d750 users with reflection problem?

[3sgilbert]

The image is oriented like this in the camera. Am I correct that the bright part is wrong [bad] and the dim part is correct [good]?

Yes, this is the in-camera orientation of the image. I'm not sure which part is correct, but I guess the bright is.

Then consider my "What was here? question. I mean two things by that question:

• In the scene, was there a bright light in that location? I don't see any fogging at the edge of the image to give me any clues?

The flare is there and is visible both in optical viewfinder and in live view mode, but the shadow strip can be visible only in live view (and on final picture). Consider that this picture was shot in very low light (iso1600) but if you hit the same angle in strong and harsh sunny light, then the bright part will become very spectacular.

• In the camera, what is located near the words "What was there?"?

As we discussed earlier in one of the many threads about this issue, I guess that the problem is with that small metal cover plate moving back and forward in the mirror box. The role of this plate is to cover the AF module when the mirror is up. It is important because the lens above AF module can generate unwanted reflections in the mirror box.

Depending on the answer to the "Good/Bad" question, one or the other of these images is correct:

...........

Yes, one of the images is correct.

If I'm correct in that judgment, the problem is that the fog/haze should have continued all the way to the top of the image, but it was blocked by something.

YES exactly.

An equally valid interpretation is that the surface that was creating the fog/haze was discontinuous; that discontinuity resulted in a non-uniform light pattern on the sensor. Since the demarcation between the good and bad areas is moderately sharp, the "something" must have been close to the sensor [otherwise the edge between the bright and dark sections would have been more blurred].

YES indeed.

Do you follow this thought experiment so far? I hope so.

I really don't know. I will do some more tests and will do some experiments with other cameras (if I'll get some) to check how mach are the other cameras affected and to be sure what is causes this phenomenon in D750. What discourages me is Nikon's approach to these issues. The D600 story taught me that Nikon don't bear the consequences and the company leaves the customers to themselves. This is not a simple bug what can be fixed easily but more it seems a design problem so I'm sure if someone wants to change/repair his camera referring to this issue, the Nikon guys will look at him wide-eyed and will "absolutely not understand" what is the problem. Like they did with sensor dirt ...

The only thing sedates me is that this phenomenon is really not that big issue and may cause problems hopefully only in not more than 1% of shots. Or less.

--

Cheers János

Yes and tearing each other apart is precisely what provides Nikon the cover to deny the D750 issues as released while fixing it in a subsequent release....

Even though I dont think this is going to affect my shooting much and I love the camera aside from this, I still dont attempt to disparage or marginalize those whom feel it WILL negatively impact them because ONLY good things can come from us presenting a united front.......I just cant understand why anyone consumer would take their time to defend a large out of touch corporation like Nikon vs their fellow photographers...worse case we are ALL entirely wrong and the Nikon defenders are entirely right...AND THAT JUST MEANS CHEAPER D750s for THEM!! be it returns or ebay from OUR hysteria....THEY WIN...but its personal with them and thats sad....to be attached that way...



--
Shawn

 

[sgoldswo]

Yes and tearing each other apart is precisely what provides Nikon the cover to deny the D750 issues as released while fixing it in a subsequent release....

Even though I dont think this is going to affect my shooting much and I love the camera aside from this, I still dont attempt to disparage or marginalize those whom feel it WILL negatively impact them because ONLY good things can come from us presenting a united front.......I just cant understand why anyone consumer would take their time to defend a large out of touch corporation like Nikon vs their fellow photographers...worse case we are ALL entirely wrong and the Nikon defenders are entirely right...AND THAT JUST MEANS CHEAPER D750s for THEM!! be it returns or ebay from OUR hysteria....THEY WIN...but its personal with them and thats sad....to be attached that way...

 

[Horshack]

The image is oriented like this in the camera. Am I correct that the bright part is wrong [bad] and the dim part is correct [good]?

Yes, this is the in-camera orientation of the image. I'm not sure which part is correct, but I guess the bright is.

Then consider my "What was here? question. I mean two things by that question:

• In the scene, was there a bright light in that location? I don't see any fogging at the edge of the image to give me any clues?

The flare is there and is visible both in optical viewfinder and in live view mode, but the shadow strip can be visible only in live view (and on final picture). Consider that this picture was shot in very low light (iso1600) but if you hit the same angle in strong and harsh sunny light, then the bright part will become very spectacular.

• In the camera, what is located near the words "What was there?"?

