Nikon sloppy, can we trust it ?

<p>I've not seen any picture posted in this website taken with the D800 that is not ouf of focus or blurry as some extent. I do not have this camera and I said it before, even if I had the money I would not buy it, simply because it is not the type of camera I do need, but it is very annoying to see other photographers that spent 3k on this camera and the AF is not working properly. </p>

<p>There are several photographers with the same issue around the world, and the worst is that Nikon does not give any solid answer to this problem. They only want you to ship the camera back to them and on the top of that, they are not paying for shipping and handling. The bottom line is that Nikon came up with a camera that is not working properly out of the box. Since when, we as customers, have to pay thousands of dollars for a product expecting to perform as expected out and suddenly on the contrary, is not ? What happen with Nikon that is not getting it right lately ? </p>

<p>Similar problems are out there with the newest D4 and the D7000. So, it seems that Nikon is failing to come out with a product that should be tested in full before put that product on the shelf. What concerns me is that even though I would not buy this camera, I might in the future buy another product from Nikon, probably the rumored D600 or D400 and based on the way Nikon is performing lately, I would have a very strong doubt if any of those cameras will not show the same problem or others, out of the box. Can we trust Nikon based on this lately behavior ?</p>

<p>Maurice -</p>

<p>I'm not sure what you are referring to - I've seen tack sharp images with all of the bodies you mention - with no post processing / focus correction / modification done.</p>

<p>The problem is that people who are happy don't post to this forum - they're out making money and shooting. The people that complain - are on the web - complaining in multiple places and with a loud volume.</p>

<p>For the record - I have a D7000 and have had ZERO focusing issues.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>I'm not sure about that? For example, there are 113 reviews at B&H with 4.9 out of 5 stars.</p>

<p>What you are seeing might be user error amplified by the "Internet Effect".</p>

<p>Looks like a great camera to me.</p>

<p><em>I've not seen any picture posted in this website taken with the D800 that is not out of focus or blurry as some extent.</em><br>

<em><br /></em>Well, now you have.<img src="http://westfordcomp.com/belair.jpg" alt="" width="1714" height="1460" /><br>

<em> </em></p>

<p> </p>

<p>more likely to be the photographer at fault!<br>

Check out the first post in this thread: <a href="00aCVs">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00aCVs</a></p>

<p>Even though I am having an annoying problem with manual focus lenses on my D800E (see other threads if you can bear it) the image quality I have got out of it is amazing so perhaps you are overstating the problems a bit. It is an great camera although I suppose there are some QC problems about now - as David says it's the nature of forums that people mainly come to them with problems and not praise.</p>

<p>D800's are scary sharp. I want one so badly.</p>

<p><em>What happen with Nikon that is not getting it right lately ?</em></p>

<p>Did you notice that in 2011 the city where Nikon's FX cameras are made got hit by a magnitude 9 earthquake and subsequent tsunami that basically flooded much of the city into the Pacific? I would have been surprised if Nikon didn't have production problems in the next year after that.</p>

<p>My D800 (purchased June 2012) autofocuses better than any other camera I've used. It starts focusing with less delay and the percentage of getting the first shot in a sequence in focus is now much higher than with my D3X/D700. It seems to hunt less in low light. I have used my two tough customers with it, the 24/1.4 and the 200/2, and I can't see a problem. I wasn't happy with the D7000's AF though. It is true that some people are getting faulty D800's, but many are not, and eventually Nikon will figure out how to fix the ones that don't work correctly out of the box. I am confident that if they can't figure out how to fix them (unlikely) they will give the customers new cameras which will function correctly. Just give it some time.</p>

<p>@ Maurice Orozco - huh??</p>

<p>Maurice: I detect selection bias in what you're reading and taking away from what's out there. "Several" photographers having problems? Out of ... many thousands and thousands? Out of than many photographers, several have probably also died of heart attacks since the D800 started shipping. But I don't blame Nikon for those heart attacks <em>or</em> for the fact that a tiny minority of people pixel-peeping 36mp files are noticing the flaws in their techniques and their lenses.</p>

