The Nightmare is over!

[bfitzgerald]

Greg I'm going to have to chew this one over for a bit and carefully look over the images (I shot raw to one card and jpeg for the other) working though the shots (as per normal) I'll dump raw ones that don't hit the spot (not just AF but overall) I shot all 3 lenses extensively on the D7000.
My initial thoughts are none of the lenses was trouble free, but the 35mm f1.8 was less of an issue than the other lenses..I could buy the 17-50mm f2.8 not playing ball a bit (seems more of a problem tele end than wide end) the 90mm f2.8 is not known for causing hassles..but it gave me quite a few problems on that day.

So I will work though the images, checking the details and see what went wrong with what lens, and where things were ok why they were ok. If it's a case of having to replace a few lenses that's not a problem (lots of choices for both) but I'm puzzled on this one still as I did some goofing around with the 35mmf1.8 and that was showing signs of misfocus too. I'll report back when I have more information later in the week.

If there is a lens issue then I'm def not going to rush out and buy a Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 (for the money they can forget it) I could replace the 17-50mm f2.8 with a Sigma though..or a 16-85mm and add a fast 50mm for lower light. As you can see I'm not overly keen on splashing out on more lenses if there is a body issue..if it is a lens one that can be sorted.

[Greg Beetham]

There was someone else on the Photo.net thread who was having hit or miss AF with his D7000 as well, with some expensive lenses too, he had to send in the lenses and the body so Nikon could get it working properly apparently, I don’t know what they did but after they did it he seemed to think it was much better, so maybe there is hope.
There is the D300s as well Barry, I don’t know if it has/had any AF problems or not, reasonably expensive still though, about $2100-ish for a kit here and about $1200-1400 for a body, it’s a 12Mp camera so it’s got plenty of resolution for the job, I’ve always had the impression that it is a class above the D7000 in quality so maybe the D300s body is worth a long look if there are definitely no issues with your lenses.
I’m not sure about using a macro lens for more distant type work, they focus rather slowly as a rule and not totally reliable for focus accuracy at larger distances either I think, I tried my KM100 Macro a couple of times at more distant subjects and thought it was too cumbersome focussing and I don’t think the focus accuracy was as good as on my other lenses either, but a magic lens up close, AF accuracy that would split hairs, so I guess it’s a case of horses for courses.
Greg

[Dusty]

Okay Barrry, time to cut your losses and go for broke: Leica S series!

Of course, they you WILL be broke!

Dusty

[bfitzgerald]

I'm stumped on this one I played around with the AF adjust and it helped a bit but did not solve the problems.

Actually Dusty I have thought not about Leica (because obviously I don't have the budget for that)
But maybe I need to think outside the box on this one?

A few ideas (and only ideas)
1: Bite my tongue and just buy a Sony something body (as I already have some lenses for it) get over the SLT/EVF and just get we hope in focus shots (not easy but I rule nothing out at this stage)

2: Look at some kind of mirror less system (thus avoiding we hope phase detect AF problems) Fuji have some interesting options too may/may not suit my shooting (remember I don't really do action, mostly people/wedding type shots)

3: Buy a Canon DSLR of some kind I would think anything from a 60d upwards

4: Buy a FF body from some maker (second hand an option)

5: In one last desperate attempt to solve the issues buy a D300s or a D600 (D600 is pushing things a tad but not impossible)

6: Sell everything and just buy computer parts and board games off of Amazon, abandon photography and keep my finepix for goofing around.

7: Buy a Fuji X100 as a "backup type" body purely on the basis I really liked the idea even if it's not as refined as it should be, but it might make a good candid camera for weddings

Any ideas and I shall listen..maybe I don't even need a DSLR, though I'm not sure micro 4/3 is my cup of tea either.
I do need some kind of flash capability though ie decent.

Nothing is off the table right now, maybe I need to completely change direction?
Quick question to Greg what are you using camera wise right now?

[pakodominguez]

A few ideas (and only ideas)
1: Bite my tongue and just buy a Sony something body (as I already have some lenses for it) get over the SLT/EVF and just get we hope in focus shots (not easy but I rule nothing out at this stage)

I think I told you so some time ago...

