zlight_b

<p>you could always post another message indicating the modifications you wish to make...if the "error" is not serious, don't bother!</p>

<p>24-120 F4!</p>

<p>Mary Doo: "I have no idea what this D800 bash is about."<br> It seriously does not appear to be a D800 bash at all. Maybe it is, but to me it appears to be a discussion about some critical focusing issues by some who are having such issues. As well, a discussion on how best a corporation ought to respond to issues that no doubt are sometimes unavoidable but surely not unfixable. And if the latter, some corporate responsibility as was the case with D600...<br> </p>

<p>in other words Mukul, this is as they say, quite unacceptable. i do hope somebody from Nikon is reading and taking note of this discussion and will do the right thing.</p>

<p>Ilkka Nissilla wrote: "Nikon did cover the adjustment of the AF for free for me but it didn't fundamentally solve the problem. The D810 solved most of it but I still need to fine tune most fast lenses. But the distance and colour dependent effects are mostly gone in my D810 - in fact I'm very happy with the <a id="itxthook6" href="/nikon-camera-forum/00ddrh" rel="nofollow">improvements<img id="itxthook6icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> they have done."<br> This is pretty sad. I can understand that you may be very "happy" with the improvements "they have done" despite the fact that it is not as it should have been to begin with. However, most will not be and should not be contented with Nikon's shoddy attitude to about this. For most, even professionals, pocket change does not buy this camera. To say that "the D810 solved most of it" is also unacceptable for most. At this price point, there should not be any technical issues at all. A sad after-taste to the continuing Nikon-Canon saga...and many know where this seems to be going.<br> </p>

<p>this image quality here is extremely good (and of famous intellectuals i might add!)</p>

<p>"take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but lenses" :) but only if the "trash" cannot be retrieved!</p>

<p>indeed, the VR still kicks in - hence the "shudders"</p>

<p>thanks for this! you make the larger point that for the vast majority of us who do not make money out of photography, there's tons of perfectly good tools that are being discarded because they are labeled as "obsolete" ONLY because technology has "improved". one keeps hearing that body X is "obsolete" simply because it was released 9 years ago."obsolete" in my book means - when i have a film camera and i cannot buy film anywhere. or, i have a digital camera but somehow all the computers have disappeared from the face of the earth. yet, many of us will continue to drop millions of dollars just to catch up with the "latest"...</p>