paul_wheeler1

<p>Now I am a little confused! Shun usually has his finger on the pulse, but when Nikon Europe was asked about the new D7100 being described as the "<em>new flagship of Nikon's DX-format HD-SLR lineup</em>" on Nikon USA website, but was described as "<em>enthusiast-level DX format camera</em>" in Europe, Nikon Europe replied: </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I can assure you that the D7100 is not positioned to replace the D300s as Nikon's flagship DX-format camera - such is the information received from Nikon Japan on the matter."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Price changed today back up to £1885!</p>

<p>Expeed is not an actual processor, but is, and I quote Nikon, "...a comprehensive digital imaging processing concept that incorporates the know-how and technologies accumulated throughout Nikon's long history of photographic and digital imaging development."<br>

The actual processes are individual to each camera, but still referred to as Expeed.</p>

<p>Hope that helps.</p>

<p>Chris, I was just going to bring up that very point, but you beat me to it :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just mount them as you'd mount any lens, first the one, then the other, then the lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> I always thought you should add the converter to the lens, and then mount it on the body?</p>

<p>I stand corrected. I'm surprised that by coating only one surface it works so well. Can we assume the other elements have a different coating?<br>

At least we agree that the rep didn't know what he's talking about.</p>

<p>The Nano coating is applied to all surfaces of all elements as far as I'm aware. I cannot say how robust the coating is, but I would think that damage to the outer most surface would have little impact on the the overall effectiveness. I doubt if the occasional clean would have much impact. It sounds like the rep seems to think Nano coating is some sort of spray-on filter added to the the front of the lens, which it obviously isn't. Even a scratch on front element would have no visible effect on image quality as seen in the real world. Lenses are designed to be occasionally cleaned.<br>

Edit: I see the outer surface is not coated. makes sense.</p>

<p>Nikon UK failed to phone me back, so I have just phoned them.</p>

<p>After re-examining the camera in response to my conversation this morning, they now agree there is a fault with the AF, and they are now awaiting an off-site estimate for the repair. I pointed out that if I had not checked this morning, they would have taken my £95 and returned the camera still with the original fault. I also mentioned that I thought that this was very poor service and not what I would expect from Nikon. The repair is now to be completed urgently and there should be no further charge to me... I should think so!</p>

<p>Well it's over a week later and Nikon say they have completed the repair. I cannot believe what I have been told! Their technician has reported that the camera's problem was caused by the fact that Auto-Focus was switched off (option A5), and when switched back on all worked perfectly. What? Are you serious!!!</p>

<p>Fellow experienced users out there understand that option A5 does not switch AF on and off. It is used to de-select AF from the shutter button. As I use the AF-on button exclusively to focus and I don't want the shutter to activate focus, this setting was correct for me. It would have no influence on the camera's ability to focus and lock-on, unless you tried to do it with the shutter button.</p>

<p>My respect for Nikon UK has now gone through the floor! I am now awaiting a phone call, as the phone operator at the service centre has to talk to the technician, (as I'm not allowed to explain the problem directly to him), but she admits she doesn't fully understand what I'm describing. What a farce!</p>

<p>Personally, I am so pleased with Noise Ninja or Topaz DeNoise 5 (I choose one depending which one gives the best result on a given image) that I no longer use Nikon's own noise removal in NX2, or the camera. I do not recommend under exposure at all. I find the act of lightening introduces noise in the shadows even at lower ISOs. Try not to get too hung up on noise.</p>

<p>Kari, I agree, but I'm sure that would only apply to wide angle lenses. You would not expect it with a 200mm lens and a 20mm extension, surely? Of course it's not a simple lens, but I would still be surprised.</p>

<p>I have mentioned a couple times here, including my opening post, that manual focus was possible, where the auto-focus was failing. I do understand that you can use the zoom ring in a way that will find focus, but that was not the problem. The zoom was set at 200mm, and sometimes other focal length settings. At all focal lengths, the focus constantly switches from a fraction too short, to a fraction too long, without actually finding focus.</p>

