Nikon Quality

wow, Mike!
Thank you so much for your kind words.

People keep ragging on this lens, but I've had great luck with it.

To my mind, a Pro lens is one that delivers great results. I didn't have a lot of faith in this lens when I first bought it, I didn't have very high expectations. But it delivered for me, and that's all I ask of a tool.

Here's a couple from the concert before the lens died:





Once again, thank you.

geomcs said:

AAK is a pro in my book. The images he gets from "non-pro" cameras
such as consumer-level Sonys are unbelievable. Also, the help he has
given over in the Sony forum and with his whitepaper has enlightened
and inspired thousands of beginning photographers which makes him
more of a "pro" than most that post here.
--
Mike
http://www.flickr.com/photos/geomcs/
'the only thing constant is change'

Click to expand...

--
=~ AAK - http://www.aakatz.com
=~ Author of The White Paper
=~ http://www.aakatz.com/whitepaper

... if you think Canon consumer gear is any better. If I were you, I'd invest in high-quality professional lenses. It's not about which brand you use.

• Fabian

Sorry about your experience. It isn't typical. My own 18-200 is now 19 months old, has been around the world twice and performs the way it did on day one, except the zoom is looser. A zoom creep tightening idea would have been good, but for the rest of it, it is behaving just like the thing you wish for--a good, sharp, reliable optic.

-iNova
--
http://www.digitalsecrets.net

As a Canon user I can tell you Canon are no better in QC. I got a "L" lens last week and it turned out to be lemon (front focus) I have had this problem before. Of course if you get a good copy it works fine, but I guess the same argument is true about nikon..

Arash

AAK said:

Warning: rant

I'm not a troll. I'm a professional photographer who's been using
Nikon since the late 1960's, early 1970s. A Nikkormat was my first
'serious' camera as a teenager. And through all those years, I've
come to associate quality with the Nikon brand.

No more.

When I switched to DSLR, of course, I went Nikon. And all went well
until my D200s. The first one went back for 6 major system
replacements (circuit boards, AF assembly, even a new shutter
assembly). The second one went back with a defective lens mount that
had to be replaced, and which apparently damaged my 70-200 f/2.8 VR
which also had to be rebuilt (new mount, new motor).

My 18-200 VR, which I like for assignments like today's, was repaired
two months ago because the creep had gotten so bad that the lens was
no longer usable. Nikon agreed and replaced many parts.

It took five weeks.

Today, I'm shooting an outdoor assignment: a Latin Festival with four
rotating bands and thousands of attendees.The 18-200 is perfect for
gigs like that. I can shoot a closeup of a performer and then spin
around, zoom to wide-angle and shoot the dancers behind me.

That is, until the damned lens fell apart. Won't zoom all the way to
tele. Falls back about 1 1/2" in an uncontrolledslide when you go
wide and lands with a bad clunk. No autofocus. In fact, no manual
focus.

The lens is hosed. It's obviously gone off the rails.

And ruined my shoot. Try shooting several thousand people in an
audience with a 70mm lens! So I'm using my backup camera for the wide
and absolutely steaming about the obviously very badly deteriorated
quality of Nikon equipment.

I'd switch to Canon tommorrow, because reliability is an absolute
requirement in order for me to earn my living, but it seems like
Canon is having more than its share of quality issues!

So, does ANYONE make a reliable camera any more? Or has Q/C just gone
down the tubes across the entire industry?

Sorry to be so vehement, but my patience with Nikon is just about gone.

--
=~ AAK - http://www.aakatz.com
=~ Author of The White Paper
=~ http://www.aakatz.com/whitepaper

Click to expand...

AAK said:

I'd switch to Canon tommorrow, because reliability is an absolute
requirement in order for me to earn my living, but it seems like
Canon is having more than its share of quality issues!

Click to expand...

I certainty understand your frustration with regard to quality control for camera equipment.

I bought a brand new Canon 24-70L lens and the lens arrive with focusing issue in the wide end. I had to return it the next day.

I don't think the quailty issue is limit any one of the camera manufacturers out there.

--
Keep talking pictures like there is NO tomorrow.