As we discussed earlier in one of the many threads about this issue, I guess that the problem is with that small metal cover plate moving back and forward in the mirror box. The role of this plate is to cover the AF module when the mirror is up. It is important because the lens above AF module can generate unwanted reflections in the mirror box.

Depending on the answer to the "Good/Bad" question, one or the other of these images is correct:

...........

Yes, one of the images is correct.

If I'm correct in that judgment, the problem is that the fog/haze should have continued all the way to the top of the image, but it was blocked by something.

YES exactly.

An equally valid interpretation is that the surface that was creating the fog/haze was discontinuous; that discontinuity resulted in a non-uniform light pattern on the sensor. Since the demarcation between the good and bad areas is moderately sharp, the "something" must have been close to the sensor [otherwise the edge between the bright and dark sections would have been more blurred].

YES indeed.

Do you follow this thought experiment so far? I hope so.

I really don't know. I will do some more tests and will do some experiments with other cameras (if I'll get some) to check how mach are the other cameras affected and to be sure what is causes this phenomenon in D750. What discourages me is Nikon's approach to these issues. The D600 story taught me that Nikon don't bear the consequences and the company leaves the customers to themselves. This is not a simple bug what can be fixed easily but more it seems a design problem so I'm sure if someone wants to change/repair his camera referring to this issue, the Nikon guys will look at him wide-eyed and will "absolutely not understand" what is the problem. Like they did with sensor dirt ...

The only thing sedates me is that this phenomenon is really not that big issue and may cause problems hopefully only in not more than 1% of shots. Or less.

--

Cheers János

Yes and tearing each other apart is precisely what provides Nikon the cover to deny the D750 issues as released while fixing it in a subsequent release....

Even though I dont think this is going to affect my shooting much and I love the camera aside from this, I still dont attempt to disparage or marginalize those whom feel it WILL negatively impact them because ONLY good things can come from us presenting a united front.......I just cant understand why anyone consumer would take their time to defend a large out of touch corporation like Nikon vs their fellow photographers...worse case we are ALL entirely wrong and the Nikon defenders are entirely right...AND THAT JUST MEANS CHEAPER D750s for THEM!! be it returns or ebay from OUR hysteria....THEY WIN...but its personal with them and thats sad....to be attached that way...

--
Shawn

It's a perplexing reaction isn't it? I think for some the acknowledgement any issue no matter how small somehow ruins the conception of their perfect camera. It's binary thinking caused by the inability to compartmentalize thoughts and feelings about something - a negative-feedback gestalt.

 

[sgoldswo]

The image is oriented like this in the camera. Am I correct that the bright part is wrong [bad] and the dim part is correct [good]?

Yes, this is the in-camera orientation of the image. I'm not sure which part is correct, but I guess the bright is.

Then consider my "What was here? question. I mean two things by that question:

• In the scene, was there a bright light in that location? I don't see any fogging at the edge of the image to give me any clues?

The flare is there and is visible both in optical viewfinder and in live view mode, but the shadow strip can be visible only in live view (and on final picture). Consider that this picture was shot in very low light (iso1600) but if you hit the same angle in strong and harsh sunny light, then the bright part will become very spectacular.

• In the camera, what is located near the words "What was there?"?

As we discussed earlier in one of the many threads about this issue, I guess that the problem is with that small metal cover plate moving back and forward in the mirror box. The role of this plate is to cover the AF module when the mirror is up. It is important because the lens above AF module can generate unwanted reflections in the mirror box.

Depending on the answer to the "Good/Bad" question, one or the other of these images is correct:

...........

Yes, one of the images is correct.

If I'm correct in that judgment, the problem is that the fog/haze should have continued all the way to the top of the image, but it was blocked by something.

YES exactly.

An equally valid interpretation is that the surface that was creating the fog/haze was discontinuous; that discontinuity resulted in a non-uniform light pattern on the sensor. Since the demarcation between the good and bad areas is moderately sharp, the "something" must have been close to the sensor [otherwise the edge between the bright and dark sections would have been more blurred].

YES indeed.

Do you follow this thought experiment so far? I hope so.

I really don't know. I will do some more tests and will do some experiments with other cameras (if I'll get some) to check how mach are the other cameras affected and to be sure what is causes this phenomenon in D750. What discourages me is Nikon's approach to these issues. The D600 story taught me that Nikon don't bear the consequences and the company leaves the customers to themselves. This is not a simple bug what can be fixed easily but more it seems a design problem so I'm sure if someone wants to change/repair his camera referring to this issue, the Nikon guys will look at him wide-eyed and will "absolutely not understand" what is the problem. Like they did with sensor dirt ...

