Nikon announces service advisory for D810 'bright spots'

No one, as far as I can ascertain, is claiming Nikon never has issues. Nor that this is an issue. The question is how minor an issue it is. I suggest you take up some remedial reading courses.

JDThomas:

Why is it NOT a good idea to avoid buying the newest model for at least 6 months, as long as you don't need it for something in particular?

Firmware gets updated, street price drops a bit, extra batteries are readily available, etc.

Who cares? If you want a camera buy it. This mantra of waiting 6 months has become tedious. I've bought dozens of cameras the first run and never had any issues other than the D600 and I didn't even notice that for a few months.

I just don't understand why everyone is such a "Nervous Nellie".

<==

To put it in a different perspective: I sent a D300 to be remapped for a couple dozen pixels that had become hot/lazy over the years, and was informed that the effects would be negligible if discernible at all. However as a good portion of my photography then was macro I was not 100% comforted by what Nikon considered negligible in conjunction with my specific genre. After lengthy correspondence with a senior tech and an engineer, I was assured that a few handfuls of pixels should not effect IQ of the sensor as ~24 pixels only represented a tiny percentage of the sensor - however - if they were looking at having to remap thousands of pixels for example (.00016%) they would strongly recommend a sensor replacement if not simply upgrading to a new camera. As some of the Nikon France images no longer readily available showed tens of thousands of pixels that would need to be permanently remapped (.00055%) it makes one question what the real 'fix' for the issue should be.

Nobody wants to read your pontifications…That's the real REALITY CHECK

There's a strange irony in such a message from someone calling themselves "Reality Check".

Does anybody read posts that long?

If anyone has downloaded those images with the hot pixels; tens of thousands from the Nikon France site, please post them and share the link. Thank you.

Reality Check:

And short exposure + no crop high ISO samples I've shot with the D810 just don't show dead pixels.

"Hopefully, they are swirling down the porcelain throne"

You are giving advice to corporations, without the ability to put together one coherent sentence? LOL

How did you read that as advice? lol

You seem to have troubles with comprehension, maybe you need a coffee or something? ;-D

Keep on stalking me DaveE1, it's kind of pathetic but do what you need to do I suppose. I mean seriously, grammar-policing on the internet? LMAO

Framer, coffee for comprehension? What?

If I had what you're smoking, I wouldn't be worried about a minor issue with a camera others are using. LOL

No, the coffee is to stimulate your brain, you seem to be having troubles...

That was unkind, sandy ;-)

No, its doesn't surprise me either, the surprise is if its such a big issue, how come you didnt even know about it and you own the camera?

And yet you scream bloody murder for an issue that would never even affect you or obvoiusly most of us.

"Dave what about the d5xxx series?"

It doesn't have a selfie back facing lens. :D These people need their dedicated selfie lens!

you compare Nikon with Apple? Hahahahahahahahaha

Yes. There was a time that Apple were deemed to be all but extinct.

If you're younger than a certain age, that might be impossible to imagine.

The Apple comparison is actually a good one. Obviously, they are different companies, but Apple were written off many times in the past, only to prove the haters wrong and bounce back.

Nikon, under the right management, could find a way to bounce back yet. If you can't imagine how, then you are thinking just like those who couldn't imagine Apple surviving years ago.

Still the Fukushima Nuclear Powerplant is leaking radiation. Polluting the sea and land. Its a crisis that doesn't get much attention though will have big impact for people and animals living in the area. :(

All nuclear plants "leak" radiation. It's just that we have so-called safe limits.

I studied physics at TU Munich, where we had our own research atomic reactor. Did measurments outside to learn the basics, but no increased radiation could be detected. Go to a concrete wall and you have more.

@HFLM, the safety and inspection reports that have been published on reactors show fluctuations in radiation over time, usually within safe limits.

Anyway, I just don't buy the idea that a concrete wall has more measurable radiation than can be detected at a facility. You need to find a new physics course lol

DaveE1: Not inside the facility close to the core, but, as I wrote, outside the plant. Depending on the materials used in concrete you have: Ra-226 7-92 Bq/kg, Th-232 4-71 Bq/kg, K-40 50-1300 Bq/kg. Tiles can have high radiation, too, by the way.

HFLM, there may be some people in Chernobyl and Fukushima with their face in their palms and shaking their heads, as they read your casual dismissal of nuclear leaks and radioactivity issues. But you're not affected. That's the main thing, ye?!

HowaboutRAW:

You buy a $3500 that doesn't work as advertized and then see how you feel.

Next you will suggest D800 users should just ignore the left side of the AF. Oh wait, you have said that several times! ;-D

Would you ignore that klunk in the transmission of your fancy new Kia?

Framer:

A clunk in a transmission could be a broad fault with the whole transmission which could then make the car inoperable.