But maybe it's the user? It could be possible that you are pounding on your gear a little too much. Also, if you had that many problems with your D200 why didn't you dump it and get a different one. It sounds like you got a bad copy and just kept shoving money and time into it until it didn't sound logical any more. Either way. I kick the crud out of my equipment as well as I shoot primarily event photography outside of my studio work and require a camera that can move with me and not break down at the first sign of stress and I have found the D2X and D70 to be wonderful at this. The only other people I have known that have had the number of problems you are listing are extremely abusive (and usually are in some form of denial about the whole thing rattling off things like "But my F3 was nearly caved in half and still worked.") with their equipment and wax poetic about the old days when you could kick the crud out of things and they would survive. Obviously those days are gone since bodies aren't made out of brass and steel and have extremely complex mechanical and electronic components that give all the new wonderful features we all demand. Even the lenses have gotten the same issues. Try floating elements of glass hooked to small servos for the image stabilization and motors that have to be tiny yet move glass back and forth at radical speeds all while being zoomed back and forth and working in tandum with said image stabilization...oh yeah and their own seperate micro processors to handle all this data as well. I have put my 70-200 through some pretty serious tests, but I still understand the limitations of my equipment and treat it with care because of that understanding. It sounds like you need to do the same thing or maybe you should grab an old Leica M6 and a bunch of insanely priced glass and comfort yourself knowing that your camera is invincible if no longer functional in the professional market any longer.

Sorry if I come across sounding rude, but it's been a long day and this post just did it to me for some reason. Good luck with your lumps of junk and just remember next time to buy a Holga.

So I guess you have now justified why you should go out and buy yourself 2 Pro bodies, a Pro wide zoom and a Pro tele zoom. Those kind of shots look so much better at 2.8 anyway!! If your wife, accountant or bank manager have a go at you......tell them the forum made you do it!!

I was going to be quick to point out your not using pro gear. Sorry about that. I'd agree with your statement that pro gear is something you have tested and give's great results. However in my experience the results dont seem to last forever if it's not a well built pro lens.

This was my experience with buying the Tamron 28-75 2.8 because I tested it against a 28-70 Nikon and it was better for the most part. Not better built though. Didnt take too many months to relise it had inconsistant focus and I started loosing shots because of it. It's now retired to the cupboard as a 'if I have to, back-up'. It got replaced with a 17-55 2.8.

By the way thanks for pointing out the Thailand thing. Just looked at the bottom of my D200 and it is from Thailand...bugger. It has been fine so far though. Its in my bag as a backup and I use it when I travel (holiday only) rather than taking the bigger D2x. This brings me to my point. I use the D2x and the D200 is in the bag as a back-up. Let's just say I havent had to ever use the D200. Let's also say, I havent had to ever use the Tamron as a backup for my Pro Nikon Lens'.

I have a network of people I catch up with on a regular basis which becomes your other backup. It always pays to have a close relationship with other photographers for those moments you get stuck. If you get stuck, as a professional you should have people you can turn to, to borrow/hire gear. Having said that Ive never had to borrow anything, touch wood. But I have lent out alot of stuff I wasnt using that day. This is the true benefit of being a member of an industry organisation or NPS. If they cant fix it quickly they give you a replacement til they can. Having said that, you need 2 pro bodies to be a member.

So I'm just rantng, sounds like you have a fair few years on me so I think you know all this. Your not asking for much from Nikon. Just stuff that works. However if everything at the low end was so brilliant, how could they justify the $2000 - $3000 for a Pro lens? You have had a terrible run though. Ive used the following over the years and never sent anything in for repair except my D2x(it was one of the first and just needed a little focus adjustment).

F801s, F5, D1, D1x, D100, D2x, D200

Good luck with getting it all sorted.

--
sieversfoto
lens in frofile

BasilG said:

seahawk said:

It tells us a lot about Nikon. 5 People use a Nikon, that is 2 more
then Lieca M users. 60 something used Canon, so it is logical that
Canon has more failures. I bet you will easiyl find 5 Canon shooters
who had no problems at all.

Click to expand...

Well, according to the figures in the text, if you'd pick randomly 5
Canon users 10 times, you'd pick five Canon shooters with no problems
4 times, and get at least one with a broken camera 6 times (or in
other words, if you pick once, you have a chance of about 40% to pick
five guys that had no camera troubles). I guess it all depends on
what "easily" means for you...