The only thing sedates me is that this phenomenon is really not that big issue and may cause problems hopefully only in not more than 1% of shots. Or less.

--

Cheers János

Yes and tearing each other apart is precisely what provides Nikon the cover to deny the D750 issues as released while fixing it in a subsequent release....

Even though I dont think this is going to affect my shooting much and I love the camera aside from this, I still dont attempt to disparage or marginalize those whom feel it WILL negatively impact them because ONLY good things can come from us presenting a united front.......I just cant understand why anyone consumer would take their time to defend a large out of touch corporation like Nikon vs their fellow photographers...worse case we are ALL entirely wrong and the Nikon defenders are entirely right...AND THAT JUST MEANS CHEAPER D750s for THEM!! be it returns or ebay from OUR hysteria....THEY WIN...but its personal with them and thats sad....to be attached that way...

--
Shawn

It's a perplexing reaction isn't it? I think for some the acknowledgement any issue no matter how small somehow ruins the conception of their perfect camera. It's binary thinking caused by the inability to compartmentalize thoughts and feelings about something - a negative-feedback gestalt.

But the D750 isn't the perfect camera. I'm not convinced by the results the same way I am by the D810 and the Df. The app for smartphones and in camera editing of RAW is second rate and the shutter is too noisy. I just don't see this matter as any kind of issue in real use.

--

sgoldswoblog

A journey through life in pictures

sgoldswoblog.com

sgoldswo

Explore sgoldswo’s 45,833 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[3sgilbert]

Yes and tearing each other apart is precisely what provides Nikon the cover to deny the D750 issues as released while fixing it in a subsequent release....

Even though I dont think this is going to affect my shooting much and I love the camera aside from this, I still dont attempt to disparage or marginalize those whom feel it WILL negatively impact them because ONLY good things can come from us presenting a united front.......I just cant understand why anyone consumer would take their time to defend a large out of touch corporation like Nikon vs their fellow photographers...worse case we are ALL entirely wrong and the Nikon defenders are entirely right...AND THAT JUST MEANS CHEAPER D750s for THEM!! be it returns or ebay from OUR hysteria....THEY WIN...but its personal with them and thats sad....to be attached that way...

 

[chuxter]

Gosh! I had never suspected there was movement related to the covers over the AF sensor! That is a good observation! Thanks for pointing this out. But I suspect you are wrong about a couple of points.

I checked and on my D810, the front plate flips up; it rotates, not slides...sliding would be bad because it would degrade the black coating on the parts involved. Sliding would also be bad because it would generate millions of tiny black flakes.

Yes, definitely. This cover plate is rotating around an axle which center line is somewhere parallel with the AF module lens. (hope I was correct) When the mirror is down and we use the optical viewfinder, this plate takes his place in the front, right behind the mirror and it is normal to the "ground" plane of the mirror box. In this position the AF module is open to "see" the light reflecting by the secondary mirror. When the mirror is up (live view or taking the picture) this cover plate moves back (rotates) and covers the AF module lens against unwanted reflections. I never told it is sliding.

I went back and indeed, you didn't use the word "sliding"; I interpreted your words to mean "sliding" but obviously you and I both know it rotates. Here is that paragraph"

As we discussed earlier in one of the many threads about this issue, I guess that the problem is with that small metal cover plate moving back and forward in the mirror box. The role of this plate is to cover the AF module when the mirror is up. It is important because the lens above AF module can generate unwanted reflections in the mirror box.

When you said "back and forward" I thought you were describing "sliding". I was wrong.

Since the plate rotates about 75 degrees, what you call the "forward" position is also the "up" position.

You also said, "The role of this plate is to cover the AF module when the mirror is up." I think that is incorrect. The role of the plate is just the OPPOSITE; it's to block stray light [created when some photographer points the lens at a very bright light] from entering the area behind the mirror [when it is down]. It might be good to totally cover the AF sensor lenses but it can't, because it is not big enough! There is simply not enough room inside an FX mirror box to have a plate that big [it would hit the secondary mirror]. Even so, the plate on the bottom is "notched" so that it clears the secondary mirror [they cross paths as the mirror is raised]. See this diagram:




Secondary mirror moves toward the main mirror as the light shield [green] moves down, out of the way

Note that in the picture, the front plate is down and does not cover the sensor. It is important that it not cover the AF sensor as the camera can be set to continually perform AF operations! If it blocked the AF sensor, continuous AF and tracking would fail.

