Is D7000 really that bad?

<p>Bob, it's been my experience that all the DX cameras are pretty terrible for manual focus use and have some give in the focus confirm dot. D80, D90, D7000, D300 even. I don't know why it's like that, but I've never been able to get really good focus with manual lenses without going to live view and zooming. The same camera will nail focus in AF then show a focus dot in MF when it's actually way off.</p>

<p>Now the D700, that does a heck of a job - I can focus an f/1.2 lens using the dot and arrows.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...it's been my experience that all the DX cameras are pretty terrible for manual focus use..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Try the D2H or D2X. Manual focusing with my D2H is entirely comparable to manual focusing with my F3HP with E grid focus screen. Both offer equally bright and crisp views for manual focusing. Neither offers a manual focusing aid - split-image or microprism - which some photographers may need depending on their vision, subject matter and lighting.</p>

<p>The lower magnification of the high eyepoint, 100% finders may not suit some folks. I suspect that's more of a factor with Nikon's pro-level DX dSLRs than most other complaints.</p>

<p>I will confirm that the D2H green focus confirmation dot is only an approximation. I don't use it anyway because it's out of the line of sight. But in 7 years with the D2H I've never had any problems with ordinary manual focusing, even though my vision has deteriorated enough over the past few years that I need non-prescription reading glasses for the computer or reading. My distance vision is still fine, and I don't need glasses for photography.</p>

<p>Regarding the D7000 AF issue, no idea, never tried it. The last new Nikon dSLR I tried was the D90 which offered excellent AF.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread. I wish that I had seen it before I purchased my brand new D7000 just a little over a month ago.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Bob, thanks for your well written post. Aside from this thread, there are many more here and elsewhere about the D7000 AF. Reports like yours had kept me from purchasing one. I won't be able to use a body that cannot reliably and consistently focus accurately.</p>

<p><a name="00ajvH"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=981510">Robert K</a>, as far as I can tell, you never miss any D7000 AF problem discussion, but if you look around, on DPReview there are endless discussions on D800 AF problems since that camera was shipped in late March. On this forum a few people have claimed to run into D800 AF isuses but it is not nearly as crazy as on DPReview.</p>

<p>On any popular camera, even 4, 5% of owners report problems, you will see "a lot of" discussions. According to Nikon, they are manufacturing 30K D800 a month, so there are probably 200K D800 cameras out there. If 5% of those 200K is defective, that is 10K defective units, and if 1% of those 10K owners complain, that would be 100 complaints. The D7000 has been around for far longer than the D800 and is much cheaper. Therefore, Nikon has sold a lot more of them (my estimate is well over one million D7000 sold by now, probably more like 1.5M) and you can do the math yourself.</p>

<p>If you have any concerns about D7000 or D800 AF issues, I wouldn't hesitate to get one (from a store that lets you exchange a defective camera) and then immediately test its AF capabilities. It should take no more than an hour to discover any real AF issues, thus giving you plenty of time to return any truely defective camera, and of course Nikon gives you a one-year warranty beyond that.</p>

<p>For those who are new to DSLRs, the D7000 and D800 have very dense pixels so that they are far more demanding on lenses than film (the D3200 is even worse). If you manual focus, I would put the camera on a tripod and use live view to focus manually, where you can magnify a small portion of the image to tune the focus, manually; the camera's AF system is not even involved. If you still can't get sharp images, most likely your lenses are not good enough for modern digital any more.</p>

<p>Otherwise, from now on to the foreseeable future, I am sure that for every new Nikon DSLR they introduce, there will be a lot of complaints, on AF and other issues. If you keep worrying about it, you will never buy another camera. You can try Canon, but you'll find lots and lots of complaints about Canon as well. There are a lot of trolls around on forums.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=981510" rel="nofollow">Robert K</a>, as far as I can tell, you never miss any D7000 AF problem discussion ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shun Cheung, neither have you.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>There are a lot of trolls around on forums.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are as many cheerleaders as trolls. Readers are responsible to tell who is who.</p>