BG

Click to expand...

It tells ultimately very little about the quality of any particular brand. Sample size is just too small to have any significance.

You're certainly right. I simply wanted to point out that with the Canon failure rate, it's hard to back up his statement on reliability.

snackwells said:

BasilG said:

seahawk said:

It tells us a lot about Nikon. 5 People use a Nikon, that is 2 more
then Lieca M users. 60 something used Canon, so it is logical that
Canon has more failures. I bet you will easiyl find 5 Canon shooters
who had no problems at all.

Click to expand...

Well, according to the figures in the text, if you'd pick randomly 5
Canon users 10 times, you'd pick five Canon shooters with no problems
4 times, and get at least one with a broken camera 6 times (or in
other words, if you pick once, you have a chance of about 40% to pick
five guys that had no camera troubles). I guess it all depends on
what "easily" means for you...

BG

Click to expand...

It tells ultimately very little about the quality of any particular
brand. Sample size is just too small to have any significance.

Click to expand...

my last two bodies, i.e., f100 and d200, both had to go back for QC issues. The d200 had to go back twice. Neither body was treated roughly - there were just documented problems that came straight from the Nikon manufacturer. It is irrelevant to me if some other brand may also be having QC problems. I bought Nikon and I expect their high end camera bodies to work out of the box (I actually expect them all to do that) and have some durability. I also expect the same of the lenses but acknowledge that you sholdn't expect pro durability from a consumer lens. However, it didn't sound like the 18-200 referenced in the original post was getting such severe use that it should fail to work.

The real question is whether individuals are experiencing QC issues with Nikon equipment. I have on my two most recent camera bodies but on the up side Nikon service repaired both bodies and they continue to provide good (knock on wood) service to this day.

AAK said:

So, does ANYONE make a reliable camera any more? Or has Q/C just gone
down the tubes across the entire industry?

Sorry to be so vehement, but my patience with Nikon is just about gone.

Click to expand...

A digital SLR is not really just a camera, but a full fledged computer. It has a processing power of a laptop of the past few years. Your Nikkormat does not have that nor does a F3 or a F801s! They are much simpler machines.

Secondly, unlike a film body, a digital SLR needs to have all the light path aligned and straight up to specs. The gelatin on the film itself provides a certain amount of depth of field so when you abuse your camera in the field by jamming into the lens mount and warping it, the slight out of body focus on either the film body or the lens itself are compensated by the actual film's depth of field. That's why, you DO NOT easily get back focus problems on film bodies.

On a digital SLR, however, any slight warping or bending of the mount can change the light collimation thus inducing back or front focus or side softness much easier.

I know of a lot of pros who like to leave the heavy lenses dangling on the mount of the body while the strap is attached to the camera body.

What do you think the heavy lens will do to the mount?!? It torques it, because Torque = Force x Distance. A 70-200VR lens is a long lens (Distance) and it's definitely not a light lens either (Force). Left dangling on the mount, you're sure to pull the mount on the D200 off spec for sure. In fact, it happened to me on both my D2H, D200 and D2x bodies.

Upon the advise of another pro who also had his mounts bent, I attach all my straps now on the tripod mount of the lenses. I let my bodies "rest" on the heavy lenses.
No bent mount since.

You might want to consider this option.

Secondly, the Nikon VR 18-200 is a versatile lens. Will it stand up to pro abuse? I'm not sure, but it's definitely not as tough as my 17-55 that's for sure.

As far the cost is concerned. If something is unique, then it is priceless. Can you suggest an identical lens from another maker that can be made cheaper?

Rick.

Peter iNova said:

Sorry about your experience. It isn't typical. My own 18-200 is now
19 months old, has been around the world twice and performs the way
it did on day one, except the zoom is looser. A zoom creep tightening
idea would have been good, but for the rest of it, it is behaving
just like the thing you wish for--a good, sharp, reliable optic.

Click to expand...

Hi, Peter

My experience is similar to yours - I was quite surprised and pleased with the ultimate quality and versatility of this lens, Pro glass or not. It's just the quality of my sample (and Nikon's repairs) that seems to be the issue.

