Nikon D800e focus issues

<p>I have no idea what this D800 bash is about. Lots of people are enjoying the D800. Sure there are some problems with some cameras, but evidently not universal. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Photographylife has exchanged the Nikon D800 for a Panasonic GH4. Check out their article "Goodbye D800, Hello GH4!"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mukul, this has nothing to do with the D800 being a bad camera and Nikon a bad company. It's a DSLR vs Micro 4/3 issue. The author says this after mentioning the decision to switch to mirrorless: " ...First, let me say upfront that the Nikon D800 is a wonderful camera and is capable of some spectacular images! ...". I empathize with your problem with Nikon. But not everyone has a problem with them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>John Stockdale: "My plan to replace my aging D700 has been put on hold. Thanks to everyone for the warning."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The D800/D810 is a fine camera. Hwvr, if you wish to switch to mirrorless, that's a different story. Lots of pros and cons between the two.</p>

<p> My cameras (D700 and D800E) worked fine with all my lenses, until I bought a 200mm f2. With that lens I had to set the focus adjustment to -20 on both my cameras. I would have set it to -21 or -22 if that had been possible. I sent the lens together with my D700 to Nikon service and got the reply that my D700 was outside specifications and a repair quotation on 600€. Needless to say I declined the offer since the resale value of the camera was less than that. I figured that my D800E required the same treatment, since it had the same problem. I'd like to point out that both my cameras worked flawlessly with all my other lenses, including the 85:1.4G. Of course I had calibrated them all and set individual focus adjustments with both cameras.<br>

Finally I gave up and sold both cameras, without any bad conscience, since the buyers weren't the kind of guys who would use expensive lenses with wide apertures.<br>

I replaced the cameras with a D810 that was almost spot on, and hardly required any focus adjustment with any of my lenses. My impression is that Nikon has learned and taken adequate measures to ensure the quality.<br>

the lesson I learned is that I will always test any new camera thoroughly in order to detect any focus issues immediately, while it is still under warranty. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I replaced the cameras with a D810 that was almost spot on, and hardly required any focus adjustment with any of my lenses. My impression is that Nikon has learned and taken adequate measures to ensure the quality.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or because you are now dealing with a brand new camera where everything is tightly within specs.</p>

<p>Don't mean to sound discouraging, but after a few years of wear and tear and some bumps, things can deteriorate a bit. At least that is my experience. For professional photographers who use their gears heavily, it is necessary to send their gear in for periodic maintenance.</p>

I dropped my D800 once and it got out of alignment by a bit. AF was backfocusing a bit after that incident. It was repaired

but the different fine tune settings for each lens remained an issue. With the D810 my fine tune settings are close to zero

mean (1.6) and the standard deviation between lenses is 4 whereas with the D800 it was originally -8+-8 (mean+-SD) and

after repair +2+-8. I recently bought a D750 for a backup and it seems to work well with identical fine tune settings as my

D810. Although N is very small my observations have led me to think that Nikon has been able to reduce variability. My

guess is that they have developed more sophisticated assembly and calibration procedures which reduce errors and the

differences in fine tune settings between products. Of course much more data would be needed to validate this in the

general case but I'm happy with what I've got and no longer consider AF accuracy a major issue except in low light where

there is more variability in shot to shot results. It still requires user awareness of the limitations of the distance

measurement accuracy and ability to apply appropriate corrections but compared to my D800 there has been big

improvement. I look at AF as a continuously evolving technology rather than make unrealistic expectation of perfection

and be unhappy as a result. Most of my images are of people and events and they rarely make full use of the camera's

resolution. Thus an image that is ever so slightly out of focus at the 36MP detail level can be perfectly fine when printed to

the final display size. A lot of people seem to have forgotten that. For static subjects the LV can be used to achieve

perfect focus for printing large.

 

Apart from that one impact to my D800 I haven't seen AF errors drift over time in the same camera. I do treat my

equipment with care but occasionally something unplanned can happen.