2: Look at some kind of mirror less system (thus avoiding we hope phase d ect AF problems) Fuji have some interesting options too may/may not suit my shooting (remember I don't really do action, mostly people/wedding type shots)

Issue with Mirrorless is not just focus speed, but that this cameras are not really good focusing on low light. and because the AF system, the IR lamp assistant on the flash wont work either.
In other hand if you are going for a Fuji X-series camera, bodies only cost more than 1000 $, and their (beautiful) lenses goes for a similar price each, is that on your budget?

3: Buy a Canon DSLR of some kind I would think anything from a 60d upwards

ugh!

4: Buy a FF body from some maker (second hand an option)

go to 1: I think you can get an A850 for 1500 $ or less...

5: In one last desperate attempt to solve the issues buy a D300s or a D600 (D600 is pushing things a tad but not impossible)

Well, if you tried with a D90 (4 years old?) why not the D300s...

6: Sell everything and just buy computer parts and board games off of Amazon, abandon photography and keep my finepix for goofing around.

Yeah, right.

7: Buy a Fuji X100 as a "backup type" body purely on the basis I really liked the idea even if it's not as refined as it should be, but it might make a good candid camera for weddings

I don't think the X100 is good for candids... It is a big camera (compared with Pen or NEX cameras), AF is slow, 35mm equivalent lens force you to get closer in order to fill the frame (so the candid approach is harder...

Any ideas and I shall listen..maybe I don't even need a DSLR, though I'm not sure micro 4/3 is my cup of tea either.
I do need some kind of flash capability though ie decent.

Nothing is off the table right now, maybe I need to completely change direction?
Quick question to Greg what are you using camera wise right now?

I still think you need to adjust to the Nikon AF system.

[Greg Beetham]

Barry I haven’t cottoned on to the Mp race or the EVF/movie flim flam so I never ‘progressed’ anywhere past my three DSLR’s, the KM5D with about 4000 shots since new, the A100 with about 3000 shots and the A700 with about 2000 (I accidentally put a memory card from the A100 in the A700 and it reset the count upwards), I’ve sortof got the habit now of leaving a lens of a type on a body and just getting that particular body when I want to use that lens.
I should probably buy a D300s while they are still available and just keep it in reserve (after giving it a good test), as Sony don’t make optical cameras now, plus I don’t think lots of Mp’s in more up to date models do anything except waste space.
Greg

[bfitzgerald]

Greg I can't say I want to land down £1000 for such a dated body as the D300s, if it were on a blowout sale I'd think about it but not a chance I'd pay that for one new. I would be amazed if Nikon sell that many at such a price and so late in a products cycle. You'd get wiped out depreciation wise when a D400 turns up for a few hundred more. I could actually buy a grey market Canon 7d for £800 odd brand new which isn't bad really.
D7000 update..I used the AF fine tune on all the lenses which helped, but did not solve the AF issues. I am packing up the body to send it for a warranty repair. If I am not satisfied with that on it's return I will have to decide what direction to take. If it is ok after repair that is fine, but my confidence in Nikon is not great to deliver a properly calibrated body out of the box as such.

Some observations so far. For all the snazzy tons of metering segments I found the D90 was actually more consistent for exposures. DPR are only half right with their observations it's not just a sunny day thing. The issues is the metering is too biased to the AF point being used (much more so than the D90 is) so groom in dark suit..bang goodbye highlights shot to bits. It does ok with larger white areas, but can be fooled with strong back-lighting. You can't really use the metering fine tune, because it's not consistent over/underexposure..well you can use it but I would not advise it. It is a bit better than the D90 for very low light metering a bit more exposure which helps tame the noise. But overall I think the D90 was better..D7k will blow out skies to kingdom come in matrix metering even with the good DR sensor.

The sensor is top notch (as we know) but not as huge a leap over the 12mp CMOS as some suggest. You can get away with murder underexposure with the 16mp CMOS (as we know) DR top end pretty good but not much over the 12mp one. You can get a decent ISO 6400 v ISO 3200 on the 12mp sensor. I'd not go higher than that bar for very small prints or web. Jpegs are good, with NR off and better than the D90 at high ISO.