<p>Robert, you are missing my point. I routinely participate on all sorts of topics on this forum, but as far as I can tell, while you almost never miss a D7000 AF discussion, you rarely post to this forum on any other topic.</p>

<p>There are of course defective Nikon DSLRs, but it is not like if you happen to get one of them, you are stuck. Any AF issues it not difficult to identify so that you can get an exchange promptly from your dealer; it is not a problem that would take weeks or months to develop (as some electronic problems would). In case you miss that window to exchange, be it 7 days or 30 days, Nikon warranties their cameras for a year (or longer in some countries, e.g. 2 years in Canada). I just don't see what the risk is. You can see how much trouble Nikon Canada went through to fix Alan McLaren's D7000 and eventually identified the lens problem.</p>

<p>In the mean time, I have recommended the D7000 to many people, from close friends to strangers who merely send e-mail to me for advice. As far as I can tell everybody is happy with it. If for whatever reason you don't want the D7000, you can wait for the next model. I assume Canon and Nikon will announce a few DSLRs before Photokina, but regardless of what they announce, I have no doubt that there will be lot of "horror stories" about them on web forums. That is simply the nature of the internet. If those "horror stories" are all you want to believe in, you will never buy another camera, or fly in another airplane, take another trip ....</p>

<p>I have seven Nikon DSLRs, all of different models. I will be on a trip to remote Washington State to photograph nature. For that trip I am taking exactly two DSLRs: a D7000 and a D800E, both models have lots and lots of AF complaints, but somehow they serve me very well.</p>

I live with someone who has recently become visually impaired. She doesn't see as well as I do. The situation poses some rather unique challenges for both of us. For example, when I see something happening in the environment that could pose a threat to her, I warn her about it. Invariably, her vision is not adequate to perceive the problem, so an argument ensues in which she insists that I am wrong because she fails to perceive the threat. The reality of the situation is that an environmental threat actually exists, and that one person recognizes a factual problem that another person fails to recognize; when one person informs the other, the person being informed resists accepting the information because it conflicts with their experienced sensory perception. In my case, she hasn't yet learned to yield to someone who can see the big picture better than she can. She holds onto the premise that if she does not perceive something then it can not exist. This amounts to an embarrassing failure in logic. There's no point in arguing with her. She doesn't perceive the threat. She resists new information that conflicts with her experience. It's hard to modify her behavior because she's lived all of her life trusting her sesnory perception.

<p>

I see the same thing happening here. One group of people is reporting real life problems that they experience with their cameras, while another group of people who don't recognize these problems insist on arguing that the other group's perception is wrong. The result is a conversation that goes nowhere, but involves 10 pages of head bumping between the most adamantly positioned on both sides.

<p>

It would be more productive to admit that problems really exist. It's pointless to argue that they don't. Doing so amounts to arguing from a position of ignorance:

<p>

"I have not experienced the problem, therefore no problem exists."

<p>It is good to see there is a little bit of difference in opinions and yes I have mine. With my D7000 my expectations were high. I had problems and worked a long time on my own to see if experience(7 months) could help me overcome them. I did get better results but I believed there was more to it than experience. I was frustrated with my results. I contacted Nikon(the history of that is in this thread) and took my camera in for service. Still not happy, I continued with the help of Nikon service until my problems could be worked out(5 trips). My camera and 3 lenses needed adjustments. Nikon service spent time with me shooting photographs at their service centre before taking things away.<br>

It would have been nice if I never needed service. But if you need service Nikon will help. My example of working through a problem is not the norm. My problem involved equipment and me and both needed help. The D7000 capabilities are still ahead of mine. To help with this I send the odd photo to Nikon for there input.<br>

Now I use the word clarity instead of focus. Lighting and its understanding to get a clear looking photo is much more critical with the D7000 that the D90(these are my 2 cameras) in my experience. Some of my photos look unfocused yet it is the lighting that causes this. This is my experience after service.<br>

