DaveE1

DaveE1

Joined on Sep 18, 2008

Comments

Total: 400, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Moon0326: Just checked my D750 on the website. It doesn't even say when I will get my camera back. That's nice.

The length of time will vary depending on a lot of factors, volume of items for service, distance to the nearest service facility, couriers to stores, etc.

When they did the free service on the D810, it varied from hours for some people to weeks. I would expect that in all honesty.

Can you get your camera dealer to loan you a replacement body while you wait? Lots of photographers, myself included, availed of that option before.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2015 at 20:08 UTC
In reply to:

bocajrs: Shipping mine out today

bocajrs, you sound like a photographer. I can tell, because photographers are practical people who just get stuff fixed or replaced when it gives trouble.

Enjoy your camera. It's a good one.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2015 at 20:03 UTC
In reply to:

Just Ed: Seems to be limited to a particular segment of the production run which would indicate manufacturing rather than design problems.

Congrats to Nikon for recognizing the problem and being on top of the remedy.

Still like my Canon though.

Nikon could have kept denying it. Actually, that is the norm, with the exception with cars or equipment where a specific flaw might cause injury.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2015 at 19:58 UTC
In reply to:

Peter England: So I have a D750 which is apparently affected by this defect. From what I can see my rights are to return the faulty equipment to store and have it replaced with a brand new one. Anyone else done this?

Sometimes a thoroughly checked over camera can be calibrated better on a technician's bench than one straight from the hands of those busy assembly line robots :)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2015 at 19:56 UTC
In reply to:

nikheat: I checked my serial number (2004727) and the site says it is affected, but I have run every test I can and have read/seen and am unable to replicate any banded flare (not even a little bit).

So the question would be, should I still send it in? My initial reaction is no, how do they fix something that isnt broken? As I understand it, the D600 had a shutter replacement, but it seems the D750 only needs an adjustment.

I'd suggest that you do have it checked out by Nikon anyway.

It won't cost you and there is no harm in having the "fix" black dot if selling. Though, I doubt that many people will remember to check for the dot when buying these secondhand a couple of years from now.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2015 at 19:51 UTC
In reply to:

Charlie boots: If there are black dots in the tripod sockets then obviously Nikon knew about this before it was noticed by customers but they kept quiet until they had to do something. They should have been upfront and issued a notice and recall as soon as this was discovered. Once again Nikon does not inspire confidence in its new products. The result will be that people will hold off buying new products until the bugs have been ironed out.

Too many mistakes made in the past few years with high end expensive cameras without Nikon quickly taking responsibility.

Yeah, the black dots are added following the fix. Obviously, the fix is done, or the problem avoided, on newer cameras prior to shipping.

@Charlie, buy a camera from a company who doesn't fix this kind of issue for free and you'll rethink your issue with Nikon.

If anyone thinks perfection is possible from any manufacturer, then sell your camera gear. You aren't going to be happy in this business. I have a dozen clapped out cameras from half a dozen different manufacturers in a box here.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2015 at 19:45 UTC
On Nikon D750 flare investigated: Why we're not worried article (343 comments in total)
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Say you were working for a small company and not getting the publicity you felt was deserved...Instead of spending tons of money on pure photography, leave a screw out somewhere and your product will be in the news every day for months. All for a problem that is easily fixed. And between shows, too when there is no other news.

The small company doesn't make that publicity. You (we) do.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2015 at 19:00 UTC
On Nikon D750 flare investigated: Why we're not worried article (343 comments in total)
In reply to:

exposeless: Whats there to be worried about ,Nikon was able halt any mention of the flare problem from all publications till after the holiday season including DPR.This should have been discovered before DPR 's review was published.

@Daniel Thanks for the laugh :D

It's true. Some people take free online content so much for granted that they now feel robbed if they read something that they don't agree with.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2015 at 15:28 UTC
On Nikon D750 flare investigated: Why we're not worried article (343 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ramjager: Let me guess if it was a Canon camera from DPR's perspective it would be another nail in the coffin.
Instead it's Nikon but hey it's ok...
Let me guess who is paying the bills..

