Sensor Debate and Camera Dilemma

[marc_g4]

<p>I owned a used d7000 for a week until I encountered the infamous front and back focusing issue with it whereby any lens that I attached, i.e 35mm f1.8, using single point focusing, objects in the forefront would be blurry but in behind would be sharp. AFT did not help.</p>

<p>The camera store manager never heard of this issue, and used his own prime to confirm that the camera can focus to which I replied of course it focuses but not properly. That being said, I returned the d7000, and bought a used d300 from Adorama with 17600 clicks. No focus problems and sharp images with my 18-70mm and 35mm f1.8. These are the only lenses I currently can afford and own.</p>

<p>In the interim while shooting with my d300, I came across some reasonably priced d7000's on Ebay but almost every d7000 body being sold seems to have under 15k clicks. Whenever, I ask the question to the seller about the focus issues, nobody has encountered them, so I am wondering why then are they selling their bodies with so little use.</p>

<p>I think they are encountering the problem, and not saying. Moreover, every d7000 being sold seems to have the serial numbers 3xxxxxxxx.</p>

<p><strong>Has anyone ever owned or seen a d7000 with serial numbers beginning with 4xxxxx and upwards? </strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

Adorama gives me 30 days to test my d300, and so far images are sharp especially when I shot using Raw, and then converted them with NX2 plus no focusing issues.</p>

<p>I did notice that Nikon has now incorporated the d300 51/15 AF system into the d7100, so there must be something to its magic. Moreover, I read some articles on the internet that implied that the more sophisticated the sensor, the more it may out resolve the lens being used, or reveal its limitations. The implication being that using the best sensor really requires using the best lenses.</p>

<p>I am aware that the d300 is now ancient but it seems to have more going for it than the newer models in terms of reliability, and seems to be more forgiving.</p>

<p>If I knew that there are d7000's with higher serials, I might consider trying, and buying another, if it was reasonably priced, and return the d300. I think the d7000 would be able to provide me with the best I could obtain if money was limited. My feeling is that the focus issues were from a bad batch. On the other hand, I could buy a d5200 that is an almost d7000 but I am more interested in build quality, reliability, and reliable focusing. In other words, for me, I care more about making tack sharp images that are exposed correctly.</p>

<p>Suggestions? What would you do?</p>

<p> </p>

[Hector Javkin]

<blockquote>

<p>I read some articles on the internet that implied that the more sophisticated the sensor, the more it may out resolve the lens being used, or reveal its limitations. The implication being that using the best sensor really requires using the best lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>People have said this, including people who should know better. A camera is inanimate and doesn't demand anything. You will not get less resolution from a D7100 than from a D7000 or D300. If you use lenses that were good enough for your D300, and which produced results you were happy with, your photos will not be less sharp on a D7100. It's not that the 24 Mb sensor demands better lenses, it's that you could possibly get better results with the D7100 if you use the best technique. If you shoot hand-held and don't use flash to freeze the action, both sensors will give you pretty much the same thing. If you're worried about it, just down-sample the 6000x4000 output of the D7100 to the 4288x2848 of the D300 or to the 4928x3264 of the D7000.</p>

<p>I have both a D7000 (with serial number 3xxxx something, which focuses accurately in good light) and a D7100. I keep both of them for the rare occasion when I shoot events, just in case one camera breaks. The resolution difference is not important. I prefer the D7100 because the autofocus <em>works better in low light</em> and because the PASM dial has a lock and will not change its setting unexpectedly.</p>

<p>If you're unhappy with the autofocus of the D7000, but are otherwise satisfied with it, I think you will like the D7100 very much. One lens you've been using, the 35mm f/1.8G, should give you great results with the newer body. You could also wait for the next iteration of these cameras that everyone says is coming soon.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>I did notice that Nikon has now incorporated the d300 51/15 AF system into the d7100, so there must be something to its magic.</em><br /> <em><br /></em> With the D7000 there has been a quiet replacement of AF system parts to some of the cameras that have gone in service but I don't know if there is any way to tell (without taking it to service, and asking them to evaluate it) which cameras have new parts and which have the original parts and what the state of calibration of a particular body is. This is unfortunate for the used market.</p>

<p>The D7100 AF is excellent; personally I would recommend this route.</p>

<p><em> Moreover, I read some articles on the internet that implied that the more sophisticated the sensor, the more it may out resolve the lens being used, or reveal its limitations. The implication being that using the best sensor really requires using the best lenses.</em></p>

<p>This is incorrect. The contrast of the detail rendered by a lens decreases slowly as we look at higher frequencies. If the sensor has an AA filter, the filter also has a gradual effect which attenuates detail more at higher frequencies. Over a wide range of spatial frequencies, both the sensor MTF and the lens MTF contribute to the rendering of detail in the image. If you increase either of the two (i.e. get a sharper lens <em>or</em> a sensor with a higher pixel count), you should see an increase in the system MTF and with it, sharper images where detail is resolved more clearly. It is not necessary to have the best lenses to take at least some advantage of increased pixel count, but if you do use a very sharp lens at its optimum aperture, you may see more advantage to the higher resolution sensor.</p>

[jon_reisegg]

<p>Just for info. Not a US model though, but my D7000 bought in Europe has serial starting with 6.</p>

[siphiwe_memela]

<p>My D7000, which is likely sourced from Europe has a serial number beginning with 8. If the serial numbers are any indication, it does seem to confirm that the earlier D7000s possibly had AF issues. Mine had noticeable but correctable back focus with one of my lenses. After performing AF Fine tune on that lens, it was much better. I didn't find much to complain about with my other lenses but out of interest performed AF Fine-tune on all of them recently for extra piece of mind.</p>

<p>This is my third D7000 over three years. I really didn't like the first one but I loved the sensor, a lot. The second one was perfect but got so little use as I had bought it for a few events that I sold it. This one, except for my love hate relationship with the AF seems a keeper.</p>

<p>If budget is tight, I would just keep the D300 until you see what happens to the price of D7100s when the rumoured successor is released soon. It doesn't look like a long time to wait for. Much as I love mine, the AF in poor light seems a bit too hit or miss for me to trust for a single body. I tolerate it because I have a D300s which has a much more dependable AF in such light.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Wasn't most of this already discussed in your last thread? ( http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00d34J ). How much would there be to add to a thread that's just less than 2 weeks old?</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>...35mm f1.8, using single point focusing, objects in the forefront would be blurry but in behind would be sharp...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You just described either shallow depth of field using wide aperture... or using the wrong focus point.</p>

<p>Sample?</p>

[marc_g4]

<p>Wouter my previous post pertained to buying a used d300 with 71k clicks, and the validity of owning one, which I now do not.</p>

<p>This post pertains to better sensor resolution,AF capability, and the observation as to why many people seem to be unloading their d7000's with low shutter actuations with certain serial numbers, and whether there is still a possibility of buying a good copy, the benefit of owning one, or waiting for a decent used d7100.</p>

<p>For those of you who kindly responded to my post so far, I appreciate the clarification and suggestions.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>In my case, I bought a D300 and D7000, respectively, within the first week or two since their respective availability: November 2007 for the D300 and October 2010 for the D7000. From my point of view, both cameras perform very well within their design limitations. I am aware that there is plenty of complaint about the D7000's AF, just like there is plenty of complaint on just about every Nikon DSLR since they are sold in large numbers. However, my early D7000's AF has been very good, so is the one a close friend of mine bought a year later in 2011.</p>

<p>Nikon's serial numbers are different for different geographical locations. In the US, they tend to begin with a 3. My D7000 is 3009nnn. I am not sure that Nikon has sold over a million units in the US for the first digit to turn over to 4. That is why in the US, pretty much all used D7000 will have a serial number that starts with a 3.</p>

<p>The D7000 was the first Nikon DSLR that uses the Multi-CAM 4800 AF module. Since then, the D600, D610, Df, D5200, D5300, and now the new D5500 all share that same module. I have tested the D600 and Df, and while the 39 AF points are a bit too close to the center, which is a problem not shared by the DX bodies, it works quite well.</p>

<p>The thing is that the D7000/D7100 series is now Nikon's top DX bodies. The main difference between the D7000 and D7100 is 16MP vs. 24MP. Even 16MP on DX is already quite dense so that real difference between 16 and 24 is limited. In order to entice people to upgrade, Nikon had to throw in their best AF module onto the D7100; otherwise, there is not enough difference. However, now the problem is that the D7100 already has the current top AF module, I wonder what features Nikon needs to put into its successor to make it another worthwhile upgrade.</p>

<p>Marc, as Wouter points out, we already discussed your situation some 11, 12 days ago. You have already returned a D7000 for a D300. I am afraid that keep on buying and returning cameras merely wastes the stores' time as well as yours. Both the D300 and D7000 are somewhat out of date now, but you can certainly still capture great images with either one. Why not focus on your photography rather than the tools to make that happen?</p>

[marc_g4]

<p>Peter, what I described has been symptomatic of certain d7000 bodies based on postings throughout the web concerning back and front focusing.</p>

<p>Shooting the same image with my used d300, the same focus point, and the same lens yielded no such results.</p>

<p> </p>

[Two23]

<p>A few months ago I bought a D800E with about 5,000 shots taken with it. Some people think they have to have a camera, but in real life they just don't have time to use it. I think that's what you are seeing. I had both D7100 and D300, and both had no problems with focus.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[marc_g4]

<p>Shun,<br>

Thanks for finally putting the issue to rest concerning the Nikon methodology regarding the d300, d7000, and d7100.</p>

<p> Unfortunately, unless someone is familiar with the issues, and knows how to recognize it in a used body if it exists, getting a good used copy is hit or miss.</p>

 

[CvhKaar]

<p>Just concerning the Serial number question : Nikon uses the first <strong>2 </strong>digits two tell for which maket a camera was produced.<br>

To cut short ( so i do not need to explain it myself... bit lazy... :-) ) looked up an explanation for you :<br>

<a href="http://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/camera-articles/nikon-camera-serial-numbers.html">http://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/camera-articles/nikon-camera-serial-numbers.html</a> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Before we start seeing a bunch of posts about serial numbers that differ from the scheme Thom Hogan comments on dslrbodies.com, over 6 years ago I had pointed out to him that the system is not that absolute: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/29722268<br>

<br />Since then, two years ago, a D7100 test sample supplied to me by Nikon USA has serial number 2500304, and as we know, the D7100 is made in Thailand. The D7100 I bought also has a serial number that starts with 25.</p><div></div>

[johne37179]

<p>I have a D7000 and found that I had to calibrate the focusing for each lens. The camera has firmware that enables that. You have to actually do the procedure. I had only one lens that the camera did not have to adjust to. It took me a couple of hours to calibrate all of them. Once I did that every lens was crystal sharp. It is not a focusing problem with the camera -- it is a camera that requires the user to calibrated it for the lenses used. Once calibrated, the camera senses the lens and focuses appropriately.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Suggestions? What would you do?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If the choice is between D300 and D7000 - keep the D300 - it's the better camera! I didn't like the D7000 the instant I touched it - didn't even have to take a shot with it or deal with its inferior 39-area AF. Ergonomically, its about the worst Nikon camera I encountered since the molded grips were invented. Just in case my first impression was in error, I tried a second and a third time - every time a confirmation of the first.<br>

Or get a D7100 - possibly refurbished - currently about $700 at adorama. </p>

<p>The D300 has its limitations compared to the newer models - noise limits the ISO to 1600 or even just 1200 or 800, depending on one's tolerance for noise. The body is quite heavy - which is an issue for some. And the D300 is loud.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>I bought a D7000 when it first came out (pre-ordered) and had it for about a year. It focused perfectly.<br /><br />The D7100 has a similar AF module to what is in the D300 and is far improved over the D7000. I would definitely go with the D7100 over the D300 or D7000.</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>I have owned all three of those cameras and I have to agree with Elliot.</p>

<p>-O</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>No problems with my D7000. . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[jimcee]

<p>Ditto to Elliot and Owen's responses. I bought my Nikon D7000 in November 2013, during a sale at B&H Photo. It's performed perfectly with no "back-focus" issues (I've also tested it to confirm there were no issues).</p>

<p>Jim</p>

[Ian Rance]

Concerning cameras with low shutter acutations that is me exactly. Having started with film I find myself not talking as

many shots of a scene as people who started off with digital. Even with fairly static scenes I hear shutters blazing away

whilst I may take one or two. Absolutely nothing wrong with taking more but it really makes a difference to the shutter

count.

[george_earl2]

<p>"Absolutely nothing wrong with taking more but it really makes a difference to the shutter count."<br /> I know folks who set their cameras to bracket 2 shots all the time, for every shot. Right there they have tripled the number of shutter actuations they will have on their cameras.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I never think "how is this going to affect my shutter count" when I'm snapping a photo. Seriously...?</p>