duncan_mcbride

Thanks for useful comments all, especially Danny for pointing out Thom Hogan's review, which I had not seen. It's clear that a purchase would be much more palatable if I could find a 16-80mm detached from the D500 kit and thus at a lower price as Shun and Danny suggest. Rodeo Joe, I appreciate your remarks about the 18-140mm and have heard other good things, but I definitely need the larger aperture for the photos I take. I would still be interested in more comments from others who may have used both the 17-55mm and the 16-80mm, as Danny has, especially about comparative image quality and the effect of the smaller aperture at the long end. Duncan McBride

I’m thinking about the Nikon 16-80 f/2.8-4 VR as a standard carry-and-walk-around lens for my D7200. Currently I use the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8, which I have had for 7-8 years, love, and use for about 80 % of my work, mostly taking candid and a few formal photos of people. I also hike, so I carry it on the street, indoors, and sometimes in rough terrain. I often shoot at large aperture, even with the good low-light performance of the D7200. The problem with the 17-55 f/2.8 is mostly the weight (755g). Put another way, the 16-80 f/2.8-4 is lighter (480g), less bulky, has a longer reach, and has VR, all of which are positive. The negatives from what I can tell are mostly price, the fact that the aperture is f/4 at 80 mm (and f/3.5 at about 50 mm), and it has a somewhat lower build quality. I can’t tell about image quality very well. The few reviews I have seen of the 16-80 are favorable (for example, Ken Rockwell is enthusiastic but not very critical and only includes a few photos wide open or nearly so, or taken under difficult conditions). DPReview has a few sample images at large aperture (and others), but no full review. Shun Cheung’s comments about the lens along with his D500 review on photo.net a while ago are useful. I would especially appreciate comments from anyone in this group who has used both the 17-55 f/2.8 and the 16-80 f/2.8-4, particularly about how image quality compares and how practically the smaller aperture affects their work. The fact that the D500 currently requires a premium of only US$600 for the lens as a kit, while the lens is US$1067 by itself seems steep, but I have seen no trend to drop the lens price. If the D500 had been available a couple years earlier I would have certainly upgraded to it from my D300, but finally I couldn’t wait, and I can’t see going for the D500 now. Would appreciate thoughts and advice. Duncan McBride

<p>Thanks to everyone for the information; interesting to get a picture of Nikon repair in Europe, too.<br> <br />Except for Tim's response about Nikon 1 repair in Chicago, no one reported experience with Nikon Melville (or Plainville), New York USA. I would still be interested in hearing any fairly-recent -- past year or so -- experience there if anyone has it.</p> <p>Duncan McBride</p>

<p>I just had an interesting experience with Nikon’s repair of my D7200. Last year when I had to<br />replace the focus motor in my 17-55 f/2.8 I logged it in to Nikon’s web site and sent the lens to <br />Melville, NY as instructed. For this repair I logged the D7200 into Nikon’s web site as before, <br />but then I was re-directed to the web site of Camtech ARC in Plainview, NY. I shipped it there, <br />they repaired it, and it seems to work fine. Each page of the Camtech web site says, “Camtech <br />ARC Inc is a Nikon Authorized Repair Center. You have been directed here from NikonUSA.com”<br /><br />Does anyone have any knowledge of what is going on with Nikon repair? I can think of <br />a few possibilities. <br /><br />Melville NY and Plainville NY are areas next to each other on Long Island NY. Possibly Nikon <br />has outsourced its repair business? It could be a spinoff – the same people under a new company <br />name – or a direct outsource to an unrelated company. Or a partial outsource of lower-end <br />equipment, with Nikon retaining the higher-end, maybe full-frame and high-end lenses? <br /><br />The change may be recent – my Repair Order number was just over 0002000. <br /><br />I would appreciate hearing from anyone with direct knowledge, and from any others with <br />experience with the new arrangement.<br /><br />For the curious: One day I picked up the D7200 and saw strange things in the viewfinder – the <br />image was significantly darker, focus was fuzzy, and instead of the focus point being lit in red, <br />there was a momentary red wash across the screen. A few tests showed autofocus was OK, <br />manual focus was way off, and exposure was 2-3 stops over. My guess is that something came loose <br />in the light path between the mirror and the viewfinder/autoexposure. The camera had not <br />been banged around, and I had used it the week before.<br /><br />The repair took a while – 3.5 weeks total, with one week in “parts hold” and another week in <br />“quality inspection.” Unfortunately the camera was 6 months out of warranty, so it took the <br />application of some money, but it was clearly worth repairing.<br /><br />While the camera was at Camtech I had agreed to do two shoots: a family event and something for an <br />organization I belong to: completely amateur, but I’m better than a cell phone. I brought out my <br />ancient D300, took hundreds of photos, and recalled why I like it so much. I’m glad I have had <br />the 7200 for 18 months for its much better high-ISO capability, better focus, more pixels, as <br />well as some minor things, but I wish Nikon had launched the D500 a couple years earlier. <br /><br />Duncan McBride</p>

<p>I have had a similar problem. With the battery cover off and the batteries upright, if I look horizontally at the tops of the batteries I see one that appears lower than the others. This battery is not making contact with the conductors on the battery cover, breaking the circuit to the charging circuit. <br> <br />It looked to me like one of the contacts in the bottom of the battery compartment was bent downward so that it was lower than the others, and that made the top of that battery low. I made a narrow hook out of steel wire (literally baling wire) so that I could pull up the contact spring. Be gentle not to pull it up too far; try the batteries until the low one is again level. That fixed it for me. I think I have had to do this twice over several years. I know of no unusual pressure on that battery. Either the contact spring bent under the weight of the battery when the flash was banged, or the spring is not quite springy enough, or both.</p> <p>This does not involve disassembling the flash nor any contact with the high voltage circuits. Hope it helps.</p> <p>Duncan</p>