My concern with Nikon is they will take their APS-C range to all 24mp sensors..bigger raw files, not useful for low light shooting and personally I don't agree with it. Worse they have no small raw like Canon do..maybe that new DNG standard from Adobe will find some fans. I concerned where this ends if they will happily put 24mp on on a budget DSLR will we end up with 36-50mp on APS-C DSLR's? I'm not convinced this is anything bar a marketing trick for boost sales.

Full frame, D600 has had a decent price cut..but I'm not willing to shove down £1600 on it right now even if I get enough confidence that it might AF properly! So I'll play with my Metz flash when that arrives for my Km5d's and send that D7000 off and report back when it turns up again. Nikon have not so far convinced me in field use..the metering whilst it's not a huge issue and can be got over with experience, it's still a step back from the model it replaced. The bottom line is though the AF which is just plain "bad" on all 4 bodies I've tried. Unless their is a dramatic improvement on it's return..then I'm likely to wander off somewhere else.

Having to dump huge numbers of shots due to lousy AF Accuracy is just not acceptable..esp not for serious work.

[Greg Beetham]

I’m wondering how long it’s going to be before a few more people catch on that cameras that have lots of Mp’s and generate large image files just aren’t worthwhile for much more than helping memory makers and hard drive manufacturers sell more of their products. I bet the vast majority of images taken with such cameras do nothing more than that if people stop and check the percentage of images they take and actually do something with as compared to the amount that clutter up hard drives, and of the ones they do do something with what is the size of the image after they have finished getting it into a fit size to upload or transmit? I bet it’s no longer a high Mp image.
That’s why I think cameras like I still use are worth their weight in gold now and a high class camera like the D300s is one that should be grabbed while it is still around, I don’t worry about my cameras loosing resale value at all quite frankly, I didn’t buy them to sell before they drop in value, I bought em to keep, but that doesn’t mean I have to stay with just one brand, I can always put those in reserve and use them occasionally or still use them and keep another brand of camera in reserve it doesn’t matter really as long as I avoid the crazy Mp race as long as possible.
Take the A77 for example, you often hear the argument (when someone is defending its high ISO ability) that it’s no worse than the highly acclaimed Sony 16Mp sensor, that is after you down-res it back to the same size. Yeah…ok…riiiight…you buy a 24Mp cam for no obvious reason that I can see other than the nebulous attraction that all those extra Mp’s must make a better 200Kb jpeg than the last camera did but it’s noisy at high ISO, or noisier than the previous model, but hey all you have to do to fix the problem is downsize it to the same size you had before and it’s all good.
If you can get your head around that line of reasoning you’re doing better than me.
I will admit there is an argument for high Mp’s where scenic photography is concerned but for scenic photography you need nice clear scenery without any haze, if you have those conditions wherever you go to take scenes then that’s fine you are in luck with your high Mp camera but I bet there are plenty of scenic photographers that don’t get clear conditions anywhere near as often as they would like, are we all held captive to the desires of scenic photographers?
So where does that leave us, can you use the high Mp camera at reduced output and get a decent photo like you would get from a lower Mp camera? So far I remain to be convinced that that is possible, so I’ll just battle on with my low Mp cameras I think.
If the high Mp cameras had associated firmware/software that made it possible to get fine textures/details and smooth gradients with sharp edges at a sensible web size I wouldn’t have objections to the huge original file size but I don’t think they have that aspect fully sorted yet so I’m inclined to think it’s a marketing scam more than anything, we don’t have a monitor that can display the output of the cameras properly so what is the point?
I hope your AF problems get sorted soon, I don’t know what to make of it quite frankly, who would have thought one of the main brands of camera would have that kind of problem nowadays, one would think that it would be widespread and there would be endless complaints (there might be, I haven’t checked) if it’s endemic to the brand, I have heard of the D800 and it’s left AF sensor problem but I haven’t looked to see if the D90 or D7000 have well known issues, is the Nikon AF different in the way it works for the user than the KM/Sony AF? Does Pako have a point that you have to get familiar with the way it works? I would have thought that it either AF’d properly and accurately or it doesn’t, but then so far I have never tried a Nikon myself to see if it’s different in some fashion.
As far as exposure goes does the Nikon AEL button work like the KM/Sony one? Can you set it to toggle and take a reading for exposure (say off the grass) and just use that like you can with KM/Sony?
Greg

[bfitzgerald]

Greg I'm not worried about a few metering quirks I can deal with that one. You've got some decent choices with CW metering including an average across the frame, or settings the CW circle size. So I can cope with issues here and there, these are not big ones to me.

