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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<p>Update.<br /> <br /> After balancing the shutter clicks and condition of the camera bought with only a 90 day warranty,<br /> I decided to return the camera to the store where I purchased it, and bought a used one from Adorama with only 18k clicks, and a 2 year warranty. It too, was in excellent condition.<br /> <br /> Being on a budget, it was a question of balancing useage vs condition, and risk of failure, and the Adorama deal was the better especially being the same price. If one can get both low clicks, and decent condition, I am ahead of the game.<br /> <br /> Maybe someday, I will save up for better quality lenses, so now with my D300, and my Nikon 35/1.8 prime for general use, and my Nikon 18-70mm for midrange zooming, I feel good to go.<br /> I have learned that one does not always have to have the newest and the best to take good photos unless you are a pro.<br /> <br /> Thanks for all the responses.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I recently bought a used d7000 with 1k clicks from a reputable camera store, and after spending a week shooting, I discovered that my copy suffered from the infamous front/back focus issues that were mentioned in various posts. After confirming that the problem did indeed exist, the store manager offered me another d7000 body to try or something else. He was not aware of such issues.<br> I decided that it was not worth the hassle and inconvenience of trying out another, so I opted for an excellent condition used d300 body, which I tested, and every photo is tack sharp. I am just a hobbyist who migrated from a d80.<br> When I checked shutter actuations, they were 71k. You could not tell by looking at the body, and all functions work perfectly.<br> My question is would you buy a d300 with 71k in the condition that I described. Many large companies like KEH do not consider Shutter Actuations as something important but overall cosmetic condition.<br> What are your opinions?</p> <p> </p>

<p>Thanks everyone for your input.<br> From what I have read here and elsewhere, what I learned is that technique is foremost, and lens quality contributes greatly but is costly.<br> For me, the FX 24-85mm, from what I have read elsewhere, will have optimum sharpness because I would be using its center sweetspot. Second, it is slightly faster, and finally, better constructed than my kit because it has a sealed metal mount.<br> So for now, it may not be a major step up but perhaps a step in the right direction. Of course, at the price of compromising slightly at the wide angle. When you are on a budget, there are limitations but I am not discouraged. At the same time, one could go bonkers because there is no limit as to the quality of lenses, and what one could pay.<br> I guess it boils down to what works for you.</p> <p> </p>

<p>No a third party Camera Repair company. I can still return it for a refund.<br> To be more specific, being more of a hobbyist than a pro, sharpness and color rendition are more apparent to me and what I seek, than the other factors such as CA, Bokeh, and Distortion which a professional can easily discern. That being said, it appears to me that the 24-85 is sharper than the 18-55mm that I have been using.<br> If budget was not a factor, I would look to get the best possible but my choices are limited. What struck me in my research was that many reviewers cited the sharpness the 24-85mm. Moreover, it appears that the lens is better built with a metal instead of plastic mount.</p>

<p>You are right, my 18-55 is used but was refurbished by a Camera Repair shop.<br> Unfortunately, I am on a limited budget, and after looking online, the best in terms of an interim upgrade and price, was this 24-85mm VR. I generally seek the longer end of a zoom anyway, than the wide but to compensate, I have learned to step back a few feet if needed.<br> I think my camera shop was thinking that for price, and quality, this 24-85 VR currently is the best compromise for what I have, and can afford.</p>

<p>I appreciate the candor about technique but if what you are saying is that even kit lenses should be tack sharp, why the do pros themselves need to buy higher quality lenses? I think both technique, and quality lenses go hand in hand.<br> For that matter, I just read an online review that gives my new 24-85mm better scores than my 18-55mm.<br> Unfortunately, photography seems to be subjective but I am aware that I should find always find ways to improve my technique to optimize my images. Good technique plus a good quality lens is probably the winning formula but I do appreciate your suggestions.</p>

<p>Yes the current version, and thanks for the insight.<br> Would you agree with my camera shop's suggestion that the 24-85mm VR being an FX lens, and me being on a budget, would yield better resolution and sharpness as an upgrade to my 18-55mm VR despite the slight loss at the wide angle?</p>

<p>I recently bought a used D5000 that came with the 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm lens combo.<br> I took some images with the 18-55mm at home and outside, and the results were a mixed bag in regard to sharpness even though I had increased the sharpness setting in the camera. Some of the images were sharp, and some were softer. I know aperture has a bearing.<br> <br />My local camera shop told me that if I wanted consistant sharpness, that I should look to upgrade my lens to a quality one but that new are expensive, and used like the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8, are not cheap either. Anything good would be easily over $400. Unfortunately my budget was $300 or less.<br> The other day, someone traded a mint 24-85mm VR. He told me that he would sell it to me for $250, and that it would be a bigger step up from the 18-55 in sharpness, with a little longer reach but I would have to step back a little for the 6mm loss in the wide angle.<br> All of the reviews that I read cite excellent sharpness for this lens but the testing and reviewing were done on FX bodies.<br> Have any of you used this lens on a DX body? What did you think of the results?<br> I feel as if this is a better "kit" lens than the one that I currently own.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Had trouble uploading.<br /> <br /> Here are the links in order:</p> <ul> <li> </ul> <p>The Orange Color in Standard Mode</p> <ul> <li> </ul> <p>Vivid Mode</p> <ul> <li> </ul> <p>Vivid Mode Sat -1</p> <ul> <li> </ul> <p>Vivid Mode Sat -2</p> <ul> <li> </ul> <p>Vivid Mode Sat -3<br> <br /> AWB is on, ISO 100, Aperture Priority F/11, DR0 Off, Sharpness +1 for each, JPEGS.<br /> <br /> I just do not understand why the camera has problem with the Red until I turn on Vivid Mode.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I have experimented further and have found that my a700, when shooting JPEG, most accurately renders red when I shoot using the Vivid Setting with Saturation set anywhere from 0 to -3.<br> When set on Standard, red resembles orange to me, even if I adjust Saturation.<br> If you look at these photos of the infamous red car that I have been shooting as my test subject, all four except the first render the car red as I basically see it outside my window. Each is shot Vivid -3, -2, -1, and O.<br> The photo that renders the car orange is the Standard setting. DRO is off entirely, and I shot each at A priority f/11.<br> I think DRO now has nothing to do with the color rendition.<br> The car is also sitting in the sunlight.<br> What I do not understand is how Vivid more accurately renders Red as opposed to Standard in this instance? See the images and judge for yourself.<img src="http://s28.photobucket.com/user/whistlebird/library/" alt="" /><br> Ideas or suggestions?</p> <p> </p>

<p>parv, once I turned DRO off, I found my colors to be more truthful to what I was viewing in the finder, at least to me anyway.<br> Being that color is subjective, I would say try turning DRO off, and use the settings of Vivid or Standard and see if you notice any difference.</p>