterN]

I have no idea. I do not have the focus issue. I don't worry about
Canon. I simply want to make the best images I can. They may not be
great, but I enjoy what I have, rather than bitch about the "flaws" in
things I don't have, and probly never will have.

--
PeterN

[Chris Malcolm]

If the right side is in focus and the left isn't it's not an AF issue,
although setting AF to average between the two might be seen as an
amelioration which could be called by a salesdroid a "fix". If the
unbalanced left right focus issue happens with all lenses then it's a
problem of alignment between lens and sensor or the sensor not being
quite as flat as it should be.

>> >>>>>>> He said that this current one is as good as he's seen.  It still has
>> >>>>>>> the left-side issue to a degree, but it's better and the other areas
>> >>>>>>> are fine.  He said based on the conversations he had there, it's
>> >>>>>>> impossible with the current camera to fix it completely.  I'd really
>> >>>>>>> love to know the mechanics of what has happened, just to know if it
>> >>>>>>> will require a brand new design to correct it.  If Nikon releases a
>> >>>>>>> D900 with notable changes, that could be the reason.
>>
>> >>>>>> Pretty embarassing for Nikon. The introduce a potentially killer
>> >>>>>> camera and it's handicapped with an AF issue. What a shame. I'd never
>> >>>>>> pay that much for a camera and have to work around something as
>> >>>>>> fundamental as an AF issue.

Not an AF issue.

>> >>>>> Ironic that the cheapest cameras in the line don't seem to have these
>> >>>>> issues, or is it that their users don't notice them?

I've upgraded camera bodies and been able to use the superior
resolution and new features to discover problems in some of my lenses,
and problems with some of my well established techniques. Also
happened when I changed from film to digital.

That depends on what things you have come to regard as strengths you
need. For example I never gave a damn about mirror lock up until the
time 30 years ago when I tried to take sharp shots by available light
of distant murals in a dim church. The combination of long lens and
long exposure demonstrated mirror slap vibration problems very
graphically to me. I then decided that lack of mirror lock up was an
SLR camera weakness I'd never tolerate again. And once I'd got past
mirror slap vibration problems I later progressed to regarding shutter
slap vibration problems as a weakness.

Strengths and weaknesses depend on what kind of photography you do and
how. For example I regard not being able to autofocus a mirror lens as
a weakness, whereas most photographers don't even know or care what a
mirror lens is.

[PeterN]

On 4/26/2013 8:32 AM, Chris Malcolm wrote:
> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>

>
>> Other than the focus issues of the Nikons and the sensor issues of the
>> Canon's, what else is a weakness of either brand?
>
> That depends on what things you have come to regard as strengths you
> need. For example I never gave a damn about mirror lock up until the
> time 30 years ago when I tried to take sharp shots by available light
> of distant murals in a dim church. The combination of long lens and
> long exposure demonstrated mirror slap vibration problems very
> graphically to me. I then decided that lack of mirror lock up was an
> SLR camera weakness I'd never tolerate again. And once I'd got past
> mirror slap vibration problems I later progressed to regarding shutter
> slap vibration problems as a weakness.
>
> Strengths and weaknesses depend on what kind of photography you do and
> how. For example I regard not being able to autofocus a mirror lens as
> a weakness, whereas most photographers don't even know or care what a
> mirror lens is.
>

When I bought my mirror lens, that was not a weakness. Autofocus didn't
exist, except in concept.
Actually when I used the term "strengths and weakness" I was referring
to the inherent compromises that each photographer feels can be best for
his shooting preferences.
e.g. While I enjoyed the articulated viewfinder on my old Coolpix, I
became quite impatient with its shutter lag. When I got my new camera, I
had to decide whether being able to shoot at a higher frame rate was
worth the difference in cost. I decided it was not. One of my friends
decided it was. If I did a lot of sports shooting, I would have made the
same decision.

BTW for me one of the great strengths of Nikon, is that I live about ten
minutes from the Nikon repair facility.


