Ednaz: Put the recalls into perspective - auto defects that need recalls can kill you. GM is recalling near 100% of several model lines over five years. Makes Nikon's track record look pretty good - and nobody died from D600 oil spots.
Complex stuff breaks in complex ways. More complexity equals more complex ways to fail, and less certainty in stress testing. That's true whether it's cameras, cars, or word processing software.
And I like how people are scrutinizing things. That makes manufacturers more uptight about quality control.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is, thank you camera nerds!
cknapp61: Regarding quality control an innovation.
I seem to recall the Japanese pioneering Just in Time delivery and superior inventory management in the 70's-80's......I wonder if Nikon has heard of Lean Six Sigma and the impact on production control with respect to eliminating waste in various disciplines?
I am in the category of devoted D300 and D700 customers (been using Nikon since the 1970's) who is averse to upgrading due to recent quality control failures...for God's sake, they only manufacture a handful of DSLR's, yet are having manufacturing issues? I may just waint until Mirrorless solves focusing speed issues and perhaps we abandon the Bayer Inerpolation system and upgrade my entire system....glass and all.
The same argument can be made for a lot of things. I used a D600 effectively, for shooting sports. At f/2.8, I didn't even care about oil spots. I still take small-aperture landscape shots once in a while though, and that bothers me. I used a Sony a580 with a broken rear screen effectively. Still, not being able to use live view or review pictures was annoying at times. Same with the D800. You can use it without left AF or AF at all. But what if you want to photograph a moving subject off center, to the left? You either have to focus and recompose really quickly, or manually focus. Neither is ideal. I expect better from such expensive cameras.And with regards to sports photography, sports images now are better (far better, in fact) because of reliable AF tracking :D. Honestly, whenever I look at sports images from the 50s and 60s, I go "that's pretty sub-par"
Pat Cullinan Jr: The signal-to-noise ratio could stand improvement. Do you agree?
HowaboutRAW: looks like we disagree on a lot of things today! :)
Could you be more specific about what you mean by dynamic range problems? As far as I'm aware, the D800/810 still hold up pretty well at ISO 400 if you match image sizes with whatever you're comparing them to.
We could just be talking past each other too. You probably value highest attainable image quality, while I value catching the right moments and getting it in focus (with lower standards for resolution/noise).
thx1138: 15 stops of DR and 0 stops of QC. Thanks Nikon for getting the priorities sorted.
Nothing's perfect, and unlike the D800 focus and D600 dust problems, they're offering a timely response. With regards to owning up to problems, I think they do have their priorities straight.
Several things:a) 12 years is an eternity. And when a product costs $3000, it better do something that's been standard for a decade perfectly. More than perfectly in fact.b) true, you can avoid the left points, or not use AF. But you're missing the fact that AF has stayed around for a very good reason (tracking fast action), and selectable focus points have too (because the more you focus + recompose, the more you compromise accuracy).
So my view is that you have tunnel vision with regards to how cameras are used today. Go shoot some sports, and tell me that AF isn't important.
nunatak: first the D610, the V3, and now this. good for Nikon dealing with this right up front. i hope this signals a new service standard for all Nikon customers. :)
What happened with the V3? I'm aware of the D600 dust issues, but did something go wrong with the V series?
And I hope Nikon improves with customer service too. I put a lot of money into that system.
What's wrong with it? For low ISO, high resolution shooting, which I suspect is what most D810 buyers are going for, there are zero problems with SNR. In fact, this sensor (and the ones in the D800/600) are unparalleled when it comes to low ISO performance.
You know what does need improvement? Shadow noise in Canon DSLRs. Not to knock Canon's FF offerings - they're superb at high ISOs. Their low ISO performance could be better though.
"nobody died". Perhaps true, but off the point. When you pay that much for a high end product, it's pretty frustrating to have an issue like that, even if you only occasionally shoot at small apertures.
And for people shooting with small apertures all the time, it must be very frustrating. Cloning out spots isn't my idea of fun.
Look, every issue is "minor" and can be worked around, short of having the whole camera fall apart. But we shouldn't have to work around things when we put down so much money. Full frame cameras just aren't cheap - that's why people have high expectations.
HowaboutRAW: I could re-explain the whole thing here, but since an essay wouldn't fit, here are a couple links to do the talking:http://bythom.com/D800autofocus.htmhttp://photographylife.com/nikon-d800-asymmetric-focus-issue
How about being less sensitive to this stuff? Nikon blew it. Twice. Left focus, then dust. There's no reason to be super-defensive about a product you aren't even responsible for.
Btw, https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=D800+left+focusYou should also tell the whole Internet to drop claims about the D800 if you're trying to cover up issues for Nikon. It's not like I have much influence over the entire internet.
Frank C.: Dlsrs are a dying breed, passé, living in the past, yes the core (pros) will always be there but the masses, the masses! Nikon needs large sensor mirrorless cameras or Sony et al. will eat them up! Nikon will end up catering to a niche market only! Hey Nikon, how about a mirrorless Df to compete with the A7r? As Sony gets mightier day after day there will come a time when they may consider cutting sensor supplies to 3rd parties completely, and then what Nikon? run to Canon?
um, Sony is having a rough time everywhere (except with the PS4). And even though mirrorless cameras have been around for a while and micro-4/3 has a decent lens lineup already, companies making mirrorless cameras are still struggling to keep their heads above water
biggest cause is people thinking rationally - why buy a slower product with poor battery life and sub-par AF when it doesn't cost much less?
