My canera is affected as well

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I think it's only fair to point out that Nikon have more full-frame bodies on offer than Canon, and that if you want the highest megapixel count or the highest dynamic range, then your choice is limited to Nikon or Sony. Canon ain't even in the running on that score. And are you going to lug a 1.5 FPS/1600 ISO 'blad out to a sports event or even a wedding - doubtful.</p>

<p>Nikon currently offer the D4s, D810, D800E, D610 and Df, all without reported design faults. Together with the D750 that's a choice of 6 full-frame bodies; against Canon's 4.</p>

<p>It's also fair to say that Nikon jumped on the shutter problem in the D600 pretty promptly, as well as the AF skew in the D800. The only criticism that can be levelled is why these issues ever made it out into the wild to begin with.</p>

<p>It'll probably turn out that the fix for this D750 problem will be simply to glue a couple of thin foam baffles to the bottom of the mirror box. A better solution would be to fully shutter the AF module when the mirror goes up, but that's definitely a D760 re-design.</p>

[robert_stig]

<p>Yes I use lens hoods all the time. Not for flare but for damage as on the dance floor people are dancing and weve gotten elbowed a few times here and there. </p>

<p>We shoot photos and video of the couple with the intent of having flare come in and out of the image and if you look around you will see a lot of photographers are using the flare for a creative affect. We shoot a lot in backlit siuations. Fashion photogs do it all the time portrait photogs as well. Lens flare doesnt look like this. We shoot with lens outside the frame. A lot of time where in the shade abd have the bg stand with their backs to the sub but were 30-50 degrees from the aun to our left or right. This isnt something new. Me and photogs i work with shoot like this all the tine. Been shooting backlit portraits since 92 with film. This isnt something complex to ask a camera to do. We expect flare and even welcome it. We just make sure to light the face to match the background exposure. </p>

[dave_wilson1]

I don't shoot sports or weddings, and I already own five Hasselblads and about a dozen lenses. So I would never

consider FX as a serious option, only the top digital back for my current system. (CFV50)

 

 

Technical

Sensor type: CMOS

Sensor size: 50 Mpixels (8272 x 6200 pixels)

Sensor dimensions: 43.8 x 32.9 mm

Image size: RAW 3FR capture 65 MB on average. Tiff 8 bit 154 MB

Capture rate: 1.5 capture/sec. 35 captures/ minute (based on a SanDisk Extreme UDMA7 120 MB/s)

Single shot

16 bit colour

ISO 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200 & 6400

Longest shutter speed: 12 minutes

Image storage: CF card type II (write speed >20 MB/sec) or tethered to Mac or PC

Color management: Hasselblad Natural Colour Solution - One generic profile

Storage capacity: On average 60 images on a 4GB CF card

 

Battery type: Sony™ InfoLithium L NP-F series

Colour display: 3.0 inch TFT type, 24 bit colour

Histogram feedback: Yes

IR filter: Mounted on sensor

Feedback: IAA - Instant Approval Architecture: provides acoustic and visual feedback

File format: Lossless compressed Hasselblad 3F RAW

Software: Phocus for Mac and PC (included)

3FR files are also supported directly in Apple and Adobe environments

Macintosh: OSX version 10.5 or later. PC: Windows XP, Vista, Windows 7 (32 and 64 bit), Windows 8

Camera support: Hasselblad V System cameras manufactured since 1957. 2000 series cameras and 201F with C lenses

only. 202FA / 203FE and 205FCC camera models need a minor camera modification to use F/FE lenses. All other

cameras with Hasselblad V interface.

 

Host connection type: FireWire 800 (IEEE1394b)

Battery capacity: Sony™ InfoLithium L, up to 8 hours of shooting capacity

Operating temperature: 0 - 45 °C / 32 - 113 °F

Dimensions: 91 x 92 x 57 mm [W x H x D]

Weight: 530 g (Excluding battery and CF card)

Package contents: Hasselblad CFV digital back with protective cover, adapter cables, FireWire cable and 16 GB CF

card. Focusing Screen (Split image / Micro Prism) with dual format markings.

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>"Sensor dimensions: 43.8 x 32.9 mm" - in other words MFDX then, with a crop factor of 1.4. ;-)</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Having used a H3D and a D800 I can say that the slight improvement in image quality does not warrant the price difference. Also the D800 is much easier to use and has a much wider selection of lenses.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

If you had mentioned in your previous post that you intentionally shoot for flare as an effect we could have warned that this might happen with the D750. Perhaps Nikon can fix it when they figure out a procedure for it, if it is fixable. The D810 is an alternative which you should not reject so lightly.