Watch out. Conspiracies everywhere.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2015 at 15:03 UTC
On Nikon D750 flare investigated: Why we're not worried article (343 comments in total)
In reply to:

yesman12: For a web site that claims to be impartial, I am surprised to see a headline which fundamentally sounds like a apologist for Nikon. Also, since you uncovered the problem in your testing, why was it until now that you decided to present the issue with a full page?

Given a string of similar issues from recent Nikon cameras, If DP were really impartial, perhaps the headline should read
"Nikon Flare issue: Is there a pattern of QC problems"

yesman12, did you actually read the article or did you just draw a conclusion from the headline not being as critical as you would have liked? Even if a headline doesn't damn the camera and manufacturer, why would it annoy you?

Anyway, I am sure Nikon is not for you. nor Sony, nor Canon, nor Phase One, nor Fuji, nor Leica, nor Olympus... damn it, I can't think of a single manufacturer with a 100% clean sheet in my user experience. It hasn't stopped me enjoying the use of cameras from all of those companies though.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2015 at 15:01 UTC
On Nikon D750 flare investigated: Why we're not worried article (343 comments in total)
In reply to:

DDWD10: If I could just play Devil's Advocate for a second.

Both the stepped flare and AF calibration issues would be impossible in a MILC. More complicated machines increase the likelihood of quality control issues. Glad to see Nikon is stepping up to the plate and taking care of this.

The Sony mirrorless I used a year ago for a travel shoot had a tendency to lock up when switched on. Apparently that batch of cameras had an issue according to the Sony rep I reported it to. The replacement I got worked perfectly. We have to remember that issues happen across the board and mirrorless cameras are not "simple" either.

The only camera makers not having new issues are those who don't produce new products.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2015 at 14:52 UTC
On Nikon D750 flare investigated: Why we're not worried article (343 comments in total)
In reply to:

exposeless: Whats there to be worried about ,Nikon was able halt any mention of the flare problem from all publications till after the holiday season including DPR.This should have been discovered before DPR 's review was published.

Calm down just a little exposeless. If your camera is affected (assuming you even have a Nikon D750), then I think the issue will be fixed soon. All complex mechanical and electronic products are subject to problems in the real world.

As for the review, the D750 is an excellent camera. I have personally tested it out and didn't find a problem with it either. That's not to say that others don't have an issue that can be fixed.

The issue was well discussed, so any consumer using this site would surely have read some of the many, many, many comments. I don't think that DPR staff are necessarily obliged to hold our hands when we buy a new camera.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2015 at 14:43 UTC
On Nikon D750 flare investigated: Why we're not worried article (343 comments in total)
In reply to:

rsf3127: I understand that DPreview.com is not concerned about this dare issue because people there have not dropped two grand for the camera and do not rely on it as a tools to make their ends meet.
I would avoid Nikon products until they decide to go mirrorless, because for me it is clear that they lack in the RD of mirrorboxes.

rsf3127, thanks for the clarification that my money is my money. I was worried for a while there. lol

But joking aside, I will deal with any camera issue if it affects a model I have.

The D810 was adjusted quickly by Nikon when I decided to have that body checked out. I even got a replacement D810 body from the store while that was being done, so no impact at all on me and no need to worry.

I have not always had the same service from other manufacturers though. But as someone who has had the use of a lot of cameras over the years, I understand that all complex mechanical and electronic equipment can and do have problems from time to time. This also goes for MF systems that cost $$,$$$'s per system.

This is something to be factored into your business. Having at least one spare or an older model of camera to fall back on is a good idea.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2015 at 14:35 UTC
On Nikon D750 flare investigated: Why we're not worried article (343 comments in total)
In reply to:

exposeless: Whats there to be worried about ,Nikon was able halt any mention of the flare problem from all publications till after the holiday season including DPR.This should have been discovered before DPR 's review was published.

I think DPR has explained its position quite well to be fair to them.