<p>Just to clarify, I am not looking to use my 70-200 as a macro, as I have two lenses for that purpose. I was just looking to shorten the minimum focus distance (at the expense of focusing at infinity), specifically for photographing butterflies and dragonflies.</p>

<p>FWIW, the 12mm or 20mm extension tube will also auto-focus on my 70-200 with the 2x teleconverter attached. The teleconverter is longer than the longest extension tube. Maybe there is no answer, and I just have to accept I cannot use an extension longer than 20mm.</p>

<p>Cory, thank you, but please don't make too many assumptions about my knowledge, or lack of it. What was the reason you assume I didn't do the tests properly, and suggest I repeat them? I know about the light loss and understand the calculations to find magnification etc.</p>

<p>I did do the test in a controlled situation. They were done in bright afternoon sunshine, focusing on the same bright contrasty subject each time. I even tried various combinations of focus; continuous, single point, dynamic, etc. I repeated the tests with each lens a few times to eliminate the chance that the light level changed, even though I'm sure it was consistant... No clouds, and the tests didn't take long at all.</p>

<p>I managed to easily auto-focus the 300mm (f5.6) with all three extension tubes, yet could not get the 70-200 (f2.8) to focus with anything other than the 12mm or 20mm tube used singly. When I say easily, there was no hunting and the lens just snapped into focus. Obviously I had to determine a position that was within the new focus range with the tube attached, but once found auto-focus was immediate. I concluded the issue was not caused by light loss preventing the auto-focus from working. That was the reason I tested the 70-300mm f4.5-f5.6. It's the slowest lens I own. </p>

<p>I too, would be surprised if the newer VR has anything to do with the problem, but saying that, the new 70-200 f2.8 had more changes than just the VR system. It would be helpful if someone who has the latest version of this lens and some Kenko tubes, test theirs with a 36mm tube.</p>

<p>Fortunately a 12mm or 20mm tube seems to achieve what I need, but this issue seems strange.</p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

<p>Xavier, is that a VRII or a VRI? What body? I have tested it with shorter focal lengths, 50mm and 18-70mm. Both focused fine.</p>

<p>I'm not after too much more magnification, just shorten the minimum focus distance a little, and get the increase in magnification that brings. The 12mm or 20mm seem to do what I need and work fine, but it seems odd that longer tubes won't work with the 70-200.</p>

<p>From the list of lenses I've tested, it can't be anything to do with light loss, or AF-s, or VRI. The 70-200 f2.8 is the only VRII lens I have. My 300mm f2.8 is VRI, but I haven't tested that with the tubes (I'm not likely to use tubes on it).</p>

<p>Figure this out!<br>

36mm tube attached to 50mm f1.8D, autofocus works.<br>

36mm tube attached to 105mm f2.8 VR Micro, autofocus works easily.<br>

36mm tube attached to 70-300mm VR at 300mm (f5,6), autofocus works easily.<br>

36mm tube attached to 70-200mm f2.8 VRII at 200mm (f2.8), autofocus fails to work.<br>

I am now totally confused!</p>

<p>From the Kenko site:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>4. Kenko DG Auto Extension Tubes are auto focus compatible with Nikon AF lenses including Nikon AF-S (silent Wave) lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>Peter Hamm.<br>

Thank you for answering. To clarify, I'm not looking to be really close, and I understand the limitations of auto-focus with macro lenses. Despite those limitations, auto-focus works with my macro lenses, but it just focuses on the wrong point most time, thus making manual focus more practical. The problem I have is the lens with 36mm tube attached does not find any focus.<br>

My main question is whether the behavior I described is to be expected, or are the tubes faulty?</p>

<p>Peter Rafle.<br>

Thank you for the information. I'm in the UK and therefore never looked at the Adorama site, and I have not seen this information on the sites I have accessed. I was aware of points 1, 2 and 3, but not point 4. It looks like the issue may be due to point 4 as the lens I'm using is AF-S. I'm sure I read somewhere, that these tubes are supposed to work with AF-S lenses, so I will do some more research. I think I lose over 2 stops with the extension tube, so the loss of light also comes into play, especially with an old body like the D70. My D300 would be better.<br>