 

I use wide angles quite a lot and if I shot medium format, without question the sensor would have to record the largest image that the lenses can cover. So, 645 format and $30000+ for the digital back or camera with sensor that is a decade behind in high ISO capability and will likely lose most of its value overnight if Sony ever decides to make full frame 645 CMOS sensors... they have gotten to slightly larger than FX so far, but with the full bulk of a much larger format.

[dave_wilson1]

The wide angle situation is a definite point of contention. In that case I still prefer to shoot 6x6 film and use high-rez

scans, or use a 4x5.

[pics]

<p>I'm reasonably certain that Nikon knows enough not to design a camera like this so I doubt this issue is a design problem but rather a quality control problem at the factory. If it is only happening on certain cameras then it means D750s are leaving the factory with AF sensors that are being recessed to varying depths within the body. I'm not an engineer but to me this indicates some sloppiness in the assembly and manufacturing phase. Telling people to use a lens hood is a little weak if you ask me. Hopefully they get to the bottom of the issue quickly because whether the criticism is warranted or not, the perception is growing that it is best to avoid first releases of Nikon equipment. My theory is that these issues have become more prevalent as they increasingly began moving more production/manufacturing out of Japan to other countries but I'm sure I'll get flamed for saying that.</p>

[hakan deliç]

<p>I have seen this sort of banded flare happen with D700, as well. In fact, today I was able to create more or less identical images with both D700 and D750. Shooting into low sun (minimal contrast, totally ugly set-up), the banding occurred just once. Tilt the camera up or down ever so slightly, and it is gone. In 5+ years with D700, I have lost only one image out of about 50K in actual photography to this. YMMV of course.<br /> Check out Nasim Mansurov's website for demos of the effect with various Nikon cameras. There are samples from Canon and Leica, too (need to scroll down to reader comments for Leica). I was not allowed to copy the link here.<br /> I wouldn't be surprised if all AF cameras exhibited this phenomenon.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I see simple flare, due to a bright light source just outside the field of view. Light is striking the front element below the lens shade. The dark band is the shadow cast by the light shade.</p>

<p>It is not a light leak because the position of the flare stays in a constant position relative to the subject (just below the light source). If it were a leak, its position would be constant relative to the frame.</p>

<p>A reasonable alternative cause is suggested by Rodeo Joe. The image of the light source falls outside the normal field of view inside the camera, and is reflecting from the body on to the sensor. The dark band is caused by the mask behind the rear element, or the geometry of the reflecting surface in the body.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Look at all the videos on that linked site Hakan and Edward. The problem persists even when a lenshood isn't fitted, and in weak domestic lighting. I tried to emulate the effect myself with both a D700 and D800, by pointing the cameras at the sun, with it just out of shot. No go - couldn't get any sign of a banding effect. And to double check I turned the camera upside down to see if the flare was different between top and bottom of the mirror box. Same character of flare with no banding in either orientation.</p>

<p>Now if someone does the same test with a D750 and its shiny AF module poking up out of the bottom of the mirror box, then I suspect they'll see a decidedly different type of flare between the camera being upright and upside down. That to me would be conclusive. It's a dead easy check to do and I'm surprised nobody else has suggested it.</p>

<p>And why would people suddenly start to notice this strange flare only now, after the release of the D750? And only with the D750? And why only some samples affected? Not a user variable because the guy who shows the most convincing video has two samples of D750, one of which shows the banding, and another that doesn't.</p>

<p>I'm not saying that mirror box reflection isn't possible with other models of camera, just that it seems to be much, much more difficult to provoke it. No flocking material is totally unreflective, and with a contrast range such as presented by the sun against an adjacent dark area, it would be odd if body flare wasn't occasionally visible. But with a domestic lamp against a grey wall? Something seems severely amiss.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Lots of cameras have been demonstrated to have areas of flare from the internals of the mirror box and darker areas where there isn't flare, with more or less well defined boundaries. Photography life dot com has some tests, and imaging resource at</p>

<p>http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/12/24/nikon-d750-flare-problems-heres-why-and-what-to-do-about-them-its-not-lens</p>

