Nikon - Matches made in Heaven

This should cement my rep as a strange guy. I never considered anything like this with film cameras and lenses, and didn't much previously with digital. Are there specific cases where a particular camera body and specific lens are better than the sum of the two parts? I have often heard people talk about having a "good copy" or "bad copy" of a lens, and once and a while in relation to a body, but never a combination. I have been raving about a used D 7200 combined with an old used non VR AF Nikkor 75-300 4.5 5.6 for some time now. Both close up and far, I have been regularly getting better shots shooting casually than in the past with other camera lens combinations (even taking great pains), though some have been close. Think of this as assisting with a reality check - comments appreciated! Here are a moon shot taken with the combo last night, and a part of a butterfly mating sequence taken this afternoon.

Note: Both hand held. Never knew butterflies could execute Immelmann turns!

 

Edited September 22, 2018 by Sandy Vongries

You got that shot of the moon at 300mm? I need to get out at night more! :)

You got that shot of the moon at 300mm? I need to get out at night more! :)

Lens comes out at 450 equivalent on a DX camera - it is a pretty severe crop.

I was surprised - until I looked at the EXIF: both at 300mm and f/13 and f/10, respectively. That explains my surprise - the lens is indeed quite good across the frame at 300 when stopped down two stops (it's actually quite good below 200mm at all apertures). At 300mm and f/8, center sharpness is also good but the borders are soft. At f/5.6 and 300mm, the lens is just soft. I only used it on a D70 and possibly a D200 for a brief period - so I am still surprised it holds up on a D7200.

"Are there specific cases where a particular camera body and specific lens are better than the sum of the two parts?"

 

- Better than the sum of the two parts? Not possible IMO Sandy, but it's definitely possible to get combos that perform better than others.

 

In particular, I think that Nikon's DSLR AF-sensor arrangement is fundamentally flawed. Having the AF sensor dependent on exact alignment with the image-plane and using a portion of light diverted through the main mirror plus a secondary mirror, makes for a very unstable system that's reliant on perfect factory setup, and on tight repeat tolerances in all the moving parts. Not to mention that the AF points indicated in the viewfinder are totally uncoupled from the actual sensor points. So obviously there are going to be some camera bodies that give better AF accuracy than others.

 

Then there's the VR system in the lens, which again, being a collection of moving parts must be tolerance dependent. And that's without considering the assembly alignment and grind-centring of the lens elements themselves.

 

Personally, I've been more than happy with the performance of my Tamron SP VC 70-300mm zoom. It's extremely sharp and the VC allows handholding at almost unbelievably long shutter speeds. I'm not alone in praising this lens, but I'm certain that a few bad examples must slip through the net. Along with a few Nikon DSLRs that don't cut the AF mustard terribly well.

 

Anyhow. Congratulations on your luck in finding a 'match made in heaven'.

Nikon's DSLR AF-sensor arrangement is fundamentally flawed.

 

While the system does depend on calibration, in practice it works well as long as one understands its limitations, and many feel the Multi-CAM 20k is the best AF system for photographing moving subjects, especially approaching ones. Other AF systems have their own limitations as well, you can read about how well the A9 holds onto focus on a subject that it focused on, but if you read experienced user reports, you can find about its limitations as well, for example in indoor sports the Nikon Multi-CAM 20k is reported to work better than the A9, also before initially acquiring focus, the A9 system can hunt, and it can be difficult to make the system focus on a subject that is closer than the currently focused subject if there is anything focusable other than the closer subject within the image area. There are advantages and disadvantages to different autofocus technologies and mirrorless AF isn't some panacea that will miraculously solve all problems. There are reasons why DSLRs are so widely used and it's not just that alternatives didn't exist, but simply because there are merits to the technology, the optical viewfinder is one of them, another is that the separate AF sensor can pick up subjects that are far out of focus, and works well for low light action as well. For static subjects mirrorless AF can be more accurate and it's a case of choosing the right tool for the task at hand. If you look closely you can find flaws in any system, but also areas of strength.