If they get it working right (or replaced), I will continue to use it, happily, on assignments. Regardless of the designation.

--
=~ AAK - http://www.aakatz.com
=~ Author of The White Paper
=~ http://www.aakatz.com/whitepaper

I doubt if anyone treats their equipment with more respect than I do.

That's why, when I eventually sell it to upgrade, I inevitably get top prices for its like-new quality.

Other photographers have argued with me that a camera isn't reall "used" until it's been dinged up a bit, but you won't find a single scuff or ding on an of my equipment.

My father was a contractor, and taught me from an early age, the value of tools and how to treat them with respect. He was also a photographer, and after his death, his pre-War Leica was passed on to my nephew in near-mint condition.

He taught me how to treat cameras and I have always taken that lesson to heart.

If I had bashed my equipment about, I wouldn't be here complaining about it's falling apart. I would expect it.

Jake Loves Good Glass said:

But maybe it's the user? It could be possible that you are pounding
on your gear a little too much. Also, if you had that many problems
with your D200 why didn't you dump it and get a different one.

Click to expand...

I did.

It

Jake Loves Good Glass said:

sounds like you got a bad copy and just kept shoving money and time
into it until it didn't sound logical any more.

Click to expand...

No money. Nikon fixed it under warranty. I requested and got a clean bill of health from Nikon after it cleaned and adjusted the camera, and with that in hand, sold it on eBay.

Then I bought another one. The one with the bad lens mount.

Either way. I kick

Jake Loves Good Glass said:

the crud out of my equipment

Click to expand...

I don't.

Jake Loves Good Glass said:

I
have found the D2X and D70 to be wonderful at this.

Click to expand...

I also had a D70 and it was absolutely reliable. Never failed.

The only other

Jake Loves Good Glass said:

people I have known that have had the number of problems you are
listing are extremely abusive (and usually are in some form of denial
about the whole thing rattling off things like "But my F3 was nearly
caved in half and still worked.")

Click to expand...

There you go, give me a catch-22!!

According to you, I must be abusive, or else I'm in denial about being abusive.
Certainly can't win this one, according to you, can I? LoL!!

Of course, you are also wrong. Nikon has acknowledged the manufacturer's defects in every case, so far. They don't do warranty repairs on abused equipment.

In two cases (the broken shutter, which ocurred during the AF repair, and the current lens implosion), the fault was definitely caused by errors and damage done by Nikon service at Melville.

--
=~ AAK - http://www.aakatz.com
=~ Author of The White Paper
=~ http://www.aakatz.com/whitepaper

Thanks for your suggestion about attaching the strap to the lens. I hadn't thought of that. I'm pretty careful not to support the lens with the body, using a 2-handed grip but it does occasionally dangle. So you've got a very good point.

In my case, the mount was broken from the get-go. From the very first time I put the 70-200 VR on the camera, it could be rotated after locking. That means the contacts weren't "contacting" right out of the box.

Still, your advice may prove invaluable. Thank you.

Rick Diaz said:

Rick Diaz said:

So, does ANYONE make a reliable camera any more? Or has Q/C just gone
down the tubes across the entire industry?

Sorry to be so vehement, but my patience with Nikon is just about gone.

Click to expand...

A digital SLR is not really just a camera, but a full fledged
computer. It has a processing power of a laptop of the past few
years. Your Nikkormat does not have that nor does a F3 or a F801s!
They are much simpler machines.

Secondly, unlike a film body, a digital SLR needs to have all the
light path aligned and straight up to specs. The gelatin on the film
itself provides a certain amount of depth of field so when you abuse
your camera in the field by jamming into the lens mount and warping
it, the slight out of body focus on either the film body or the lens
itself are compensated by the actual film's depth of field. That's
why, you DO NOT easily get back focus problems on film bodies.