<p>has upside down reference images from various cameras as well. Now, it seems clear that in the D750 the effect is somewhat more pronounced than in most other cameras. This may be because the AF sensor is closer to the main sensor and its reflecting optics are more accessible for stray light entering the mirror box. Imaging resource comments: "So why would Nikon put the AF elements in such a shallow recess? It's pure speculation on our part, but we'd bet good money that it had a lot to do with trying to cram all that full-frame camera goodness into such a small body." I think this is very likely the correct explanation. Nikon made a smaller "Advanced Multi-CAM 3500 II" module for this camera and explained that the motivation was to fit it into a smaller body. The narrower focus point spread may be a result of the shorter distance between the AF sensor and the main sensor. Previously Nikon have used the smaller Multi-CAM 4800 in small FX bodies such as D600/D610 and the Df, and this has been largely criticized as it gives a quite small coverage of AF points and is slower and less decisive AF module in practical use. So they made this kind of a compromise. Now like with most engineering decisions there are tradeoffs, such as a more prominent flare and its blocking effect. However, it noted in one of the reviews that the effect is only visible when the light source is just outside the image area within a very narrow angle, so it likely only mostly affects photographers who deliberately try to play with the flare to create an effect. I would just consider it a tradeoff for the compact high performance camera body with widely regarded excellent AF system. If you don't like the compromise, you can get full size Multi-CAM 3500 in the D810 or D4s, or the Multi-CAM 4800 in the Df or D610 if the camera is to be small and best AF performance can be sacrificed.</p>

<p><em>But with a domestic lamp against a grey wall?</em></p>

<p>The power of the light source itself isn't important but that it is a small light source that emits light from a narrow angle, as seen from the camera. It can be a candle, a tungsten bulb or the sun; all of them are close to point light sources. If it is a large diffuse light source it would likely not cause a visible effect like this (since the part of the light that comes from the critical angle would be overwhelmed by light that comes from other angles) but it needs to be a point like source and at a specific angle to cause the flare in the first place. To me I try to use large, diffuse lights most of the time anyway, and would avoid having a point like light source just outside of the image area like the plague, since this kind of position and light is likely to produce prolific ghosting in the lens anyway. Thus likely I would rarely see this kind of effect with any camera and the flare itself would ruin the shot. In some night situations where there is a bare light I might see ghosting or flare with some lenses. To avoid it I might put my hand between the light and the lens.</p>

<p>Like there are lenses with different flare and ghosting characteristics, there are bodies with different flare characteristics. Find a combination that works for your type of photography. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Nikon seems to be investigating this matter now:</p>

<p>https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/63214</p>

<p>"We are currently looking into measures to address this issue. Further details will be announced as soon as they are determined."</p>

[hakan deliç]

<p>I just put together a few quick, unscientific outdoor examples comparing D750 to D700.<br>

D750 showing the dreaded banded flare on top: <a href="http://www.delic.photography/p556513737/h187c2050#h187c2050">link 1</a>.<br>

D700 doing the same: <a href="http://www.delic.photography/p556513737/h187c2050#h9431d44">link 2</a>.<br>

Notice the colorful nature of the flare with D750 (in this case at least).<br>

I think banding+flare at the bottom is better controlled with D750. Here is an actual D700 photo lost to bottom-banding and camera-induced flare (to the right of the vertical image): <a href="http://www.delic.photography/p862246007/hbb36d85#h1c1e2979">link 3</a>.<br>

Putting the light source at the edge, D750 seems to do fine: <a href="http://www.delic.photography/p556513737/h187c2050#h63bd4a2">link 4</a>. But tilt the camera down a little, and we have: <a href="http://www.delic.photography/p556513737/h187c2050#hb2d422e">link 5</a>. So for a specific angle we end up with strong purple fringing. Except for this oddity I feel that sensor blooming is relatively well-controlled in general. Here is a sample of D700's response: <a href="http://www.delic.photography/p556513737/h187c2050#h96a778a">link 6</a>.<br>

Personally, I am more worried about the color fringing since this may create problems in blue/dark hour photography. I'd be curious to hear opinions on this.</p>

<p> </p>

[jonb]

<p>I've reproduced this effect with both a D810 and a D3. Here is the D3 version using a 70-200 (I), with the camera being tilted further up in each succeeding photo. There is a distinct reflection. As the camera is tilted up further, that reflection fades, but as the camera continues to near the sun there is a reoccurrence of the same reflection, or a similar one. A lens hood solves the first instance but not the second. I was also able to get the effect, but weaker, with a 24-70/2.8 and a 16-35/4.</p>

<p>It's quite possible that the D750 is more susceptible to this problem, but I don't have one to test side-by-side with other bodies.</p><div></div>