--
PeterN

[David Taylor]

On 26/04/2013 13:32, Chris Malcolm wrote:
[]

> That depends on what things you have come to regard as strengths you
> need. For example I never gave a damn about mirror lock up until the
> time 30 years ago when I tried to take sharp shots by available light
> of distant murals in a dim church. The combination of long lens and
> long exposure demonstrated mirror slap vibration problems very
> graphically to me. I then decided that lack of mirror lock up was an
> SLR camera weakness I'd never tolerate again. And once I'd got past
> mirror slap vibration problems I later progressed to regarding shutter
> slap vibration problems as a weakness.

[]

I've just started playing with a new camera, a Nikon D5200, which can
produce acceptable images up to ISO 6400, and what you can do with that
and even a hand-held f/5.6 zoom lens in low light is amazing. Likely no
need for mirror lock-up for my photos today. (No, I don't make large
prints.)
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

[RichA]

On Apr 26, 9:54 am, David Taylor <david-

It's raw images also look less...manhandled than the D7100 images.

[RichA]

On Apr 26, 9:32 am, PeterN <peter.newnos...@verizon.net> wrote:

Kind of a back-handed compliment to Nikon.

[RichA]

I've seen shutter slap WITH mirror lock-up blur images. I'll cheer
the day electronic sensor shutters replace mechanical ones.

[PeterN]

Nope simply one factor in my decision, with most other things being equal.

--
PeterN

[Savageduck]

WTF are you talking about?
"Manhandled"!!??

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Trevor]

"PeterN" <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:517c6460$0$10818$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...

>>> BTW for me one of the great strengths of Nikon, is that I live about ten
>>> minutes from the Nikon repair facility.
>>

>> Kind of a back-handed compliment to Nikon.
>
> Nope simply one factor in my decision, with most other things being equal.

I'd also say not needing the repair facility in the first place would be a
far bigger strength AFAIC.
And the cost, quality, and time taken for repairs would be bigger issues in
any case.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"David Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:kle0nv$ch8$1...@dont-email.me...

Gee, anyone after the last word in sharpness that they worry about shutter
vibration on *long* exposures (where the vibration is likely to be a minor
part of the complete exposure time and therefore less of an issue) is *NOT*
going to be shooting at ISO 6400 instead IMO!

Frankly for long exposures on a good tripod, possibly with a sandbag as
well, it's often easier to just use a black card and wait for any mirror
slap and shutter vibration to settle. It's shorter exposures that may be a
problem AFAIC.

Trevor.

[RichA]

On Apr 27, 8:15 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

Manipulated.

[Savageduck]

On 2013-04-27 23:01:27 -0700, RichA <rande...@gmail.com> said:

> On Apr 27, 8:15�pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-04-27 15:11:44 -0700, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> said:
>>> On Apr 26, 9:54�am, David Taylor <david-
>>> tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 26/04/2013 13:32, Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>>> []> That depends on what things you have come to regard as strengths y
> ou
>>>>> need. For example I never gave a damn about mirror lock up until the
>>>>> time 30 years ago when I tried to take sharp shots by available light
>>>>> of distant murals in a dim church. The combination of long lens and
>>>>> long exposure demonstrated mirror slap vibration problems very
>>>>> graphically to me. I then decided that lack of mirror lock up was an
>>>>> SLR camera weakness I'd never tolerate again. And once I'd got past
>>>>> mirror slap vibration problems I later progressed to regarding shutte
> r
>>>>> slap vibration problems as a weakness.
>>
>>>> []
>>
>>>> I've just started playing with a new camera, a Nikon D5200, which can
>>>> produce acceptable images up to ISO 6400, and what you can do with tha
> t

>>>> and even a hand-held f/5.6 zoom lens in low light is amazing. �Likel

> y n
>>> o
>>>> need for mirror lock-up for my photos today. �(No, I don't make larg
> e
>>>> prints.)
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> David
>>>> Web:http://www.satsignal.eu
>>
>>> It's raw images also look less...manhandled than the D7100 images.
>>
>> WTF are you talking about?
>> "Manhandled"!!??
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Savageduck
>
> Manipulated.