I'm starting to ramble on a bit here. I here a lot of "you need to learn how to use the camera". This may be true in some cases(probably is). Pointing out what needs to be learned and where to find it will go a long way. Thom Hogan has a saying at the top of his page on Discipline "<em>No, I'm not into S&M, though sometimes achieving best shot discipline seems like it."</em><br>

It you think you have a problem call Nikon. Take the time to do what needs to be done. Learning how to do something well, is not easy and you will get frustrated. If you can stay with it, in the end you will understand.<em><br /></em><br>

<br />One cent two<br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I see the same thing happening here. One group of people is reporting real life problems that they experience with their cameras, while another group of people who don't recognize these problems insist on arguing that the other group's perception is wrong. The result is a conversation that goes nowhere, but involves 10 pages of head bumping between the most adamantly positioned on both sides.<br>

It would be more productive to admit that problems really exist. It's pointless to argue that they don't. Doing so amounts to arguing from a position of ignorance:</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bob, I am afraid that is not at all the case here, since we are not all looking at the same D7000 camera.</p>

<p>Again, for consumer electronics, a 3% to 5% defective rate is considered normal. For something like the D7000 which Nikon must have sold perhaps 1.5 million units, there is no doubt that several 10's of thousands defective ones are out there at some point. In fact, I have never heard of any camera model that does not have defective units.</p>

<p>However, I find it rather silly that some people only focus on the defective reports. For each defective one found, who knows how many 10's of good ones are also sold? I bought my D7000 as soon as it was available in November 2010 so that it is among the earliest ones, and it is as perfect as it can be given the D7000's design limits, e.g. a shallow memory buffer that frequently annoies me. If one happens to receive a defecitve one, I would get it exchanged quickly and if you miss that window, make sure that Nikon fixes it under warranty. If Nikon cannot fix it after 2, 3 tries, pressure them to exchange for a new one. I see no reason why anybody is using a new D7000 that not as perfect as mine.</p>

"Again, for consumer electronics, a 3% to 5% defective rate is considered normal. >

<p>

My job is in Statistical Process Control at a major American manufacturing corporation.

<p>

As an expert on quality control in the manufacturing industry, I'm going to have to disagree with you regarding the quoted rate of defects that is considered acceptable in manufacturing consumer electronics A defect rate of 3% to 5% may be considered to be acceptable to a ghost/contract manufacturer that is knocking out a quick run of disposable-quality garbage electronics in an overseas manufacturing plant, where the manufacturer's objective is to produce the lowest quality merchandise that he can put-off onto a customer who doesn't bother to keep quality-control staff on-site to monitor the manufacturing process, but those quality standards that you referenced can only be considered an epic failure for any brand-name manufacturer in the 21st Century. A failure rate of 3% to 5% is so high that the cost of servicing and repairing defective equipment becomes burdensome and ruins profitability. Modern manufacturing methods strive to produce near-100% defect-free rates so that the unnecessary expense associated with the repair and replacement of defective merchandise can be avoided.

<p>

A failure rate of 3% to 5% is a pathetically high failure rate for a "precision instrument" such as a camera that costs over US$1,100.00. In the era of mechanized manufacturing and Statistical Process Control, Six-Sigma manufacturing provides defect-free rates of 99.99966%. That is the accepted standard, not 95% to 97%.

<p>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma

<p>

Personally, I think there's a huge difference in the expectations of reliability when comparing something like an $1100 Nikon camera and a $20 disposable Chinese-made generic brand DVD player that you'd buy at a discount store. Defect-free rates of 95% to 97% are not at all representative of today's quality standards in precision manufacturing. They are indicative of sloppy, careless manufacturing standards, where quick profit is the main objective and quality control is a secondary concern. To claim that a D7000 should have a defect rate of 3% to 5% amounts to setting the bar to an unacceptably low standard. If I had known that such a high defect rate should be considered normal, then I wouldn't have considered buying a D7000. If a defect rate of 3% to 5% is considered normal for this camera, then the answer to the original poster's question is an unqualified yes -- the D7000 really is that bad.