<p>I must say that my D800 has shown reasonably good AF behaviour, and I never bothered with AF fine tune. Nor on my D700 before that.<br>

However the first sample of D7200 I received was, on reflection, pretty appalling. As I said previously, I just couldn't get satisfactory AF across the zoom range of the 18-140mm lens it was supplied with. So obviously Nikon's QC hasn't improved that much of late.</p>

<p>Prompted by this thread I've just been running through my lenses today and checking out their AF performance with my second sample of D7200. AF needs a fine-tune on all lenses to some degree, with a minimum of -3 and a maximum of -7 (mathematically speaking not the correct way round I know!). It now looks like I need to set an across-the-board default fine-tune of -3, which I'd say is acceptable, with a consequent readjustment of individual lens corrections. Good job I have time on my hands due to my leg injury.</p>

<p>I was probably "lucky" that the first D7200 developed a shutter fault and was replaced. Otherwise its flakey AF would have driven me crazy.</p>

<p>Shun, I'd be interested to know if you buy from a supplier that knows your high-profile association with this forum. And that whether the equipment you're supplied with might be "cherry picked" as a consequence?</p>

<p>FWIW, my past dealings with Nikon UK have been very disappointing. Their standard response seems to be to delay returning equipment or contacting the customer for as long as possible; presumably in the hope that you'd rather have a slightly faulty piece of kit rather than none at all.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shun, I'd be interested to know if you buy from a supplier that knows your high-profile association with this forum. And that whether the equipment you're supplied with might be "cherry picked" as a consequence?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rodeo Joe, I don't buy from just one particular supplier. For example, I bought my D300, D7000, D800E, D7100, and D7200 from my local camera store in northern California. They just pick something off the shelf. I bought my D700 at a one-day seminar by Nikon-sponsored photographer Frans Lanting, supplied by a different local dealer at the seminar. Of course I have ordered from Adorama, Amazon, and B&H. Therefore, all of those should be just random samples.<br>

<br />In total, I have bought 9 Nikon DSLRs from various dealers since 2002, in addition to many test samples directly from Nikon. I have never experienced any AF issue out of the box. As far as I am concerned, that is a pretty good track record.</p>

<p>However, the one D810 that produces a lot of corrupted image files out of the box was a test sample directly from Nikon. Clearly they didn't test that camera before shipping to me. On top of that, two out of two refurbished Nikon lenses I have bought from B&H and Adorama, respectively, were both still defective. Therefore, for refurbished, I have a 100% failure rate so far (with only two samples). (At that time a friend also bought a refurb 70-300 AF-S VR from B&H. His sample wasn't even functional out of the box.)</p>

<p>This morning I went back to check the D800E that fell from a chair onto the floor. It looks like it now requires -10 AF fine tune. I'll check a few more lenses on it. Maybe I can live with -10 fine tune and save some money on repair cost.</p>

<p>I expect the D5 will come with a brand new, more sophisticated AF module early in 2016. I fully expect various minor issues with a new design. Unless you have some sense of advantage, I would not buy a D5 in the first three months. Of course, most likely the D5 will be out of the price range for a lot of us anyway.</p>

<p>I have some weird AF fine tune behaviour to report. As I mentioned earlier I'm setting up my lenses on a D7200. I realised they nearly all needed some negative adjustment and put -3 into the "default" menu option. Thinking that I'd now have to subtract -3 from all the lens settings I went back to the kit 18-140 lens to re-adjust; only to find it now needed a positive correction!</p>

<p>So I took the default setting off again and went back to the -3 setting on the lens. All appeared well with "bang on" focus being acheived. Then I switched off AF fine tune altogether. What did I find? - No difference whatsoever! The kit lens still focussed in the same plane and was pretty much perfect. What the **** is going on? Is the fine-tune setting held in the lens and not the camera. Is AF fine-tune some sort of hoax? WHAT!?</p>

<p>P.S. Thanks for that info Shun. Looks like you've just been very lucky with your Nikon purchases then.</p>

<p>As far as I know the default setting is used for those lenses for which the user hasn't set a lens-specific correction in the menu. I've never used the default setting myself. I've read reports that the units in the default setting are different from the lens-specific fine tune adjustments (10 points in default scale may equal 15 in the lens specific scale or something along those lines). I would personally ignore the default setting and determine optimal fine tune for each lens in your applications.</p>