<p>Well I wonder if he is reacting to the latest posting <em><strong>Autofocus Problems </strong></em><em>Ju</em><em>ly 16</em><em> (</em><em>commentary</em><em>)</em> <a href="http://www.bythom.com/">ByThom</a>.</p>

<p>Although Thom doesn't quite suggest what Maurice is inferring, other than ensuring that we test the Autofocus operation well.</p>

 

I have a professional colleague who does not subscribe here to PNet but is on my private page and FB. He started using

several D800s not that long ago and every one of his pictures taken under circumstances intended to produce sharp

results are nothing less than stunning. Any other stylistic methods he used also looked fabulous. So, I think the user is probably a good indication of a problem.

<p>Seems to me that some people are holding up these marques to a pretty tough standard.</p>

<p>On a Canon thread, a user was "shocked" to discover that a Canon 5D mkii was not a "decent" nor "basic" camera because it did not meet his one particular need. Now we find out the Nikon is "not getting it right", presumably based on a careful examination of sharpness on the basis of lores images on a computer screen?</p>

<p>We need some Copernicus to tell us better what revolves around what.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I agree with the consensus that, probably, most of the cameras Nikon are shipping are perfectly functional (I hope so, I'm planning to pick up a D800E soon) - but let's not sound too fanatical about being in denial; I'm wary we might be sounding inappropriately dismissive to Maurice. There have been some apparent problems, and Nikon's quality control, while I'm sure not as bad as it's made out by people's complaints, does seem to have let some issues through. No matter; I trust Nikon to resolve them to the best of their abilities (they have a lot of good will queued up from my D700) - but let's not say every product is perfect. Besides, it's common for quality control to improve after a few months of production, and the D800 is still pretty new.<br />

<br />

Of course, if you do see any issues on a computer-screen resampling of an image, it was probably pretty bad in the first place... (And, of the 5D2, a couple of the photos of my wedding are focussed on the background; I'm very happy with the photographer - and most of the images - and, while I'm sure she could have double-checked, I'm blaming the 5D2's autofocus system for the problem. Of course, the 5D3 fixed it... But if we're going to talk quality control, 5D2 black haloes, anyone?)</p>

<p>Sometimes you gotta go back and review the basics of of properly using the camera. <period.</p>

<p>I just finished a photoshoot in the studio tonight and no complaints. Best AF camera I've ever used.</p>

<p>Perhaps we are just making a mountain out of an ant hill?</p>

<p>Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh. I want one. Maurice, buy me one, make me suffer baby.</p>

<p>With the internet, those standing on mole hills sound as loud as those on mountains.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Of course, if you do see any issues on a computer-screen resampling of an image, it was probably pretty bad in the first place</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really? Lots of pictures look fine at hires, but with downsampling and jpg compression, they may end up pretty rough looking without enabling someone to say anything about the <em>camera</em> that took the picture. <br>

Not that I have to worry, myself, but many people here discourage 'borrowing' of their images by purposely keeping things at the margins of resolution and compression.<br>

I really don't think that Maurice deserves anything more than what he got from the assembled masses. If it wasn't purposely a troll, then it sure came out sounding like one.</p>

<p>I'm firmly in Andrew's camp here. I've been using Nikon products for 30 years but have yet to commit to this new body. In fact I bought a D700 last week, my third, because I've read too much less than positive press regarding the D800. Yes, I've also seen the incredible results that have been posted but I haven't been 'sold' yet and I wanted to be sold! Most recently I was told by a D800 user to forget about buying one unless I upgrade all my lenses to new 'N' coated versions or I'm just wasting my time. I currently use AF-S 17-35, 28-70 and 80-200 zooms from 'the old days'. That puts my purchase up around $10,000 with tax. So, I'm back on the fence re-evaluating. </p>