 

It is certainly possible that while Nikon designs their bodies and lenses to be as cross-compatible as possible, some lenses work better with some sensors than others, and there can also be AF system calibration issues (which can usually be alleviated using either focus fine tuning or in service). The D7200 has a really great sensor and because it's not an especially fast camera, the mirror doesn't need to move as fast and so there is probably less vibration than e.g. with an FX camera (unless MLU and EFCS is used) or even faster DX cameras (which have louder operating sounds due to the fps rate required). I noticed that the D7100 which I had some years ago was really good in this respect; a soft shutter sound and much less vibration than with an FX camera in standard (non-EFCS) mode. In my opinion the D7200 is a sleeper that is better than you'd expect for the price.

Edited September 22, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

Ilkka, I've owned two D7200s, the first of which turned out to be a complete pup. The AF was out by a mile, and fine-tune did next-to-nothing to make it more consistent across a zoom range. It also quickly revealed a faulty shutter that resisted repair. That body was replaced under warranty by one that had far better AF accuracy, and has so far behaved faultlessly.

 

I might never have found out how inaccurate and badly-adjusted the first body's AF was if not for the shutter fault. So I'm wondering just how many more Nikon DSLRs there are out there that simply cannot deliver consistent AF accuracy because they weren't assembled or adjusted correctly in the factory.

 

It's all very well saying they can be sent in for repair/adjustment, but that's reliant on several factors: The competence/willingness of local Nikon service agents, and the experience of the customer in detecting faulty AF in the first place. That just being two of them.

 

No. I'm strongly of the opinion that an AF system should have as many variables as possible designed out. Because it doesn't matter how well an AF system tracks or how fast it acquires 'focus' if that focus plane is erroneous, or varies wildly with zoom setting.

 

Mirrorless AF technology will doubtless improve. It's already very good, and has an inherently error-free optical path, no matter how sloppy the tolerance between lens and sensor-plane becomes. It also has the advantage of 'seeing' the full amount and area of light hitting the sensor, rather than a small and blinkered percentage diverted through a semi-transparent mirror.

I understand that some poorly calibrated / manufactured cameras have come out of Nikon factories, but presumably these should be fixable in repair. If not, then the manufacturer is responsible for replacing it with a new unit that works correctly. In the latest units with Multi-CAM 20k, serious problems are rarely reported, most people seem very happy with it.

P.S. I was lucky to also narrowly dodge getting one of the D800s with side-to-side AF variation.

I purchased a used 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR lens a couple of months ago. I am not a night person, but this might change my mind,,... for a few nights anyway/

I am not a night person, but this might change my mind,,... for a few nights anyway/

Here is the newest from yesterday morning same camera & lens hand held.

Excellent shot. When I say I am not a night person, I meant not going out at night person. Old guy insomnia etc, makes pre-dawn and sunrise shooting just about impossible - the medication doesn't wear off until after sunrise. So, if I want to get a good picture of the moon, it would have to be after sunset.

Yes, age spares no one! We do what we can, as long as we can!

Great shots!

 

Reikan's FoCal software has been extremely beneficial to me. Both in fine tuning AF for various lens+body combo's (and at varying distances which makes a surprisingly big difference), providing aperture sharpness charts for each combo, and various other useful bits. It also shows how my lens+body compares to others with the same combo.

 

My 85/f1.8D AF wouldn't focus w/ my D800 or D5 though still looks good on D200. FoCal said it needed an out of bounds -34 correction. Sent the lens to Nikon who said it was in spec. All lenses work well on D5 except that one. Interestingly, that lens works great with D850 (w/ -16 correction). Sometime I should look through everything but I'm guessing that my D850 is a bit to the + side and my D5 & D800 a bit to the - side and the 85mm to the minus side and so summed to an out or bounds problem.

Never knew butterflies could execute Immelmann turns!

 

Of course, you realize that they don't call them that.;)

There is a lot of lifting surface in relation to mass, so they can do very remarkable aerobatics.

Nikon D80, 1/100 sec, f13, 400iso, 300mm (70-300mm 4.5-5.6 lens) taken several years ago.

 

Lens is soft at extremes, and auto focus is not accurate at infinity so I have to manually back focus slightly for sharp images (as sharp as the lens is capable of...).