80-400vr focusing problem

[daniel_smithson]

<p>When the telephone transformer flaps it's wings and flies away, please take some more test pictures. </p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>It's stick season here. The wise birds have flown south. I surmise that if one is attempting to show the limit of sharpness of a lens, and to point out that under the very best conditions it is still not wickedly sharp, a telephone pole, drab as it is, might make the point better than a flying bird. </p>

 

[daniel_smithson]

<p>Understood, but Nikon markets these lenses as being able to take photos in the most difficult conditions and produce great photos. I know that none of us has to buy an expensive digital camera, but none of us had to buy a VW diesel either, and if the company marketing the product is clearly lying to consumers they should be held liable. VR just does not do what it claims, never did, it might someday, but this lens was never able to be handheld at any setting with the VR on, and produce world class images. Fast forward to now, and Nikon refuses to tell consumers what processor is in the D7200, which makes comparison shopping impossible, which is a violation of U.S. consumer protection laws, as an educated consumer might well opt to buy a Sony camera if the main part in a Nikon camera is made by Sony. <a href="http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/consumer-bill-of-rights/">http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/consumer-bill-of-rights/</a> <br>

My point is proven by my 50mm1.4G which is taking stunning photos right out of the box, with no three weeks of tuning and test pictures krappola. <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/136279335@N04/22607791828/in/dateposted-public/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/136279335@N04/22607791828/in/dateposted-public/</a> </p>

[Nick D.]

<p>"this lens was never able to be handheld at any setting with the VR on, and produce world class images",- Daniel, some world class images were produced with way worst lenses, than 80-400.<br />But, as educated customer you go and sue Nikon.</p>

[daniel_smithson]

<p>The law speaks for itself. <a href="http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/consumer-bill-of-rights/">http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/consumer-bill-of-rights/</a> If Nikon refuses to disclose what the main sensor is in the D7200, they are in violation of American right to know laws. Buying a camera without knowing who made the main part, is like buying a new car, without knowing if the engine was made by that same car manufacturer, this is the clearest violation that there can be. Nikon told me straight out, that I as a buyer have NO RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT SENSOR IS IN THE D7200. Thus they could change the sensor at any time after the first several thousand cameras are produced to a lesser quality part, and no one would know, this is bait and switch and is illegal in the USA, disagree if you choose, but that does not make the situation any less illegal in the USA.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I think some things are being conflated here in error.</p>

<p>Whether or not the lens in question could produce world class images with VR on is not relevant to the question of whether or not VR does what it is supposed to. </p>

<p>VR does not make a soft lens sharp. It makes the effect of a jiggling lens less. That's all it ever meant to do. If you can take the same picture at 1/60 that you used to be able to get only at 1/400, then VR is working fine, and working as represented, even if the image is crap. </p>

[Nick D.]

<p>"that does not make the situation any less illegal in the USA", go sue them.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>By the way, although I agree that it would be nice if Nikon specified the sensor in the D7200, I do not think it is a violation of the consumer's right to know as provided by the link. The law specifies that the manufacturer has to tell us what we need to know in order to make an informed choice. That means they cannot lie and tell us that the sensor produces more pixels or more colors than it does, and in theory at least they cannot provide false test information. They cannot tell us it's made by one manufacturer when it is made by another. But if they don't provide that information, I don't think that it means they must reveal who manufactures the components, nor does it mean that they cannot alter components in the run, as long as the published specs are met.</p>

<p>If for you, an informed choice means that you must know who made the sensor, then Nikon has, in a way, met its obligation by not telling you. Your informed choice will be not to buy the camera.</p>

<p>The issue of cars and engines is an interesting one, and while I don't think a manufacturer can make claims that are not true, I don't think they are under an obligation to reveal who makes their components. I can't sue Jeep because at some point they replaced the S.E.V. distributor with a similar performing Motorcraft part. I can't even sue them for the brief period they used Lucas! I once had a Saab with a Triumph engine. Not telling is not the same as lying. If Nikon made a claim, or even perhaps if the claim were reasonably assumed, of having some particular sensor which it does not, trouble might ensue, as it did when GM used Chevy engines in Oldsmobiles. But the very publicity of the initial suit solved the problem. As soon as it was known that Chevy engines were fitted, deception ended, and the problem was forever solved by GM simply declaring that there was no such thing as an "Oldsmobile" engine any more.</p>

<p>I recall also some years ago the shop manual for one of my cars included the information that two different brands of piston rings were "fitted indifferently." No suit possible here if you thought you'd get Perfect Circle and found Hastings.</p>

[daniel_smithson]

<p>A consumer can not make an educated choice, if they do not know what sensor is in the camera. If the sensor in the D7200 is made by Sony, an educated consumer can certainly choose to buy a Sony camera based upon the information that Nikon believes that Sony sensors are the best in the world, and better than anything that they can make on their own. This is logical...</p>

<p>Seriously, has anyone bought a computer without knowing what CPU was inside? Lets make that question a poll, how many people bought a computer without knowing what was inside the case......................<br>

Say yes and you admit ignorance, because the case does not matter, the guts do.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Sorry, double post</p>

<p> </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>A consumer can not make an educated choice, if they do not know what sensor is in the camera</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, a consumer can and does. There are plenty of websites that show examples on how the sensor performs - and based on that information, an educated purchase decision can be made. If I like the way the sensor performs under those controlled conditions, I could care less who actually makes it. And the fact that Nikon sources sensors from Sony doesn't mean that Sony has a camera that uses exactly the same sensor - quite often (or always?) those sensor are manufactured by Sony to Nikon specifications.</p>