Frank C.: Nikon can make the D10 perfect but the dslr remains a dying breed...
At least it's dying less than mirrorless cameras, which are still struggling to get solid market share. It's not like Olympus and Sony are doing well right now.
mpgxsvcd: Nikon could be sitting on top of the industry right now if they had just embraced mirrorless ILCs. And no the 1-series was not them embracing mirrorless. That was Nikon making fun of mirrorless at their own expense.
Nikon’s only hope is to swallow their pride and make a full frame mirrorless camera. Use the fabulous Sony sensor and give it all of the excellent photography controls of their DF camera. The main thing is that they have to come up with a unique and excellent Electronic Viewfinder. They need something to set their camera apart from all of the others.
Right now there really aren’t that many small cameras with a tremendous view finder. Some People still want that and they are willing to pay for it. Nikon you need to wake up and take their money.
I don't understand what going mirrorless with FF will give Nikon, except poor battery life and AF that's barely on par with entry level DSLRs (if they get lucky - the Sony A7r isn't even there).
Mistakes happen to every manufacturer, and it's good that Nikon is stepping up quickly (unlike how they waited forever with the D600/800).
With regards to long exposure bright spots, many, many cameras have that issue. IIRC, the D7000 had something similar. Actually, every camera I've owned will show an occasional hot pixel if you push exposures long enough. Dark frame subtraction (done automatically if long exposure noise reduction is enabled) takes care of the worst of it.
It's not like OOF pictures (unrecoverable) or constantly building dust spots (tons of editing time).
mpgxsvcd: Another product defect is the last thing Nikon needs right now.
though IMO this is less severe than either the D800 left focus issue, or D600 oil. It's impossible to get detail back from out of focus images, and dust/oil accumulation is a nightmare for landscape shooters (tons of editing time).
Hot pixels? Dark frame subtraction has been around for a long time, and if you're shooting long exposures, speed isn't your primary concern anyways.
So it's an issue, but it's less severe, and Nikon has responded pretty quickly.
It could be that my expectations are too high, but does anyone else feel like the ISO 100 and 125 files have more noise and noise reduction artifacts than there should be?
For example, on http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2987174/17-iso100-dsc00498?inalbum=sony-a77-ii-real-world-samples noise reduction and noise cuts into how the sign's texture is rendered. The grain is even more apparent in the background.
gregbartgis: I think the best question is Rich's. Why on Earth would a lens with such great reach not be optimized for the longest FL? This makes no sense, since anyone buying it is generally buying the 600mm lens with the capability of having shorter FL's if needed. If they at least optimized it at, say, 400mm, then overall performance would be at least acceptable.
The Sony 70-400, Nikon 80-400, and other similarly expensive long/slow zooms are better than the Tamron here while covering a wide focal length range.But those lenses have a lower max focal length, and cost about twice as much. For a more aggressive long zoom that sells at half the price, it's hard to fault the Tamron.
That being said, I wouldn't buy any of those lenses. Using f/5.6 at long focal lengths is an absolute nightmare with low light/fast action. Even a 300/2.8 (I have a Nikon 300/2.8 AF-I for about $2000) has enough trouble, requiring ISO 6400 more often than not.
I think it's just very hard to optimize for long focal lengths when covering a very large focal length range. The vast majority of telephoto zooms don't do that well at their longest focal lengths, or are at least weaker there than at shorter focal lengths. The ones that do turn in a convincing performance at their longest focal length tend to be really expensive zooms covering short zoom ratios (i.e., the constant f/2.8 ones)
The best Fuji lenses are optically better than anything from Canikon.
Also drop the f/1.8 thing. For an APSC system this is f/1.2 lens.
Firstly, it's not equivalent to a 85/1.2. It's closer to a 85/1.8 on FF in every way, including subject isolation and low light performance (since FF sensors are larger and at least a stop ahead on those fronts).Secondly, I agree that resolution is not everything. However, Nikon/Canon 85/1.8 lenses offer good bokeh characteristics, distortion control, and build quality for quite a bit less. What other characteristics do you have in mind?We've all spent quite a bit of time using our cameras/lenses, and quite a bit of time looking at the results. Being vague and making the (usually false) assumption that others here don't use cameras/lenses often doesn't achieve anything.
OceanFroggie: Nice camera wrong mount. If the non canikon also rans produced stunning cameras like this with either the Canon or Nikon mount they would sell more bodies.
To me, Canon's winning right now for three reasons: excellent video capability, a very solid repair/servicing department, and a large existing user base (which helps them make money off lenses and get new users more easily).Canon's not winning because of still image-related features. In fact, some Canon users I talked to said they would have gone with Nikon if stills were their only focus.
Horshack: With the advent of very fast CDAF (and CDAF/PDAF hybrid designs) plus 11fps such as on the A6000 I wonder if this technology can be acceptably replicated by using an automated focus-bracket mechanism, where the camera's processor identifies different focus subjects in the scene and brackets to each. The user can later select one of the photos for selective focus on a particular subject or the camera can create a focus-stacked composite for when deep DOF is desired.
The problem is that you can't take bracket for fast moving subjects, because even at 11 fps, each frame will be slightly different.