It's not normal hunting though; as an example I watched it just now, and it rapidly flicked between 5ft and 7ft, and manual focus was obtained around 6ft. (Subject was obviously much closer than that.)</p>

<p>I'm just looking to reduce the minimum focus distance from 1.4 meters. Ideally I would like a working distance somewhere between 30cm and 2m, an I am experimenting on how to achieve this at the moment. It may not be possible.</p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

<p>Hi<br>

I have just picked up a set of Kenko DG Auto Tubes. My idea is to use them with my 70-200 to reduce the minimum focus distance limit of the lens when photographing butterflies. I have had good success using the lens with teleconverters, which obviously magnify the image on the sensor at the minimum focus distance, but I receive a slight hit in image quality (though, not much with the new 2x version III).</p>

<p>I thought an extension tube would not impact on quality, but allow me reduce the minimum focus distance. (I often find myself having to step back to obtain focus.) I have and also use macro lenses, but in the field I like the versatility the zoom gives me. With the 2x converter, I have a light 140-400 zoom. I can shoot at distance, and then slowly move closer. Not something I can do with a 150mm macro lens.</p>

<p>I have played around with the tubes today, and I find that with the 12mm or 20mm tube, the lens auto-focuses easily, but with the 36mm or a combination of the 20mm and 12mm tubes the auto-focus constantly hunts from just in front to just behind the correct focus point without ever obtaining correct focus, or stopping just out of focus. I have tried with VR on and off, and in good light. I am able to manually focus, but the focus indicator in the viewfinder doesn't light to indicate correct focus.</p>

<p>My question is, is this normal behavior, or have I got faulty tubes?</p>

<p>The issue is complicated by the fact that my D300 is in for repair, and I'm doing my tests with a D70. It could be the focus system of the D70?</p>

 

<p>Thank you Richard, I will keep that link for future reference. Nikon UK was recommended to me by my Nikon dealer, and it's where they get all their secondhand gear serviced</p>

<p>I remain open minded at this moment in time.</p>

<p>Thanks Brian.</p>

<p>I fully understand what you say, and it makes sense. Like I said, I am happy for the full inspection, for the very reasons you state, but it was sent to Nikon for an estimate for the repair of a specific issue, and I was not told that I would have to pay for a full inspection/service. I was told I would get an estimate to fix the problem, with a refusal fee of around £6. Now I'm paying £95 to get the estimate. I think £95 is pretty fair for the service, and peace of mind it will give, but it was not what was originally offered by Nikon Customer Services, who mentioned I may only need a mirror realignment.</p>

<p>As a side note, I had to smile at your Mercedes analogy. I drive a BMW, and they only ever service the one item that need servicing. Therefore with BMW, if the cars service indicator says it's time for an oil change, then that's exactly what you get. Pretty much what I was expecting from Nikon :)</p>

<p>Thanks again Brian. Just to confirm, I am not upset, just surprised that Nikon have not done what they told me they would do, if I sent the camera to them. I am now wiser, and look forward to the return of a fully working, clean, serviced D300 :)</p>

<p>I recently posted about a specific focus issue I had with my D300, and as a result sent it to Nikon for an estimate. I also requested the sensor to be remapped as I had at least one hot pixel.</p>

<p>Today I was left slightly surprised at the content of the estimate I received:</p>

<p>Metering, shutter and exposure accuracy checked - recalibrated if necessary.<br />Image capture, playback and delete functions checked.<br />X-sync, hot-shoe and speedlight functions checked.<br />Body depth, body focus, and AF accuracy checked and recalibrated if necessary.<br />Image sensors, optics, mirrors and viewfinder cleaned.<br />Firmware version checked and updated if required.<br />This job may be re-estimated if further faults are found.<br />Total £95.51</p>