<p>If I am not mistaken, then most of the time, Nikon didn't reveal the manufacturer of the sensor in a camera - it often came out when someone tore down a camera and had a look.</p>

<p>CPU inside my computer: well, the choice is between AMD and Intel and I know it's not an AMD. When I put my system together, I picked one that had a reasonable cost/performance ratio - what do I care who made the photomasks used in its production?<br /> Let's make that a different question - who has store-bought a computer and knows which company manufactured the memory chips used in it? Or even cares?</p>

<p> </p>

[daniel_smithson]

<p>There is no website that explains what sensor is in the D7200, I personally contacted Nikon and they will not say what this sensor is. So until a website or competitor rips this camera apart and looks for identifying marks or serial numbers on the sensor, and divulges this information, no web site has any info on this part. Thus no consumer can make an educated decision, that is based upon the lack of information. This is clear.</p>

[daniel_smithson]

<p>Here is a photo I took out of my files, that does show that my 80-400 worked fine with my D80. <a href=" The only difference is the camera. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>It is largely irrelevant to the user, <em>who</em> makes the sensor. How it performs is a totally different question and that <em>is</em> relevant to the user. Chipworks has in fact taken the D7200 apart and says the sensor is made by Toshiba.</p>

<p>https://chipworks.secure.force.com/catalog/ProductDetails?sku=NIK-D7200_Pri-Camera&viewState=DetailView&cartID=&g=</p>

<p>But you have to pay to see details. The sensor performance is evaluated by e.g. dxomark.com and senscore.org. These two sites use different measures of sensor performance and different weighting (DXO weights base ISO image quality heavily in their overall scoring whereas senscore weights all ISO settings equally in coming up with the final scores). Both sites find the D7200's image quality to be class leading among APS-C sensored models.</p>

<p><em>If the sensor in the D7200 is made by Sony, an educated consumer can certainly choose to buy a Sony camera based upon the information that Nikon believes that Sony sensors are the best in the world, and better than anything that they can make on their own.</em></p>

<p>Well, no, it doesn't work like that. I wouldn't choose a Sony camera because I find working with an EVF nauseating and unpleasant, and my timing is then affected by the variable delays that depend on the implementation (fps rate etc.). I use Nikon cameras because of their very good optical viewfinders (in the FX cameras in particular) and the way their lenses render images. In some generations, Nikon was a bit behind Canon in high ISO image quality; nowadays they seem to be a bit ahead (especially in dynamic range), whether they use their own design or one of their partner's sensor or something that is a result of collaborative development - it's the result that matters most.</p>

[daniel_smithson]

<p>It is not irrelevant who makes the sensor, as if the sensor is made by Sony, a new prospective buyer who has not bought Nikon yet, could easily opt to buy Sony instead, as it appears that Sony is now the world leader in image sensors. <a href="http://www.wired.com/2015/06/sonys-new-sensors-exciting-new-cameras/">http://www.wired.com/2015/06/sonys-new-sensors-exciting-new-cameras/</a> <a href="http://www.sony.com/electronics/cameras">http://www.sony.com/electronics/cameras</a><br>

I build computers, so the parts are important to me, not to all perhaps, some people just push the button, however I connect the button to the motherboard. knowledge matters, and an informed consumer is a good consumer.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>It is not irrelevant who makes the sensor, as if the sensor is made by Sony, a new prospective buyer who has not bought Nikon yet, could easily opt to buy Sony instead, as it appears that Sony is now the world leader in image sensors. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Largely irrelevant, since other companies arguably make better lenses and have a more complete set for their cameras, which are, for most any photo, far more important. Again, the law you referenced earlier has no application that a company needs to indicate what outside firm built every part in their product.<br>

<br>

Look, you're new here, so you might be unaware of the stellar reputation for knowledge, experience and integrity that is rightly ascribed to several of the people you are arguing with in the guise of asking a question.</p>

[daniel_smithson]

<p>The law requires consumers to be educated, Nikon is COMPLETELY REFUSING TO TELL PEOPLE WHO MADE THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE D7200, THIS IS ILLEGAL. Thus Nikon can change this sensor at will, or in fact be testing more than one sensor in this camera, which equates to the consumer being used as a testing source, as Nikon will eventually find out which sensors will fail first. This is not legal in the USA. </p>

<p>It's not rocket science. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>This is not legal in the USA.</blockquote>

 

<p>Cool. I'm sure Nikon's large team of corporate lawyers will be pleased to learn that your understanding of their subject exceeds their own, and that they are infringing their obligations in selling to the US market. Perhaps you could find the specific legislation involved and tell us exactly how they are doing so?</p>

[Nick D.]

<p>Daniel why don't you just run simple checks of the lens in question instead of spending hours in arguing legal issues?<br />Put camera on tripod, turn off AF, turn off VR and manually focus using live view screen on cameras back, magnify screen 10 times and you will see if lens able to focus properly and display sharp image. It is first step, if you got sharp picture optics are OK, if not, send it for repair.<br />Second step is testing AF; camera on tripod, single shot AF on , VR off, focus through viewfinder on static subject like that transformer without wings, take shot and view it on computer monitor, if it sharp, that's mean AF working and no tuning needed.<br />When you got it done, show us pictures, that's how the troubleshooting work, after that we will take it to next step, checking continuous AF and VR.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I am now convinced that Daniel will not be here long... And I'm done trying to convince him that anybody besides him is right about anything.</p>