<p>Well, some/most/maybe all of the one shot silver based image recording sensors/media you used were able to out resolve most of the lenses you were using a few decades ago, so what is wrong with a reusable electronic image recording sensor finally being able to do the same thing today?</p>

<p>IMO, Thom Hogan's review is enough to cast an appearance of sloppy QC at Nikon.</p>

 

<blockquote>I don't remember a Nikon model in which I've encountered so many unexplained problems as I ran the camera through the paces necessary to write my Complete Guide.</blockquote>

<p>He's also confirmed AF problems on the copies he's reviewed as well as not handling Ai-S lenses (FEE). Oh, let's not forge the battery recall either. Earthquake or not, Nikon did not bring their A game (IMO). Is the D800 a nice camera with a lot of promise? Sure, why not.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>He's also confirmed AF problems on the copies he's reviewed</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's the problem. He should be reviewing the real thing, not copies!</p>

<blockquote>Really? Lots of pictures look fine at hires, but with downsampling and jpg compression, they may end up pretty rough looking without enabling someone to say anything about the camera that took the picture.</blockquote>

 

<p>Let me rephrase: if there's so much wrong with a camera/lens that you can tell there's something wrong with it <i>compared with a "good" camera/lens</i> once you've downsampled the result to web size, then maybe that's a big enough problem to worry about. I think we're on the same page - I was trying to say that mangling the image for the web can do so much damage that a "bad" camera is irrelevant. By contrast, a "good" camera/lens can look iffy once you start pixel peeping. The joys of digital.<br />

<br />

Aside: This week's Amateur Photographer (in the UK) reviews a range of 24-70 f/2.8 lenses from different manufacturers. The ones tested on a 5D3 got full marks; the ones tested on a D800 lost marks for not being as sharp at f/2.8 as they were at f/5.6 - even though both figures were higher than the 5D3's results. Hence they claim that Nikon's 24-70 is optically inferior to both Canon's new <i>and</i> old 24-70 lenses, which is, shall we say, not the consensus seen elsewhere (at least of the old lens). I believe they were also only testing near the centre of the frame, although they didn't say. If a 5D3 can make a lens look good, downsampling to web size is going to make an order of magnitude difference.<br />

<br />

Gup: Don't get me wrong - I fully intend to get a D800, but I neither claim that the design is perfect nor that every fault seen outside the factory is the user's fault - though Thom Hogan's site does point out that, in addition to some QC problems, there's a lot of issues due to a nut loose behind the viewfinder. It's a specialist camera, and I've no intention of ditching my D700. I too have an 80-200; at least some customers of a D800 + 80-200 are happy, so I'm not expecting a 70-200 upgrade just yet, though I'm sure it'd be an improvement; but then my ownership of an 80-200 is already an afterthought, since I tend to prefer primes in that range. Fortunately some of my lenses are already plenty sharp enough, though there may be a Zeiss 21mm in my future. Of course, you still get the dynamic range advantages of a D800 even if your images are soft, and I'm not sure that a 50 f/1.8 wouldn't hit the sensor resolution at f/5.6.</p>

 

<blockquote>Well, some/most/maybe all of the one shot silver based image recording sensors/media you used were able to out resolve most of the lenses you were using a few decades ago, so what is wrong with a reusable electronic image recording sensor finally being able to do the same thing today?</blockquote>

 

<p>I'm not sure how many films were bought on the basis of their resolution. Tech Pan maybe (and they discontinued it). Velvia, partly. Getting a decent enlargement was tricky, people went to bigger formats if they wanted resolution. Not many films cost three grand... The question is whether the expensive sensor is worth the upgrade if the limiting factor in your image sharpness is your lenses. Personally, I suspect it probably is - the D800 has other advantages, and if the lenses aren't the limit for the D700 but are for the D800, you've still taken a step forward. Besides, the ability to outresolve the D800 is over-blown - depending on how much you care about corners, plenty of lenses kept up with the D7000, used right, so absolute resolving power isn't so amazing. It's not like the D800 has an FX version of the D3200's sensor.</p>

<p>Well said.</p>