No-no. Every time you are focusing, even when the continuous Af is on, this plate is in front position and every time you shot (or use live view) this plate goes back to eliminate the unwanted reflections. It is not needed this plate to totally cover the AF module, it is enough to mask the light not to project to the sensor. That's why it is very complicated to do high fps with focus tracking in DSLR cameras. Too much mechanical movement which takes time and covers the AF sensor for that time. :-(

I agree that my above paragraph is wrong. But consider that I believed that it was stationary at that juncture. I had no clue that it moved! You have educated me.

But you may be wrong too? It's hard to tell as language is a barrier here. The next image [I think] is proposing that there is a reflection off the AF lenses that is causing the "light leak" problem. But the image on the sensor that we have been agonizing about for weeks doesn't look like anything that bounced off a small lens. It looks like light that is not uniformly scattered. Either something is blocking some uniformly scattered light off the bottom of the mirror box or the bottom of the box is not uniformly scattering it. I believe the latter at this juncture, but I'm liable to change my mind if good evidence suggests otherwise.

Check this image (it's not mine).

View attachment 805803

Thanks for a good discussion!

 

[chuxter]

It's a perplexing reaction isn't it? I think for some the acknowledgement any issue no matter how small somehow ruins the conception of their perfect camera. It's binary thinking caused by the inability to compartmentalize thoughts and feelings about something - a negative-feedback gestalt.

I'll admit that I don't understand "the inability to compartmentalize thoughts and feelings" or what "negative-feedback gestalt" is. Please communicate with Charles Wilson who apparently knows how to help you. He posted near the bottom of this thread...

 

[chuxter]

The image is oriented like this in the camera. Am I correct that the bright part is wrong [bad] and the dim part is correct [good]?

Yes, this is the in-camera orientation of the image. I'm not sure which part is correct, but I guess the bright is.

Then consider my "What was here? question. I mean two things by that question:

• In the scene, was there a bright light in that location? I don't see any fogging at the edge of the image to give me any clues?

The flare is there and is visible both in optical viewfinder and in live view mode, but the shadow strip can be visible only in live view (and on final picture). Consider that this picture was shot in very low light (iso1600) but if you hit the same angle in strong and harsh sunny light, then the bright part will become very spectacular.

• In the camera, what is located near the words "What was there?"?

As we discussed earlier in one of the many threads about this issue, I guess that the problem is with that small metal cover plate moving back and forward in the mirror box. The role of this plate is to cover the AF module when the mirror is up. It is important because the lens above AF module can generate unwanted reflections in the mirror box.

Depending on the answer to the "Good/Bad" question, one or the other of these images is correct:

...........

Yes, one of the images is correct.

If I'm correct in that judgment, the problem is that the fog/haze should have continued all the way to the top of the image, but it was blocked by something.

YES exactly.

An equally valid interpretation is that the surface that was creating the fog/haze was discontinuous; that discontinuity resulted in a non-uniform light pattern on the sensor. Since the demarcation between the good and bad areas is moderately sharp, the "something" must have been close to the sensor [otherwise the edge between the bright and dark sections would have been more blurred].

YES indeed.

Do you follow this thought experiment so far? I hope so.

I really don't know. I will do some more tests and will do some experiments with other cameras (if I'll get some) to check how mach are the other cameras affected and to be sure what is causes this phenomenon in D750. What discourages me is Nikon's approach to these issues. The D600 story taught me that Nikon don't bear the consequences and the company leaves the customers to themselves. This is not a simple bug what can be fixed easily but more it seems a design problem so I'm sure if someone wants to change/repair his camera referring to this issue, the Nikon guys will look at him wide-eyed and will "absolutely not understand" what is the problem. Like they did with sensor dirt ...

The only thing sedates me is that this phenomenon is really not that big issue and may cause problems hopefully only in not more than 1% of shots. Or less.

--

Cheers János

Yes and tearing each other apart is precisely what provides Nikon the cover to deny the D750 issues as released while fixing it in a subsequent release....

Shawn, Janos and I are having a lively and productive discussion. We are NOT tearing each other apart! This is a technical community and we are discovering technical things about the D750 [and other FX cameras too].

Even though I dont think this is going to affect my shooting much and I love the camera aside from this, I still dont attempt to disparage or marginalize those whom feel it WILL negatively impact them because ONLY good things can come from us presenting a united front.......I just cant understand why anyone consumer would take their time to defend a large out of touch corporation like Nikon vs their fellow photographers...worse case we are ALL entirely wrong and the Nikon defenders are entirely right...AND THAT JUST MEANS CHEAPER D750s for THEM!! be it returns or ebay from OUR hysteria....THEY WIN...but its personal with them and thats sad....to be attached that way...

I would not characterize what I am doing as disparaging and marginalizing. I am just trying to figure out why the D750 has less uniform fogging when the lens is pointed a very bright light. Some people can't help, like so far not a single Pro Wedding Photographer has a clue what is going on. But they are OK photographers and probably nice people.

This is a little like sausage: it's quite disturbing to watch it being made, but if you have a short memory span, it's delicious!

 

[NJani]

Hi chuxter,

Indeed it is a good discussion. I clearly know what I want to say but my English is a bit poor to put into shape and transmit what's in my mind. Sorry. Your drawing is very useful. Now it is a bit late here but I'll draw into it how and where this cover plate is moving.

--

Cheers János

 

[HymanRoth]

.I just cant understand why anyone consumer would take their time to defend a large out of touch corporation like Nikon vs their fellow photographers...worse case we are ALL entirely wrong and the Nikon defenders are entirely right...AND THAT JUST MEANS CHEAPER D750s for THEM!! be it returns or ebay from OUR hysteria....THEY WIN...but its personal with them and thats sad....to be attached that way...

 

[RichRMA]

Seems to be with some people.

 

[Horshack]

.I just cant understand why anyone consumer would take their time to defend a large out of touch corporation like Nikon vs their fellow photographers...worse case we are ALL entirely wrong and the Nikon defenders are entirely right...AND THAT JUST MEANS CHEAPER D750s for THEM!! be it returns or ebay from OUR hysteria....THEY WIN...but its personal with them and thats sad....to be attached that way...

--
Shawn

It's a perplexing reaction isn't it? I think for some the acknowledgement any issue no matter how small somehow ruins the conception of their perfect camera. It's binary thinking caused by the inability to compartmentalize thoughts and feelings about something - a negative-feedback gestalt.

Anyone trying to inject a little reason and clear thinking into this discussion is labelled a "Nikon defender"?

"Acknowledgement any issue no matter how small"??? Let me turn that around...people who go on and on and on, through many many postings, about an "issue no matter how small", as if this "little issue" is the evil workings of a vile large corporation who doesn't care a whit about its customers and will inevitably result in a new camera being released in two weeks.

I'd agree with you - I don't think many who dismiss problems are corporate sympathizers and I also don't believe many who discuss and troubleshoot issues drone on about them to any excessive degree. As of now the discussion of the issue has been contained in the running threads on the issue, which makes it easy for those interested to participate and for those who aren't to not.

 

[chuxter]

Seems to be with some people.

The human gene pool is polluted. Prematurely shortened telomeres or something like that?

 

[James Bligh]

Seems to be with some people.

The human gene pool is polluted. Prematurely shortened telomeres or something like that?

Saying human gene pool is polluted is nonsense. Truth is humans suffer from lack of genetic diversity.

(Quote) Major reductions in population size leave their mark on genetic diversity of modern individuals. For Homo sapiens, such bottlenecks are evident some 100,000 years ago and 50,000-60,000 years ago - both probably related to migrations out of Africa. (Unquote)

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22355515

As to prematurely shortened telomeres do you suggest a subset of dpreview members, more specifically those who frequent Nikon FX forum, suffer from progeria?

 

[chuxter]

Seems to be with some people.

The human gene pool is polluted. Prematurely shortened telomeres or something like that?

Saying human gene pool is polluted is nonsense.

Yes, but it makes [some] people think.

Truth is humans suffer from lack of genetic diversity.

Yes. And that is in spite of the excessive number of humans on the earth. We [still] tend to organize into clans.

(Quote) Major reductions in population size leave their mark on genetic diversity of modern individuals. For Homo sapiens, such bottlenecks are evident some 100,000 years ago and 50,000-60,000 years ago - both probably related to migrations out of Africa. (Unquote)

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22355515

As to prematurely shortened telomeres do you suggest a subset of dpreview members, more specifically those who frequent Nikon FX forum, suffer from progeria?

Only the old ones. :-(