If the "holiday" you are talking about is Christmas/Xmas/December 25th, then the topic was well discussed before then.

Nikon have been responsive within reason. Planning their resources to fix these worldwide takes a few weeks... not that most people complaining would have a clue about managing global resources.

Or maybe there is a conspiracy afoot? Conspiracy theories are fun. Don't let me spoil that fun ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2015 at 12:27 UTC
On Nikon D750 flare investigated: Why we're not worried article (343 comments in total)
In reply to:

rsf3127: I understand that DPreview.com is not concerned about this dare issue because people there have not dropped two grand for the camera and do not rely on it as a tools to make their ends meet.
I would avoid Nikon products until they decide to go mirrorless, because for me it is clear that they lack in the RD of mirrorboxes.

Sound like you want a mirrorless camera. Go for it. There are some really nice ones out there.

However, I'm perfectly happy with the Nikon DSLR's I use here. Avoiding them based on random stranger's online hissyfits would be silly.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2015 at 12:19 UTC
On Flickr Wall Art removes Creative Commons prints article (44 comments in total)
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: This doesn't make sense to me. What is the purpose of the CC images, if not to use them? Of course it's going to cost money to make a print, and the bigger and fancier the print, the more it will cost.

As long as Flickr wasn't charging extra for a CC image, I don't see what the problem was. Now people just have less choices for their art.

If I'm a photographer who agreed to have my work on CC available for free use, then I would be flattered if people chose to pay to have it made into large wall-art.

(But I don't know much about Creative Commons, so if my understanding is flawed, I hope somebody will clarify it for me.)

With all due respect, Edgar, the variations on creative commons licenses are explained in detail on the creative commons licence pages. There is far too much information to paste here.

The comment you took such grave offense to reads more like a direct question as to whether you agreed with Flickr helping themselves to images that are not covered for the commercial venture. People didn't "donate" those images to Flickr or their customers.

But be angry with all of us, if that's your need.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 22, 2014 at 01:42 UTC
On Flickr Wall Art removes Creative Commons prints article (44 comments in total)
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: This doesn't make sense to me. What is the purpose of the CC images, if not to use them? Of course it's going to cost money to make a print, and the bigger and fancier the print, the more it will cost.

As long as Flickr wasn't charging extra for a CC image, I don't see what the problem was. Now people just have less choices for their art.

If I'm a photographer who agreed to have my work on CC available for free use, then I would be flattered if people chose to pay to have it made into large wall-art.

(But I don't know much about Creative Commons, so if my understanding is flawed, I hope somebody will clarify it for me.)

@Edgar, you shoot your mouth off about licensing you are not familiar with, then call other people jerks and insult them. When in a hole, stop digging.

Surely there is some Christmas spirit in Indy this year. Get out and enjoy it.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 21, 2014 at 21:14 UTC
In reply to:

sneakyracer: Phase should price the IQ150 back at around $18,000 and the IQ250 at about $24,000 MAX. The Phase One IQ backs are superb but are priced way to high new. Specially the IQ250 and the IQ150 which have IDENTICAL sensors to the 645z and the Hasselblad 50c's.

When you consider that the CCD sensor is superb in only the best, or controlled, lighting conditions, you are paying a premium for a camera that needs a lot of preparation in the shoots.

Even at a lower price point, some of these cameras are not suitable for many photographers.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 17, 2014 at 15:28 UTC
In reply to:

Flashback: A wooden grip? Hmm...

Any of you guys remember the days, when a decent Hi-Fi unit, had to have wooden side cheeks!

Yes. It's difficult to show that you have paid so much for the insides if the outside of the box doesn't "look" expensive. :)

Direct link | Posted on Dec 17, 2014 at 15:24 UTC
In reply to:

Martin87: In other words: These cameras will cost you an arm and a leg :-)

Very true Andreas. And those clients pass on the amputations to the end customer through higher costs for their "premium" product.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 17, 2014 at 15:22 UTC
Total: 400, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »