Struggling with D7100

Started 9 months ago | Questions thread
chary zp
Contributing MemberPosts: 529Gear list
Like?
Re: explain this
In reply to nfpotter, 9 months ago

nfpotter wrote:

chary zp wrote:

nfpotter wrote:

chary zp wrote:

nfpotter wrote:

chary zp wrote:

nfpotter wrote:

Westmill wrote:

nfpotter wrote:

Westmill wrote:

JK5700 wrote:

I recently bought a D7100 as a backup to my D3s. I have been using the D7100 with my 500VR and AF-S 80-400VR. I am however not getting enough sharp photos with the combinations. I was doing much better with the D300s and of course the D3s.

I understand that the extra megapixels makes long lens technique more critical, but not to the extent that I am experiencing. Are there any tricks to using the D7100 that I am missing?

-- hide signature --

http://kennekam.blogspot.com/
www.pbase.com/kennekam

Yes... you need to fine adjust the lens to the camera. Ive had the same problem with 3 out of 4 lenses. You are in effect dealing with 58 million pixel density. That is what it is if you were to carry it across to FF. its a pain in the butt You need top glass to see any of it. My Sigma 50-150 I bought... eeek ... keeper rate was perhaps 1 in 20 lol. Now it is superb and never misses. Check it out in the Nikon SLR lens talk on here where I have given it a bit of a review. Before I fine tuned it, it was simply awful

No evidence that the OP needs to fine tune. A VERY, VERY over-used "feature", and quite dangerous.

Eh ? what nonsense. Certainly not even going to start going down that road with you.

as for evidence... his pictures are not sharp from lenses that are sharp on all others. That is more than enough evidence to me lol.

I know you need a little knowledge to fine tune well, but its hardly rocket science. Not to mention it can be turned off or reset and altered at any time. I have to be honest and say that is one of the strangest things I have ever read. I would have three lenses that were hardly usable without tuning. Sorry but I am just a bit gobsmacked by that comment lol

Let's help you out a bit here:

First, whether you're tuning a prime or zoom lens, results can vary MASSIVELY depending on what target and distance you're using. Second, if you're tuning a zoom lens, you WILL get different results (if tested correctly) at different zoom lengths. Third, you may get very different results under different lighting conditions, and/or with different focus targets.

These things that most people don't take into account, and then they wonder why they're still struggling.

I own 3 Nikon bodies (2 of which have fine tune), and about 14 lenses (mostly Nikon but some 3rd party). They all work great with ZERO fine tune adjustments (even my "infamous" D7000).

As well, MANY, MANY people use bodies with no fine tune option, and produce brilliant, sharp photos.

Fine-tune is a VERY, VERY over-rated and misused "feature". Period.

Out of sheer curiosity I did finetune when I got my D7100. The results?

Nik 85/1,8G -8

Nik 35/2D -15

Nik 50/1,8D -11

Nik 18-105vr -9 (weighed average)

Nik 18-70 -6 (weighed average)

Sig 10-20/4-5,6 +20 (weighed average, stress on widest)

Tam 200-500 +8 (across the span)

Tam 70-200/2,8 -8 (across the span)

I daresay that fine tune helped me A LOT to get the best possible from my lenses.

Like MOST people that "report" this, you are only stating what you THINK you know. There is absolutely NO evidence that your results are "correct", especially with no before and after shots, no description or pics of your test method. You have to understand that MANY, MANY people have done the same as you - no proof.

Strap all of those lenses on, say a D5100, or any body that doesn't have fine tune.

I would bet a fairly large sum of money that you never needed any of it.

Having shot a series of photos with different settings and having picked the sharpest ones is enough proof for me. What proof would you like, and why? In my language there is a saying which goes something like "you do not need to persuade your friends and your enemies cannot be persuaded". Your offensive method of argumentation discourages me from any over-the-limit effort.

I had my D90 + 18-105 combo fine tuned in Nikon service (backfocus) in the old days and now I can do it myself. Advantage: fine tune.

If if in-camera fine-tune was so useless, why would they have put it in there in the first place? Why are there so many issues of front focus / back focus and why do I buy lenses with a laptop and check them in the shop to see which of them is the sharpest and best centered? Or do you really think that front focus and back focus are virtual, non-existent issues? You made my day, sir

You are welcome to your opinion. I have mine. I should also mention that I DID, at one point, have to send my D7000 to Nikon service (I had a BAD case of lubricant on the sensor, early D7000 production run). At the same time, I had them look at focus with the 18-105 VR, because I could not get sharp shots with it on that body (although it worked fine on my other bodies). I didn't even send the lens, but when I got the camera back, it worked great with the 18-105. None of my 12-13 other lenses needed help. Go figure.

There is, as another example, another case, that I should bring up. It is quite widely known that the D7000, paired with the AFS 35mm f/1.8, has some major problems with correct focus under incandescent light. It's all over the place, and I have it. At one point, I "fine-tuned" that lens as best I could (-20 wasn't even quite enough, but was close), but as soon as I'd get it ANY other light temperature, then my focus was off. A zero fine tune, it still works fantastically in all but pure incandescent light.

Point in case: take AF Fine Tune with a VERY large grain of salt.

It seems you're missing my point. Here's what happens:
A "newbie" buys a camera, then reads about AF Fine Tune, and whether the camera REALLY needs adjustment or not, said "newbie" decides to play with it, almost always using improper analysis technique. This is massively exaggerated by that "newbie" reading sites like dpreview and others, and reading about "focus issues" with this or that body, and any number of other supposed "issues".

You should know that I'm correct, if you've spent more than a few minutes on the internet.

I'm not saying that AF Fine Tune is a bad feature, or doesn't serve a purpose. I'm stating, with some fair amount of real-world knowledge, that a VERY, VERY large percentage of people that THINK they need fine tune simply do not. Maybe you did, but a company as big as Nikon is NOT NOT NOT going to ship a large percentage of any give model with calibration issues. Period. It is FAR too competitive a marketplace for them to do that.

The OP has a problem with a lens. He doesn't have the same problem with other bodies. Only with this D7100.

Now, please, explain this.

I have a lens, in this case Sigma 10-20/4-5,6 at 10mm F4 focussed some 35 cm from the chip.

I have three bodies, D200, D90 and D7100.

With the first two bodies the lens works quite nicely, though I must say that D90 gives sharper images even resampled to D200 file size.

Now, I took the same picture with those three bodies, resample to the size of the smallest (10mpx D200) and D7100's finetune set to 0. Well well. Isn't it interesting that I am getting surprisingly simillar results as the OP? After finetune (here -12) suddenly the image is the sharpest of the bunch. Please explain why finetune is overrated in this case with proof given. Thank you.

from left to right D200, D90, D7100@0, D7100@12, all of them 1:1 crops

So your "proof" is a single test session, with what COULD be very different light, a noisy D90 shot, and no idea if your focus points were grabbing the exact same point of contrast?

Not to mention that that is only from one distance, and one focal length.

You've missed my point, again. It's okay, quite common on these sites full of so called "experts".

I expected this so I made another one. This time 18-105 @ 70 mm F5,3 wide open, focussed on a flat yet detailed surface. All three cameras focussed on the centre of the feather. Again D200 - D90 - D7100@0 - D7100@-10.

Actually I start to see a pattern in my D200's behaviour - it is slightly off. D90 catches quite nicely (yeah, it's been finetuned to this particular lens by Nikon themselves) and finetuned D7100 as well. I could go on but it is 1AM here and I have to get up at some time tomorrow

But a second test and the same behaviour? Isn't it strange?

Actually, my second proof "says nothing" while you are right with no proof in your hands so far whatsoever. Curiouser and curiouser.

 chary zp's gear list:chary zp's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P7700 Nikon D90 Nikon D200 Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
yesNew
TrueNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow