Have the D7000 problems been ironed out?

Steve_in_FL said:

Mako, you omitted me from the "Loves the D7K" list.

Click to expand...

Fixed...haven't updated in awhile so took the opportunity to get input.

Steve_in_FL said:

I've put mine through a torture test of very tough shooting situations, and I have been happily surprised with how well it has done. There were some areas where I had to make adjustments to my previous methods, but they were trivial. What really shocked me, was how fast this puppy can focus and shoot. I had it in single shot mode, but it still reminded me of when I had a motor drive back in the days of film.

Click to expand...

Might try this. I have mine set to shoot 3fps in CL. I now shoot all my hand held shoots in CL or CH shooting mode. Took a little practice but it helped me learn "trigger control" and now I feel handicapped in single shot mode. Just another thing to play around with. Hope the Honey Moon never ends.

There was a bomber in WW ll called the B26, but it was called several other names as well. It was known as the Baltimore whore, the Widow maker, and other unflattering names, because it required more skill from its pilots to fly safely. Initially the plane had more crashes than other bombers, but by the end of the war it had fewer fatalities than any other bomber. People still often only remember the planes initial reputation, and forget that it turned out to be the plane you wanted to be in.

Hi, Mako,

I think you hit the issue right on the head, here:

Mako2011 said:

Mako2011 wrote:

Are you saying that your copy is simply less capable than a pro camera or that it is doesn't stack up against previous Nikon's in the same price range.

Click to expand...

I'd be a real dog to expect that a $1200 body should have the AF capability of a $2600 D700 or $5400 D3s. So, while I am saying that my D7K's AF doesn't perform as well as other "pro" bodies I've shot in the Nikon System (in my case, the D700, the D2Xs, and the D2Hs), I'm not necessarily suggesting that it should.

Except that in some ways, I am. The real "problem" (if it can be regarded as such) is that the D7K's image quality can often hold with the best bodies in the system, regardless of price. Yes, the FX bodies pull away pretty quickly as ISO climbs, but below 400 or so, the D7K is as good as it gets. It's a "problem" in that best-of-breed image quality--the incredible detail and dynamic range, particularly--comes at a price: it demands high quality optics, it demands tack focus. I've found the D7K's 16 megapixels to be brutal in revealing camera motion, subject motion, or missed focus in ways the lower-resolution, lower-tech bodies simply weren't.

In short: the D7K's best-of-breed sensor almost requires an equally best-of-breed AF system, because it's so very capable of revealing that AF system's faults. It's the mismatch--priceless IQ, $1200 AF--that causes the trouble, even if the trouble is more a case of the shooter's expectations exceeding the whole product's price point than it is with some fundamental design failure of the product itself. I think you're absolutely right that the kinds of photographs I'm trying to pull off with the D7K really weren't at the top of the price point's design parameter list. And even then I can't really complain too loudly, because I still did get the shots!

Finally, lest I still sound too critical, I'll also say this: Nikon has done a terrific job of making even its cheapest DX lenses so good that they're more than ready for the D7K's demands--I'm thinking, particularly, of the 35 f/1.8G and even the kit 18-105, which can be so sharp. They're both amazing for the price point.

So, again, I think you really do hit the crux of it, Mako: at the $1200 price point, Nikon offers a system that can shoot with the best they make in even challenging conditions, so long as you're willing to coax and cajole it into doing so. If the answer to the question, "What does one really get for the $1000 that separates a D7K from a D700" were, simply, "convenience in any shooting condition," that would seem fair to me--like very reasonable way to distinguish the "professional" bodies from the "consumer" line, and a very reasonable way to formulate expectations about what the D7K can do.

Cheers!

M.

MarkJH said:

I think you hit the issue right on the head, here:

Member said:

Mako2011 wrote:

Are you saying that your copy is simply less capable than a pro camera or that it is doesn't stack up against previous Nikon's in the same price range.

Click to expand...

I'd be a real dog to expect that a $1200 body should have the AF capability of a $2600 D700 or $5400 D3s. So, while I am saying that my D7K's AF doesn't perform as well as other "pro" bodies I've shot in the Nikon System (in my case, the D700, the D2Xs, and the D2Hs), I'm not necessarily suggesting that it should.

Except that in some ways, I am. The real "problem" (if it can be regarded as such) is that the D7K's image quality can often hold with the best bodies in the system, regardless of price. Yes, the FX bodies pull away pretty quickly as ISO climbs, but below 400 or so, the D7K is as good as it gets. It's a "problem" in that best-of-breed image quality--the incredible detail and dynamic range, particularly--comes at a price: it demands high quality optics, it demands tack focus. I've found the D7K's 16 megapixels to be brutal in revealing camera motion, subject motion, or missed focus in ways the lower-resolution, lower-tech bodies simply weren't.

In short: the D7K's best-of-breed sensor almost requires an equally best-of-breed AF system, because it's so very capable of revealing that AF system's faults. It's the mismatch--priceless IQ, $1200 AF--that causes the trouble, even if the trouble is more a case of the shooter's expectations exceeding the whole product's price point than it is with some fundamental design failure of the product itself. I think you're absolutely right that the kinds of photographs I'm trying to pull off with the D7K really weren't at the top of the price point's design parameter list. And even then I can't really complain too loudly, because I still did get the shots!

Finally, lest I still sound too critical, I'll also say this: Nikon has done a terrific job of making even its cheapest DX lenses so good that they're more than ready for the D7K's demands--I'm thinking, particularly, of the 35 f/1.8G and even the kit 18-105, which can be so sharp. They're both amazing for the price point.

So, again, I think you really do hit the crux of it, Mako: at the $1200 price point, Nikon offers a system that can shoot with the best they make in even challenging conditions, so long as you're willing to coax and cajole it into doing so. If the answer to the question, "What does one really get for the $1000 that separates a D7K from a D700" were, simply, "convenience in any shooting condition," that would seem fair to me--like very reasonable way to distinguish the "professional" bodies from the "consumer" line, and a very reasonable way to formulate expectations about what the D7K can do.

Cheers!

M.

Click to expand...

Now I understand exactly what you're saying. I really appreciate your taking the time to elaborate. Your explanation makes perfect sense to me and has the added "problem" of making me want to experience a pro body. I think I will take it as motivation to improve an attempt to earn a step up. Thank you, I appreciate and respect your input on this. I think it will also help the OP make an even more informed decision.

Pretty much my thoughts exactly.

I think the biggest shorcomming of the AF system is that the AF points are quite a bit larger than indicated in the viewfinder and that sometimes causes the camera to focus on somthing other than what was intended. This is especialy bad when you're trying to focus on something small like an animal or even a persons eye and it grabs a different high contrast edge.

I often find that I am forced to go to LV for focusing in low light but I don't think that's a flaw with the camera, I just see it as a limitation of the camera and I deal with it. I'm going to look at the D400 when it comes out, it may be a more suitable camera for my purposes.

I still love my D7000 and after almost 40K shots, I think it's a wonderful camera. I think some people just expect too much from it.

Mark, i'm curious why you would even use the 35mm f/1.8G for any portraits?

thanks,

Jeffrey

.. but I come to a harsher conclusion.

If the autofocus zones really are much larger than they appear in the viewfinder then this is not a mere inconvenience but a major design flaw - a recipe for hit or miss critical focussing.

I do indeed shoot a lot of wildlife and one of the things I am looking for is greatly improved focus accuracy. I've decided to give the D7000 a miss and like you will look at what the D400 may offer - hopefully it does not have the same flaw(s). A D700 is also a possibility if the release of the D800 depresses the price sufficiently.

David

sshoihet said:

Pretty much my thoughts exactly.

I think the biggest shorcomming of the AF system is that the AF points are quite a bit larger than indicated in the viewfinder and that sometimes causes the camera to focus on somthing other than what was intended. This is especialy bad when you're trying to focus on something small like an animal or even a persons eye and it grabs a different high contrast edge.

I often find that I am forced to go to LV for focusing in low light but I don't think that's a flaw with the camera, I just see it as a limitation of the camera and I deal with it. I'm going to look at the D400 when it comes out, it may be a more suitable camera for my purposes.

Click to expand...

...you can afford a D700.
--
Rens

There are optimists and there are realists

MarkJH said:

Member said:

• inconsistent phase-detect autofocus performance with apertures wider than f/2.8 (forget phase detect with Nikon's high-performance f/1.4 primes shot wide open--though contrast-detect works very well if you have more-or-less stationary subjects and pretty good light)

Click to expand...

• lousy low-light / incandescent-light phase detect focus performance. I've found that using AF-C 9-point mode can mitigate low-light AF issues somewhat (which is frankly contrary to one might expect, given that AF-C disables the body / flash AF-assist light). But even using AF-C 9, shooting a dim indoor wedding reception with the D7K can be a freaking nightmare. No AF mode (beyond just using contrast-detect), in my experience, helps with the incandescent-light back-focus issue.

• strangely bad phase-detect AF performance with certain lenses that, frankly, ought to be better--in my experience, the 12-24 f/4 has been particularly troublesome (which is crazy , given that the perspective offers so much DOF even wide open).

Cheers!

M.

Click to expand...

Mark,

Very well explained. Your AF issue is exactly as my findings with two D7000 bodies. I also notice it only appears to affect certain lenses, the worst culprit being the 35mm f1.8 (which Nikon confirm is calibrated correctly). Interestingly my old D40 body does not exhibit any focus issue with the same lenses under the exact same conditions.

glad you are all confident now. I jumped ship bc life's too short to sort out the right body. Really tried but after 2 bodies and several returns sold the D7k's.

And please stop the "unexperienced users couldn't cope with this cam". It's seriously undermining you credibility. But makes for nice reading hehe LOL.

perry rhodan said:

glad you are all confident now. I jumped ship bc life's too short to sort out the right body. Really tried but after 2 bodies and several returns sold the D7k's.

And please stop the "unexperienced users couldn't cope with this cam". It's seriously undermining you credibility. But makes for nice reading hehe LOL.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what I wish every obsessive compulsive with endless concerns about the D7000 would do, then those with none could just enjoy the camera without having to read a bunch of rubbish from know nothings.

David Lal said:

.. but I come to a harsher conclusion.

If the autofocus zones really are much larger than they appear in the viewfinder then this is not a mere inconvenience but a major design flaw - a recipe for hit or miss critical focussing.

Click to expand...

Not really a formula for miss once you understand how the Muti-Cam 4800dx is working and develop a technique for "playing the instrument". If the AF arrays FOV actually matched the Focus boxes, then there would be large caps between the Focus boxes where no focus information could be obtained. With the scene having denser AF coverage, the Multi sensor AF-Area modes are far more precise than folks give them credit. Map out the Pro bodies and you'll see similar fuller coverage IMO. Just my thoughts.

Multi-Cam 4800

Well, I've read through every single posting so far and enjoyed their content and courtesy of all participants. Thank you for all comments, arguments, counter-arguments and for taking the trouble to analyze and demonstrate your points of either concern or satisfaction...

I must say that now I feel a little easier about the D7000, noting that the people that declare 'happy' are a lot more than the ones who have serious doubts or have given up on the cam. I guess there will always be a small percentage of faulty products and it seems to me that the D7k is no exception. From what I read, I gather that the problems do not seem to be generic but rather random.

I am still a little concerned about the well documented focusing issues (relating to the size of the focal points etc) but as I am not after a cam for real professional work but for personal enjoyment, I feel that I can perhaps live with them if indeed they only become a bother in very special or extreme circumstances.

Thank you all for your responses so far...
--
Best Regards
Sunshine

ps If you see someone without a smile on, give him one of yours...

New2blog said:

Mark, i'm curious why you would even use the 35mm f/1.8G for any portraits?

thanks,

Jeffrey

Click to expand...

Hi, Jeffrey,

The word "even" in your question, above, is throwing me--it's as if you're suggesting that I shouldn't be using it, but maybe I'm reading you wrong. If not, I'd be glad for your critique, especially since I've posted a few examples, above, in which I did use it for portraits. Why shouldn't I have? Of the examples I posted above shot with the 35 f/1.8G, would they have been "better" shot with a different lens?

I often use the 35 f/1.8G with the D7000 because the optics are terrific--it's very sharp, edge to edge, even wide open. It offers good color and contrast. Bokeh can be harsh, but not if the background's arranged with some care. I often shoot it at f/2 - f/2.5, apertures at which the much larger / heavier 35 f/1.4G offers only subtle optical advantages.

Location's a factor, too: sometimes, you just don't have room for a longer focal length. I can think of a more than a few times I'd have preferred to use my 70-200 VRII but just didn't have the space to setup a good telephoto perspective.

But the best and most important reason to use the 35mm focal length for DX portraits is that the "normal" perspective it offers allows you a very, very comfortable distance to have useful interaction with your client. You're close enough that you can talk, laugh, joke, suggest poses and expressions--but not so close that wide-angle perspective distortion will give your client a giant nose or tweaked ears.

I find, too, that using a prime (as opposed to, say, a midrange zoom) also helps with client interaction. It forces you to move to frame the shot which, in turn, forces you to engage more carefully and specifically with your client's pose: if your client moves, you have to move with them.

I know everyone has a different and equally valid take on what makes good portraits, but I personally find that the quality of client interaction is the most important single factor. Portrait photography is a tango --a deeply collaborative enterprise that doesn't work without genuine cooperation and an intuitively creative connection between photographer and client. Yes, the 70-200 VRII (or the 85 f/1.4G) will give you a gorgeously compressed, isolated perspective for portraiture, but--particularly on DX--they'll have you shooting 20 feet or more from your client for a full-body or 3/4 shot. It's tough to dance at 20 - 30 feet. I prefer, instead, to build that creative relationship at 3 - 5 feet and work my way back.

Finally, I find that the 35 f/1.8G is probably the least intimidating, least conspicuous piece of photographic equipment I own. Some clients find the huge-camera + 80 strobes, boxes, flags approach entirely too much--they're much more comfortable, much more capable of performing if you embrace a "less-is-more" approach. Likewise, some of the most interesting spots for on-location portraits aren't always keen on becoming your makeshift photography studio--and nothing tips your hands like whipping out a giant petal-hooded 70-200 f/2.8. I find that the D7K + 35 f/1.8G combination lets you fly under pretty much any radar with exceptional optical quality.

Hope that answers your question, but I'd be glad to hear your views on the subject!

Cheers!

M.

I can't reproduce the alleged AF issues, my camera is absolutely fine.
--
http://www.scottwylie.co.uk

Mako2011 said:

MarkJH said:

I think you hit the issue right on the head, here:

Mako2011 said:

Mako2011 wrote:

Are you saying that your copy is simply less capable than a pro camera or that it is doesn't stack up against previous Nikon's in the same price range.

Click to expand...

I'd be a real dog to expect that a $1200 body should have the AF capability of a $2600 D700 or $5400 D3s. So, while I am saying that my D7K's AF doesn't perform as well as other "pro" bodies I've shot in the Nikon System (in my case, the D700, the D2Xs, and the D2Hs), I'm not necessarily suggesting that it should.

Except that in some ways, I am. The real "problem" (if it can be regarded as such) is that the D7K's image quality can often hold with the best bodies in the system, regardless of price. Yes, the FX bodies pull away pretty quickly as ISO climbs, but below 400 or so, the D7K is as good as it gets. It's a "problem" in that best-of-breed image quality--the incredible detail and dynamic range, particularly--comes at a price: it demands high quality optics, it demands tack focus. I've found the D7K's 16 megapixels to be brutal in revealing camera motion, subject motion, or missed focus in ways the lower-resolution, lower-tech bodies simply weren't.

In short: the D7K's best-of-breed sensor almost requires an equally best-of-breed AF system, because it's so very capable of revealing that AF system's faults. It's the mismatch--priceless IQ, $1200 AF--that causes the trouble, even if the trouble is more a case of the shooter's expectations exceeding the whole product's price point than it is with some fundamental design failure of the product itself. I think you're absolutely right that the kinds of photographs I'm trying to pull off with the D7K really weren't at the top of the price point's design parameter list. And even then I can't really complain too loudly, because I still did get the shots!

Cheers!

M.

Click to expand...

Now I understand exactly what you're saying. I really appreciate your taking the time to elaborate. Your explanation makes perfect sense to me and has the added "problem" of making me want to experience a pro body. I think I will take it as motivation to improve an attempt to earn a step up. Thank you, I appreciate and respect your input on this. I think it will also help the OP make an even more informed decision.

Click to expand...

Mark, interesting points...but I don't see how a 12% increase in linear pixel density would turn a reliable, no problems D90 into a finicky D7000.

The real culprit, as you finally conclude, appears to be that the CAM4800 AF module isn't as solid as the CAM3500 although it offers nearly as many AF points and a much more sophisticated color sensor. Interestingly, several have reported that the CAM4800 works better when its operated in its 9 and 21 point AF modes. Over sensored and under CPUed? Not clear. The CAM1000 used in the D90 by contrast seems to be more worked out than its younger brother.

If you think about it a bit, it should be, because that module started life a long time ago as a simpler version of the D2H's CAM2000 AF. Same number of AF points, just fewer dynamic modes and sensitivity. The CAM3500 modules were introduced with the D300/D700/D3 generation but never made it to the consumer level, being retained by Nikon as one of the upgrade features of their semi-pro/pro line. The CAM4800 is Nikon's odd duck - so far, it's only used on the D7000; all of Nikon's new pro bodies use a more sensitive version of the proven CAM3500, and it would seem highly unlikely that Nikon would swap out the CAM3500 in the rumored upcoming D400 DX semipro body for the less capable CAM4800.

Therefore, what we're left with is that the CAM4800 AF module is Nikon's attempt to take some of the wind out of the Canon 7D's sails in the AF department while not endangering the Nikon semi-pro line.

However, in the process Nikon introduced some operational irritations that suggest that it got too aggressive with the feature content; AF finickiness, mirror return vibration, etc. A resensored D90 with AF Fine Tuning would have been just fine, but it would have left the top end of the consumer market vulnerable to a better Canon 60D and the T3i. We see something of the same thing happening with the D800 - a huge increase in potential with as yet unknown penalties in operational ease.

The D7000's replacement is due out this summer. We'll see then if Nikon has addressed the D7000's new technology teething troubles.

See what was written above, here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=40976555

That seems very informative comment to me though I confess I know rather too little about all this. I am convinced though that my decision to skip the D7000 is the right one for me.

David

Mako2011 said:

Not really a formula for miss once you understand how the Muti-Cam 4800dx is working and develop a technique for "playing the instrument". If the AF arrays FOV actually matched the Focus boxes, then there would be large caps between the Focus boxes where no focus information could be obtained. With the scene having denser AF coverage, the Multi sensor AF-Area modes are far more precise than folks give them credit. Map out the Pro bodies and you'll see similar fuller coverage IMO. Just my thoughts.

Click to expand...

Sunshine_boy said:

One doesn't seem to read as much about them as we used to... The problems I have in mind are: Back/Front focusing, over exposures, bad skin tones, sensor oil smears and hot pixels.

Click to expand...

The thing is nearly 2 years old.

Everyone that wanted one... basically has one by now and has dealt with it's issues if it had them... (or if they noticed them). That's why you don't read about it as much anymore.

People have either sent them in, or returned them, when encountering those issues. (A lot of returns mentioned in the D300 and D3 forums, btw). Others either don't have them or wouldn't know if they did.
"I don't see any problems with MY (camera model)"... the keyword is "I".

Focusing issues can be adjusted, or sometimes have to be repaired... hot pixels can't be avoided no matter what model you buy.... oil leaks should have only been in the earlier production runs... but we heard of some that got theirs later, or the problem returned.... and well, skin tones and weak AF in low light... you're just stuck with.

But if you want a perfect camera... you need to go back to film.

mosswings said:

Mark, interesting points...but I don't see how a 12% increase in linear pixel density would turn a reliable, no problems D90 into a finicky D7000.

The real culprit, as you finally conclude, appears to be that the CAM4800 AF module isn't as solid as the CAM3500 although it offers nearly as many AF points and a much more sophisticated color sensor. Interestingly, several have reported that the CAM4800 works better when its operated in its 9 and 21 point AF modes. Over sensored and under CPUed? Not clear. The CAM1000 used in the D90 by contrast seems to be more worked out than its younger brother.

If you think about it a bit, it should be, because that module started life a long time ago as a simpler version of the D2H's CAM2000 AF. Same number of AF points, just fewer dynamic modes and sensitivity. The CAM3500 modules were introduced with the D300/D700/D3 generation but never made it to the consumer level, being retained by Nikon as one of the upgrade features of their semi-pro/pro line. The CAM4800 is Nikon's odd duck - so far, it's only used on the D7000; all of Nikon's new pro bodies use a more sensitive version of the proven CAM3500, and it would seem highly unlikely that Nikon would swap out the CAM3500 in the rumored upcoming D400 DX semipro body for the less capable CAM4800.

Click to expand...

Let's hope not.

mosswings said:

Therefore, what we're left with is that the CAM4800 AF module is Nikon's attempt to take some of the wind out of the Canon 7D's sails in the AF department while not endangering the Nikon semi-pro line.

However, in the process Nikon introduced some operational irritations that suggest that it got too aggressive with the feature content; AF finickiness, mirror return vibration, etc. A resensored D90 with AF Fine Tuning would have been just fine, but it would have left the top end of the consumer market vulnerable to a better Canon 60D and the T3i. We see something of the same thing happening with the D800 - a huge increase in potential with as yet unknown penalties in operational ease.

The D7000's replacement is due out this summer. We'll see then if Nikon has addressed the D7000's new technology teething troubles.

Click to expand...

--
"What the #&!*$ was that ?!?" - Mayor of Hiroshima (August 6, 1945)

MarkJH said:

Hey, Mako,

I think the D7K's phase-detect autofocus system is the body's real achilles heel. But I can be more specific with that and other aspects of my experience:

• inconsistent phase-detect autofocus performance with apertures wider than f/2.8 (forget phase detect with Nikon's high-performance f/1.4 primes shot wide open--though contrast-detect works very well if you have more-or-less stationary subjects and pretty good light)

• lousy low-light / incandescent-light phase detect focus performance. I've found that using AF-C 9-point mode can mitigate low-light AF issues somewhat (which is frankly contrary to one might expect, given that AF-C disables the body / flash AF-assist light). But even using AF-C 9, shooting a dim indoor wedding reception with the D7K can be a freaking nightmare. No AF mode (beyond just using contrast-detect), in my experience, helps with the incandescent-light back-focus issue.

Click to expand...

Like you, I love my D7000. I've run into all the problems you mention above.

Under F/2.8, yup, AF is problematic. However, it's consistent on my body. If I focus in from infinite, the AF point it lands on is different than when it comes in from minimum focus. Fortunately (for me), the two points are consistent (come in from infinite 10 times, and the AF lands on almost exactly the same spot). So I AF adjust my fast glass so that one of the two directions (currently I use from-infinity) lands spot on. It means the other direction doesn't even land in the DoF, but at least this way I can reliably get good focus with my fast glass as long as I focus on something further away first.

The incandescent light problem is annoying. My D7000 focuses really well even in very dim light, unless it's a low-temperature light (mostly red). Even in daylight, if I focus on a very red flower, it backfocuses. Mostly this has been an annoyance, and only really affects me when I shoot people indoors with incandescent light.

However, I just sent my D7000 in to be checked. I've had it 15 months, so no warranty. So why did I send it in if I've known about the AF issues for over a year? Because I started to notice that with shorter focal lengths, the extreme right side is often blurry.

Originally I thought it was VR/VC, or a decentered lens (e.g. a slightly tilted focus group due to imperfect cam movement). Thus I didn't think too much of it. But the other day I started noticing that this was happening on several lenses (I saw it on my 35mm F/1.8, my 16-85mm, and my Tokina 11-16mm, and my Samyang 8mm). 4 lenses all misaligned in the same way? I then checked my D90 pictures with the same lenses. No problems. Drat, that means my D7000 has a misaligned sensor-to-mount problem. Fortunately the bulk of my photography has been further than 35mm and with stuff on the edge not an issue (which is why it took so long to notice the issue).

So off it's gone, to have both issues looked at (the alignment issue and the low-temp/red subject focus issues). I'm not hopeful the AF issue can be fixed (at least cheaply), but I'm hoping they can at least fix the misalignment problem.

Either way, I love this camera (30k+ clicks so far), and even with both issues unfixed, I still look forward to using it. Like most good things, you learn what the issues are and work around them.