Whereas a bad left AF point doesn't make a DSLR unusable.

You've really confused yourself here.

I've spent more money than that and had whatever system not quite work, or not work without a fix.

HowaboutRAW:
A bad left AF point would make a DSLR unusable if you needed to keep something on the left in focus continuously (say for instance a lot of wildlife photographers keeping an animals moving head in focus).
Anyone who doesn't think about having that option open for themselves when all it takes is a free repair, is a bad photographer.
Same as anyone who'd carry on with a faulty camera that couldn't do long exposures when it could be repaired for free.

Stop suggesting we all buy something for thousands and then just deal with it when it's plainly faulty.
Carry on bending over in front of corporations and shouting "ready now!" if you so wish :P

HowaboutRAW:

So are you suggesting that we should just look the other way when we buy something that doesn't perform as it should?

Clearly something isn't getting through to your brain.

Good luck to you.

Framer:

No, I'm suggesting that you get the problem fixed, and that you not equate a problem with general Nikon problems.

Hope this clarifies your thinking.

Pastynator:

As if no one had ever thought of doing wild life photography with only centre AF points or heaven forbid a manual focus camera.

I never suggested not getting a faulty AF point fixed. All I said was that the camera is still quite usable as a camera even with a faulty left AF point.

Don't pretend I said something else, and then take issue with your own misrepresentations.

If left AF is that important to you by all means work it out. But it's not even a problem with every D800 body. So don't pretend it is some vast problem that makes all D800s unusable.

You and Framer there keep weakening whatever cases you may think you have.

@Pastynator: "Anyone who doesn't think about having that option open for themselves when all it takes is a free repair, is a bad photographer."

I fail to see how not fixing your camera by choice makes someone a "bad photographer". Being a good photographer is about the ability to make consistently good images is it not? Or is a photographer only good when his gear is good?

Framer:

No Framer, you keep weakening your case. You seem to think some specific problem, unexplicated, you have with the D800 means that Nikon in general has big quality control problems.

If Nikon didn't treat you right, by all means complain, but don't pretend that this D810 service notice has anything to do with your specific case.

JDThomas:
"Being a good photographer is about the ability to make consistently good images is it not?"

Photography is also about making practical, logical, logistical decisions to enable you to get into a situation to be able to use your talent.

If you make bad decisions with the preparation of gear or any of your resources that renders you unable to take advantage of a situation, and in the end not get the shot, then yes that makes you a bad photographer.
Photography requires a marriage of both creative and practical skills.

I guess my use of manual focus cameras makes me a bad photographer because I'm not taking full advantage of the technology available to me?

And by using manual exposure I'm a bad photographer because I have the use of P-mode which can compensate for changing light in any given situation?

My talent and knowledge trumps any minor quibbles my camera might have.

You're either just being ridiculous now or the comments have gone right over your head.

You're mistaking the capabilities of certain gear you need for a certain situation, with the capabilities you have and need of your gear THAT AREN'T FUNCTIONING due to the choices you made.

If you were insisting out of bloodymindedness on using manual focus to take photos of fast flying birds coming towards you, then yes i'd say you were a bad photographer.
I'd like to see your talent get 9/10 photos per second in tack-sharp focus of a puffin flying right at you in manual focus for instance. It's not humanly possible.

I'd like to see you and your talent use manual exposure if it wasn't working :)

Please re-read what i was saying above. I was basically saying to look after your damned gear so that it does everything it is supposed to do in case you NEED it to. Because that happens often.

Haha Jack, Nikon made me that way! ;)

:D :D

I think you should go back to the point and shoot forums based on your posting history.

Framer, this is a camera and photography site, not your mate's Facebook page.

Endless trolling saps your own self esteem. Judging by your comments here, you seem to need the attention that being an ass gets you. Just telling it as it is.

@ Bamboojled

Based on your posting history* you should just go away, you don't add anything useful here.

*I actually didn't need to llook at your posting history, your comments here speak volumes.

Framer, since you addressed me again, I shall offer my help.

I recommend that you trade in your D800 immediately to make the most of the value it still holds. After that, buy a camera you are happy with.

I use Sony (smaller format cameras), Nikon and Canon DSLR's, a Phase One MF and lenses from several more brands. My attachment is to photography.

Stay a hater if you like, but it is a lonely existence trolling and getting slapped back.

Hey, you made a mistake, it's not Canon!

"Good for Nikon..."- Are you kidding me?! Let me guess, you own a Nikon coffee mug as well right?

Why should a $3500 available on the market without being thoroughly tested.

I am not paying $3500 to be a beta tester!

@ Framer
Took a look at your posting history and you seem to spend an awful lot of time in the point and shoot forums…
Sooo, the D810 is probably not a camera that you would ever shoot anyway, much less have the $3500 to spend on.
Just saying :)

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.