...and just what "manipulations" are applied to RAW files, or in this
case NEFs in the camera?
All you are seeing in whatever RAW processor you are using, or on the
camera's LCD is the embedded jpeg, and those might differ camera to
camera.
Typically the RAW file is going to require some adjustment, and NEFs
are notoriously undersaturated & undersharpened.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

[David Taylor]

On 28/04/2013 04:26, Trevor wrote:
[]

> Gee, anyone after the last word in sharpness that they worry about shutter
> vibration on *long* exposures (where the vibration is likely to be a minor
> part of the complete exposure time and therefore less of an issue) is *NOT*
> going to be shooting at ISO 6400 instead IMO!
>
> Frankly for long exposures on a good tripod, possibly with a sandbag as
> well, it's often easier to just use a black card and wait for any mirror
> slap and shutter vibration to settle. It's shorter exposures that may be a
> problem AFAIC.
>
> Trevor.

Agreed, but what having the higher ISO capability means is that you may
no longer need to carry around a tripod and associated sandbags! I'm
certainly /not/ after "the last word in sharpness", as the size of
images I present doesn't justify that.

[Chris Malcolm]

Me too. With my 500mm mirror lens at shutter speeds of between around
1/300th down to at least large fractions of a sec. Since the lens has
a fixed aperture of f8 that makes it a good light on sunny day lens if
I'm after A3 or bigger print critical sharpness. Feather details on
stationary birds for example.

> I'll cheer
> the day electronic sensor shutters replace mechanical ones.

You must still be using one of those old-fashioned DSLRs :-)

My Sony A77 has a pellicle mirror that doesn't move, and is switchable
between electronic front shutter curtain and mechanical. One of the
first tests I did with it was to photograph a few business cards at
the far end of the garden with my 500mm mirror lens on my best
tripod. I ran through the gamut of nasty shutter speeds with the
mechanical front curtain. As usual at between 1/300 & 1/200th the
familiar few to several pixels of vertical ghosting and smearing
started to appear.

Then I switched to electronic front curtain. Absolutely rock steady
pin sharp right down to 1/10 sec! At 1/10th sec the gusty light wind
was spoiling too many shots to take the tests down further.

I did't just cheer! I jumped up and down and shrieked with delight!
Now I can stop trying to strengthen my muscles and wallet for that
500mm f4 :-)

--
Chris Malcolm

[Trevor]

"David Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message

news:klim86$kvp$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 28/04/2013 04:26, Trevor wrote:
>> Gee, anyone after the last word in sharpness that they worry about
>> shutter
>> vibration on *long* exposures (where the vibration is likely to be a
>> minor
>> part of the complete exposure time and therefore less of an issue) is
>> *NOT*
>> going to be shooting at ISO 6400 instead IMO!
>>
>> Frankly for long exposures on a good tripod, possibly with a sandbag as
>> well, it's often easier to just use a black card and wait for any mirror
>> slap and shutter vibration to settle. It's shorter exposures that may be
>> a
>> problem AFAIC.
>>

> Agreed, but what having the higher ISO capability means is that you may no
> longer need to carry around a tripod and associated sandbags!

No argument there when that is deemed acceptable, but not one in which
"mirror lockup ability" (as originally stated) is probably a requirement
either! :-)

Trevor.

[RichA]

I shot through a 1000mm lens with a Nikon D300 using mirror lock up,
and a Panasonic m4/3rds camera and the Nikon shots blurred at least 2x
as many pixels. Plus, when you consider a lens is automatically going
to show as sharper when using a camera with a larger sensor (see the
lens tests on Dpreview using APS and FF cameras) the blurrier shots
though the D300 illustrate why big DSLR mirrors and big shutters are
bad with long lenses or perhaps even macro lenses.

[PeterN]

I have shown this before. Taken from about 100 yds. The first is
uncroped. This image was hand held and one can barely distinguish the
little critter in ff.

<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC6570.jpg>

--
PeterN