<p>

I honestly hope that you're not speaking for Nikon when you say that a reject rate of 3% to 5% should be considered normal. That kind of statistic represents quality control that is just awful. Unfortunately, such an abysmally low level of quality control seems to be typical for much of the low-end garbage that is being imported into the USA today.

<blockquote>

<p>I honestly hope that you're not speaking for Nikon when you say that a reject rate of 3% to 5% should be considered normal. That kind of statistic represents quality control that is just awful.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bob, I only speak for myself. Like most members here, I am merely a Nikon camera user, although I have been one for quite a while and am quite happy about Nikon products.</p>

<p>Sorry to be blunt, and again I only speak for myself, but if you indeed think a consumer DSLR such as the D7000 or even a professional DSLR such as the D4 were some sort of "precision instrument" and should have a six-sigma defect rate, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.</p>

<p>I have to agree with Bob I went through 2 D7000's before giving up<br>

It's nothing to do with limits of phase detection, user settings, camera set-up. Both showed heavy back focus out of the box both bought this month. Nikon's D7000 problems are far from over. AF inconsistent..inaccurate and even AF fine tune can't solve the problems.</p>

 

<p>I recommended testing without lens filter. If filter is bad or fake, it's affect focus a lot.</p>

<p>No filters over 10 lenses tested including some pro level glass. All showed strong back focus. Nikon have serious issues here and they are still not resolved. I've entry DSLR's from years ago that smoke the D7k for AF and badly at that.<br>

How can 2 years later this model still have problems? I've no confidence in Nikon left after this. I can appreciate the frustration of some users with this problem.</p>

<p>I have before really bad back focus issue, when using hoya filters, but without filters, focus is perfect. Hoya filters change long distance focus about -9 micro settings (af fine tune settings). And filter focus problem is also old D90. D90 focus also perfect ,when not using filter at all. I hate filters. It's marketing shit.</p>

Just stay away from the cheap ones. I don't know about what they might or might not be doing to focus but they certainly

add flare. I stick with B+W multicoated ones.

<p>Not sure how we got onto filters. Quick reply yes it does appear to be "that bad" maybe I'm more fussy than most but I could never have fun shooting with a D7k constantly worried if the shot is in focus.<br>

In many ways a superb camera, but not for AF</p>

<p>I have had my experience with the D7000 for some time now. After many times in for service including lenses with it. I believe it is not perfect. Things have improved since service, but not as good as I would have liked. I was having problems using single point AF on small items with the VR turned on. In continuous, the focus would constantly adjust itself, never quite getting proper focus. After contacting Nikon, I was told it was the VR causing this and to turn the VR off. This did solve this focusing issue. Because of this I now leave VR off. When photographing birds in flight, the VR inter-fears with the AF staying on target. Everyone's experiences will be a little different. The only filter I use on occasion is nikon's own Circular Polarizing Filter. Focusing properly is not as easy as it should be. Manual focus accuracy with this camera is not much better. looking for the green dot to appear while focusing means taking your eye off the subject. When the item is in proper focus, the images are incredible. Learning to use this camera to get what I want has taken its toll. It works because I am working within its limitations. 10% excellent - 30% good - 20% poor - this would be my average. I shoot a large volume of images in-order to pick one with good focus. I have now spent over 500 hours using this camera. When I have an issue I call Nikon. When the photographs come out perfect, they are amazing. Proper focus and holding the camera still do make a huge difference. I was hoping VR would help me with camera movement but it has yet to benefit me.<br>

My two cents </p>

<p>Check metadata/exif/subject distance and see if the figures given (in meters) make sense for the image.</p>

<p>Thanks Henrik, Good Thinking. Could you elaborate on this a little. </p>

<p>More than a year later since my last post.... I am still having focus issues with my D7000. The lens I use does not seem to matter, hand held or tripod with remote. The focus is inconsistent from shot to shot even on a stationary item shooting with tripod and remote. If I manual focus with live view I can get good focus. <br>

I have had this in to Nikon service 5 times and my problem persists. All my lenses have gone in for service as well, often together. <br>