On a digital SLR, however, any slight warping or bending of the mount
can change the light collimation thus inducing back or front focus or
side softness much easier.
I know of a lot of pros who like to leave the heavy lenses dangling
on the mount of the body while the strap is attached to the camera
body.
What do you think the heavy lens will do to the mount?!? It torques
it, because Torque = Force x Distance. A 70-200VR lens is a long
lens (Distance) and it's definitely not a light lens either (Force).
Left dangling on the mount, you're sure to pull the mount on the D200
off spec for sure. In fact, it happened to me on both my D2H, D200
and D2x bodies.
Upon the advise of another pro who also had his mounts bent, I attach
all my straps now on the tripod mount of the lenses. I let my bodies
"rest" on the heavy lenses.
No bent mount since.

You might want to consider this option.

Secondly, the Nikon VR 18-200 is a versatile lens. Will it stand up
to pro abuse? I'm not sure, but it's definitely not as tough as my
17-55 that's for sure.

As far the cost is concerned. If something is unique, then it is
priceless. Can you suggest an identical lens from another maker that
can be made cheaper?

Rick.

Click to expand...

--
=~ AAK - http://www.aakatz.com
=~ Author of The White Paper
=~ http://www.aakatz.com/whitepaper

a pro body or lens takes more hard use than a less pro body or lens - and no way should any "heavy user" expect the 18-200 to take anything like the hard use of say the 70-200, or an 11x zoom not to have optical vignetting wide open at some zoom settings.

Obviously I still think the original complaints about the best "do it all" lens there is but definitely not the most sturdy or highest optical performing lens Nikon make is unreasonable for the specification and price.

On Nikon quality, reliability and build (relative to price) from F100's, F5, F6 and D200 used in remote locations in Africa and the Falklands in 7 years pro and semi pro use I am fully satisfied.

A had an early F100 fork replaced under warranty - my only warranty issue. My 200 macro was bent in air transit, an F100 lens flange bent in a 200 foot scree slope fall in ice conditions, and an F100 and 80-400 bent when I was attacked by a Catacara with sufficient force to damage the Gitzo they were on. My equipment gets more than an average share of heavy exposure.

Otherwise I have had no issues. Every lens resolves at least 80 lpm (with a 26x target) in the corner wide open. With 50 body/years exposure and about 180 lens/years exposure obviously I have found Nikon very reliable.

On the other hand dealing with softness, back focus and similar complaintsi in 297 threads supported by images in 21 months the images confirmed it was always "user misunderstanding" and not equipment that was the problem.

This is not the same as saying Nikon are perfect, but equally a lot of people who complain are not perfect either.
--
Leonard Shepherd

Whilst the camera and lens can be important the photographers skill and imagination are much more important in achieving good pictures.

The Canon 28-200, used with 1D (or 5D) series, is a professional camera. Way more expensive and heavy, but reliable with a good IQ.

I have shot more than 100 events my 18-200 VR, and it still working, maybe your hands are too strong?

as for Canon, I think at least you go with the 1D or 1DS and choose only the 'L' lens, anything below is cheap plastic and sticky tapes, Canon has more fabric molded zoom lens then Nikon, some people they that fabric lens has the same or even better quality then glass, but the problem is that fabric is same as plastic, after 3 years it will started to degrade, this is why I had replaced 3 28-135mm IS in 10 years.

AAK said:

... is an $850 lens that has only 5000 frames on it since I got it
back from Nikon to stay in one piece. I have never beat this lens, or
any other. I treat my tools with loving care, and always have.

Click to expand...

1) All your equipment appears to be falling apart. This is inconsistent with your assertion.

2) I've trucked my 18-200VR stuffed down into my knapsack on a half dozen trips, including several overseas ... all this year so far. My lense has many thousand frames on it and it still looks and works like new.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos

Leonard Shepherd said:

On the other hand dealing with softness, back focus and similar
complaints in 297 threads supported by images in 21 months the
images confirmed it was always "user misunderstanding" and not
equipment that was the problem.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's not right. You thinking everybody suffering from focusing problems is an idiot doesn't make it true.

True I do carry too much kit but then I can be away in the middle of Africa or on a remote island with no access to any spare gear. Could you not have a roller type backpack to carry the gear. That way it is not on your back/shoulder. There are some really good ones around. I am also not talking massive gear. One of by backup lenses is a 20mm prime - which is only a few hundred grams.

Good luck,
Steve

--
http://www.stevedavey.com/tours.html