I'll have to see how the camera is when it comes back, I would hope it would sort out the problems at least pretty much sort them out. I can handle a fine tune tweak for the odd lens, at the moment the 90mm f2.8 is one of my most valuable lenses (in a practical sense) I can't get that right because I think the AF is out of calibration.

I've sent it off yesterday, so I'd hope it would turn up maybe next week. Until then I've pulled out the 5d for some stuff oldie or not I can work with that for a while.
I think the real issue is lack of proper calibration at the factory, there are quite a few settings for AF..but if you can't hit static subjects with single point AF-S then it's a def problem! Maybe I've been super unlucky..and heads have rolled QC wise at Nikon. In every other way the D7k is a great camera. I can completely see why it's a big seller for Nikon, if they could only get their AF sorted out.

I had a discussion with Thom Hogan about this..this is what he said

After doing some more tests I've found one key difference between Canon and Nikon focus systems, in particular the lower end ones like in the D600 and D7000. Put simply, Canon misses focus more often when focus comes from near, Nikon misses focus more often when focus comes from behind. Thus, "back focus."

These appear to be design decisions about "acceptable focus versus DOF."

I need to do more testing to get enough data to validate results and hypothesis here.

There's one more thing going on: resolution has gotten good enough that users are now seeing something that's always been there. Try downsizing the results to 10 or 12mp and see what happens ;~). It seems that 16mp+ on DX and 36mp+ on FX is beyond the tolerance limitations of the existing focus systems. At least enough that discriminating users are seeing problems. You don't quite get the same uproar from Canon users because (yes I'm about to make a generalist statement that's loaded) Canon users don't tend to be as discriminating overall. This is borne out in lots of ways: they don't buy nearly as many books on their cameras despite Canon selling far more cameras, for example ;~).

I'll repeat what the late Dr. Keppler wrote back in the early 90's about autofocus systems: they aren't precise. They're built to a tolerance that most people will find acceptable. I'm actually not sure that they can be built to a higher tolerance using phase detect only. If I'm doing the geometry and math correctly, we're at the limits of what we can expect from the technology by itself.

I'm not sure I can entirely agree based on the "degree of back focus" clearly it's beyond what I would consider "a tad off"

[pakodominguez]

I had a discussion with Thom Hogan about this..this is what he said...

Look what your friend Thom have to say about EVF:
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/did ... -miss.html

DSLRs will defend themselves for awhile, then become EVFs (ala what Sony has done with their DSLR lineup). In other words, most of the DSLR market is posed to eventually merge with mirrorless. Taken together, mirrorless and EVF DSLRs will be bigger than mirrorless or DSLRs by themselves. But it also means that we'll be back to the too many players trying to grab market share from one another problem. Don't underestimate the Canon/Nikon will to dominate this market.

Sony nailed it first. if we are lucky, Canon, Nikon and hopefully Sony, will offer high end OVF cameras, but the rest will be EVF. So, OVFs die hard, buy now a couple of extra bodies, or save for high end cameras in the future -I got my new A900 one year ago and use it with moderation. I shoot mostly with the NEX7...

[bfitzgerald]

First off, I had a conversation with Thom ala message not face to face. I've no problems with his views but friends is something a bit more than an exchange on a forum.
He's quite entitled to air his views on his site, his stomping ground and fair enough..same for Ken Rockwell love or hate him.
Do I agree?
Well I said ILC was not likely to make a massive market on itself, said that I felt too many makers are out there (my money is on Samsung leaving the market eventually) As for EVF's and other makers I think we shall have to wait and see. They might play around in the rebel range/lower D Nikon possibly. Above that less likely for some time.
Sony's one hit EVF slam across the entire range can only be seen as..either amazingly confident, or incredibly naive about their prospective buyers.

[Greg Beetham]

Greg I'm not worried about a few metering quirks I can deal with that one. You've got some decent choices with CW metering including an average across the frame, or settings the CW circle size. So I can cope with issues here and there, these are not big ones to me.

I'll have to see how the camera is when it comes back, I would hope it would sort out the problems at least pretty much sort them out. I can handle a fine tune tweak for the odd lens, at the moment the 90mm f2.8 is one of my most valuable lenses (in a practical sense) I can't get that right because I think the AF is out of calibration."

Barry, the 90/2.8 is a (Tamron?) extending barrel macro lens I think, are you sure that using a macro lens for general photography is a good idea? I love my KM100 macro lens…for macro; I tried it a few times for general photography and found it too slow to AF and not necessarily always exact for focus accuracy at more normal distances either, it’s mostly ok-ish if you are using f5.6 or f8 to take out the slight focus errors but for portraiture you need to blur the background (I’d imagine) so you’d want to use it around f4 or larger probably. It might have something to do with the way the optics in macro lenses are arranged maybe, not sure, it became a lens I reserved for doing it’s specialist job and I can’t fault it at doing that, but for general photography not so good, I’d prefer to use my KM24-105 than it (great sharp little lens on APS-C).
Greg

[bfitzgerald]

Greg the Tamron is a good lens and hits 2 spots for me fairly fast candid lens (135mm equivalent love it to bits) and decent macro. It's no speed demon (not your first choice for sports) but it's pretty good even wide open at distances.
I got the D7k back today in a very quick turn around..and so far I feel the AF is improved (on all lenses) bit early to nail down the colours quite yet (naturally cautious due to past experiences) but it's better even with the 90mm f2.8 (which actually seems on target now) On the other hand with some more testing there is still some elements of inconsistency..and I've felt for a time Nikon's AF is more prone to giving you a lock indication, when it's not quite in focus esp in lower light levels.

The Km5d was never like this if it couldn't lock it told you. Maybe this is how Nikon's AF works. So one to think about on this

I like the camera, will have to do more AF shots to see how I feel about it.

[Wes Gibbon]

Re the D800. Conventional wisdom had it that eventually people would stop chasing more megapixels when they had a sensor with as much definition as they could possibly need. However, perhaps it is more true to say that punters will continue to chase more megapixels until they become a positive disadvantage - slowing post-production processing significantly with now visible benefit. Maybe that point has now been achieved with the D800. I wonder how many people are now wishing they had waited for a D600 instead? Not that I particularly want to bash the D800 - no doubt it gives great results, particularly if you want A2 or A1 prints, and DK has written enthusiastically about the 'zinging' sharpness of the D800E.

One further D800 problem - I know two people with D800's and they have both experienced a nasty problem - oil from the shutter mechanism splashing onto to sensor. One of them got his sensor clean but it took him 10 swabs (c 25 quids-worth). Anyone else heard of this?

[bfitzgerald]

D800 seemed to have some AF sensor alignment problems (I assume the actual AF sensor isn't square) I've heard about oil spots on sensors with some Nikon models including the D7000 though I've not seen it myself I don't doubt that was a problem.

D600 will continue to fall in price, just right now I can't really justify a £1500 + more lenses to get there. Maybe next year if it drops down more in price.
I think it's a dead cert that the next batch of models will be 24mp, wonder if Canon go above 18mp for their model updates (both makers are due updates esp 7d and D300s)
Can't say I care for 24mp I think 12mp was pretty good, 16mp well that's not a big jump but again I think plenty of resolution for most people. Wonder if they will go beyond 24mp on APS-C you have to worry when they bash out a budget model with 24mp on it..where to next?

I do wish the industry would look beyond pixels it's getting a bit boring really, not to mention how badly the D800 would eat up your HDD space! Canon are said to be working on a FF body that goes well beyond 36mp..as if 36mp isn't way overkill for just about everyone! Madness..

I still think I'll pick up an X100 shortly I love the skintones and yes 12mp is just great..chewing this one over!