<p>Is this normal policy, as there is no mention of a fault being detected with the focus mechanism, or the hot pixel issue? This just seems to be an estimate for a service. I understand that there may have to be a charge for investigating the focus problem, but why all the other stuff. If I took my car to the garage to have my exhaust fixed, I wouldn't expect them to charge me for checking the suspension, steering, engine, brakes, and giving it a wash.</p>

<p>I have phoned Nikon to clarify the estimate, and the nice lady told me that on their system they have a note to fix the hot pixel issue, but didn't seem to understand that as I had sent the camera in for a specific problem, so I didn't expect them to bill me for having the metering, shutter and the speedlight function checked, or the Firmware updated, for example. She also didn't seem to understand why I had phoned to check if they were going to fix the hot pixels. After all it wasn't mentioned in the estimate.</p>

<p>I have accepted the estimate, as I'm happy for the service to be done, but why didn't they just estimate to fix the two things it was sent in for? Is this normal? In the end, I still don't know what is wrong and how much it will cost to fix.</p>

<p>My friend has a D7000, and he has set up U1 and U2. If he makes adjustments while shooting, in U1 for example, he justs moves the dial to a different position and then back to U1 to reset it to his original settings. I hope that this helps.</p>

<p>I have spoken to Nikon, and I have now sent the camera to them for an estimate. They mentioned mirror mis-alignment, as a possible cause. I await the estimate.<br>

As a side note, I shot with my old D70 today, and even that focused faster, locked on, and tracked better then my D300.</p>

<p>Hi Joe.<br>

Yes I was using CF. It's pretty much a necessity when photographing birds in flight. In fact I was using settings that I have, over the years, found successful for me.<br>

A f5.6 lens will always struggle a little in low light, and I'm pretty sure it's not the VR and CF fighting, as you put it. BTW, the aperture you set does not effect focusing, as it doesn't get closed down until you press the shutter completely to take the shot. Just to confirm, low light usually requires large apertures, small f-numbers. I'm sure that's what you meant.<br>

I have a 70-300 VR, and I was always pleased with the results in good light. I rarely use it now, but I find it's a great lens to take on vacation, to save weight. It needs good light to get the best out of it, especially at 300mm.<br>

Get out with your lens in good light Joe, and I'm sure you will be pleased :)</p>

<p>Well, after an afternoon testing, I have come to the conclusion that the body is faulty :(</p>

<p>Focus problems with 300mm and 70-200mm, with and without converter, but more so with the converter. I have had great success previously with my 1.7x teleconverter on the 300mm, so I tested this as well, and I had problems this time. Put a D7000 body on my 300mm+2x converter and it worked faultlessly. Put my friends Sigma 150-500 on my D300, and it wouldn't focus. Only conclusion is that the D300 has developed a fault :(</p>

<p>The focus problem seems to occur more on moving subjects (BIF) and a lot less on static subjects. Once the focus has stopped at the minimum, it then does not refocus, without manual encouragement.</p>

<p>Jim, was your advice for when I dig out my old D70? Obviously the D300 is not entry level.</p>

<p>Well, Skyler it looks like I will be doing as you did. I will contact Nikon in the morning.</p>

<p>Thanks for the tip Elliot, I will bear it in mind when I get my camera back from Nikon. I have found 9 point dynamic to work fine previously, and 51 point 3D to be useless. I will try single point though.</p>

<p>Cheers everyone.</p>

<p>In answer to your first question, this is what I'm going to try out today. As it's now intermittant, it's not a case of just swapping lenses. The lens has to be tried for a while. His Sigma 150-500 was no good on my camera, but as I mentioned we were losing the light by then, so I didn't want to jump to conclusions. Obviously while he was getting shots, I was not going to ask him to start swapping lenses. It was made worse by the fact he got some great shots of a rare bird :(<br>

I'm using CF, 9 point dynamic focus tracking, and focusing initially with the centre sensor.<br>

No I haven't tried my lens on his camera yet. I may dig out my old D70... That will be fun :)<br>

I'm off out now to try things out. I have cleaned the contacts again. I'm sure I can narrow it down to lens, converter, or camera body this afternoon. I will report back when I get home.<br>

Thanks Elliot</p>