<p>3 points is quite a small correction for a small aperture lens. The shot-to-shot variability in focus is probably greater than that. For fast primes 3 points can start to be a significant error which needs to be corrected if the lens is to be used wide open. Fine tuning is not a hoax but the units of fine tuning are smaller than the variation in focus results from shot to shot. You basically shift the mean of the focus error by applying the correction, but any individual shot can still turn out different from the mean, either back or front focused. If you get equal number of slightly front and back focused results then this is the ideal even though the ultimate ideal would be that each shot is in perfect focus. </p>

<p>RJ, yes there is a correction parameter in the lens too. Otherwise the Dandelion af-fine tune would not work.</p>

<p>Thanks Ilkka, Kari. Those AF fine-tune settings are driving me crazy, and that's without Nikon playing tricks with their numbering system.</p>

<p>Perhaps if Nikon actually <em>explained</em> exactly how the fine-tune system worked it might help. That's if they know themselves! Or is Nikon completely staffed by marketing 404s these days?</p>

<p>This morning, I went back to check my D800E that fell two feet from a chair to the floor. With -10 Default AF fine tune, it looks like several of my lenses work just fine. A couple of lenses will need individual AF fine tune.</p>

<p>I don't think I am particularly lucky with new Nikon DSLR bodies, or for that matter particularly unlucky with refurbished Nikon lenses. Most members here have no problems with their refurblished products, and I am still willing to give them a try when the savings is substantial. Every time I return a refurbished lens, B&H loses on round-trip shipping cost and pays me a full refund. If there are a lot of returns, B&H and Adorma would be losing money like crazy, and I am sure they would stop selling Nikon refurbished products in no time. Those camera stores in New York are not stupid.</p>

<p>However, regardless of whether you buy new, refurbished, or used, it is critical to test your purchased thoroughly. It should take no more than a few hours over a couple of days. If there are any issues, get the item exchanged immediately so that you won't be the proud owner of a defective product. Once the return period is over, getting a proper repair can be tricky, as demonstrated by those refurbished lenses I received and they were still defective.</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=24372">Shun Cheung</a> Your statement that "it is critical to test your purchased thoroughly" reinforces what I was saying - what the heck happened to Nikon Quality Control??</p>

 

<p>Well I spoke to Nikon and sent in some images. They agreed there was a focusing problem and are going to take another shot at repairing it. Let's see what happens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=24372" rel="nofollow">Shun Cheung</a> Your statement that "it is critical to test your purchased thoroughly" reinforces what I was saying - what the heck happened to Nikon Quality Control??</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

No, my statement <strong>does not at all reinforce</strong> what you are saying. It is just good practice to check anything you buy, especially something as complex as a DSLR, so that you won't be stuck with a defective product. Over the years, I have purchased a new Sony TV that is dead out of the box, a high-end Nakamichi CD player that has a slightly defective CD drawer, a Lexar CF card that fails completely ....<br>

<br>

Such good practice is not specific to Nikon products.<br>

<br>

After 38 years as a user, my personal experience is that Nikon's quality control has always been pretty good, but definitely no flawless. For example, back in 1996, a lot of new F5 bodies has the "false battery low" issue. A friend of mine bought two and both required several repairs; one of them required so many repairs that Nikon eventually replaced it with a new one. The major difference between 1995 and 2015 is that there were not nearly as many web forums and blogs such that information didn't spread as quickly. In particular, sadly, in these days a lot of blogs resort to making sensational comments to attract web traffic.<br>

<br>

Modern DSLRs are complex machines that some problems from early samples are expected. Likewise Canon has their share of problems. Way back in the mid 1980's, a friend suggested that one should never buy a car in the first model year after a major redesign as they can be prone to defects. If you are after flawless products, that same philosophy is still true today as it was 30 years ago. Let other pioneers discover those problems.<br>

<br>

Good luck your D800 repair. As I said, Nikon USA warranties their repair for 6 months. Before my D800E accidentally fell onto the floor, its AF was very good. The other D800 test sample also had excellent AF. There is no reason that yours is not as good as those.<br>

<br>

</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>