Warranty is now over for me and this camera. I have sold my 300mm f2.8 VRII as it never focussed properly. I sold it for 2000 less tan I paid, very sad. Yes it was in for service too.<br>

I have spent a lot of money on Nikon products and tried to work with them. I feel my time has been waisted. I know others have had a better experience than I. The only lens that has worked well with this D7000 is my Tokina 11-16mm f2.8.<br>

I am thinking I have spent enough time trying.<br>

Thank you all for your help.<br>

Sincerely,<br>

Alan</p>

 

<p>Alan, sorry to know that your bad experience continues. However, I think Ilkka made a good suggestion, directly to you, almost two years ago (see above):</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=19054">Ilkka Nissila</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jun 14, 2012; 08:44 a.m.</p>

<p>Alan, sorry to hear about your experience. I would at this point simply request Nikon or the store you bought it from for a full refund, or a refund which can be used in partial payment for another camera (a D800 perhaps). If a defective unit cannot be repaired it should be the manufacturer's (or importer's) responsibility to replace it with a correctly functioning unit (as per warranty) or provide a compensation in the form of a refund. Of course they will not refund the cost of your lenses, so you are probably best off getting a D800 (if that is satisfactory for you) rather than going for another brand.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If Nikon cannot repair the D7000 and 300mm/f2.8 AF-S VR after many attempts, you should request a new one or get a refund. I am sure that there are so called "lemons" among Nikon products. It is unnecessary to sell it privately and take a major loss.</p>

<p>In particular, the D7000 has now been replaced by the D7100, which has Nikon's top-of-the-line AF system. I have used two of them and its AF is wonderful.</p>

<p>Ikka Nissila, thanks you.<br>

The 300mm has been sold.<br>

Nikon also suggested for me to buy the D800 as a way of getting the photos I was after. <br>

When I presented multiple images taken with the D7000 and the 35mm f1.8 dx on a tripod of a group of people in a single line facing the camera. Face detection picked up all the faces, At this point I stepped away and used a remote and took multiple shots. It was a sunny day, I was set on "A" on the dial with ISO set to 100 at f8.0. after reviewing the images, the area that looked the clearest in these photos was the trees in the background, about 6 yards behind the people. The digital file showed the focus points on their faces and the background was clear, very odd.<br>

After showing them this, they checked the camera with this lens and found nothing wrong. I asked the customer service person, then how does this happen? The answer was, I was not there and have no idea what happened. <br>

Repeated issues like this and when I asked for a replacement I was told, their is nothing wrong with my product.<br>

Randomly focus stops working altogether and I need to turn the camera off and on which fixes it for a while. Each day I am out this happens at least once. This did not happen while in for service at Nikon. Included with this the camera does not always turn off with the switch. Once I found it on with the switch in the off position after a road trip. <br>

Basically Nikon does not believe there is a problem yet suggested I buy another product (D800) to be happy. I did all these returns in person.<br>

Others have been treated far better.<br>

I am disappointed in Nikon's treatment of this situation. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I had the same response from Nikon, there AF was within factor spec and working properly. But in the field it was showing unpredictable and inconsistent focus. One shot fine, one shot out (way out back focus)<br>

After multiple trips to service, I decided that I did not wish to use Nikon equipment (I can't afford such a high number of missed focus shots for work) I suggest you find another manufacturer and see if they suit your needs better.<br>

I know it's a pain selling off lenses and other items, but I personally feel you have little option left bar trying to get a refund off the seller. You could argue the goods are not of acceptable quality, the other alternative is to hammer Nikon on facebook (and hit them across many regions) until you get a satisfactory conclusion. It will work trust me</p>

<p>Shun Cheung, thank you for your input. Glad to hear you are having a good experience with Nikon. I too would have liked that.<br>

I have tried to get a replacement. Nikon does not give refunds. But there line is that there is nothing wrong even with all I have shown and explained.<br>

Yes, I am very unhappy about loosing on my investment (300mm). The other option is to talk to counsel or walk away. <br>

If you had this experience, would you buy another camera from them?<br>

Thanks again for your input.</p>