Lack of faith in NIKON products!

[480sparky]

..........

@480sparky , you are correct in soem regards to your statement. I am saying " "I have a problem with my gear. I won't tell you what the problem is". However, I am not saying "but I want everyone to discuss it."........

Sorry.

....... Advice and discussion welcomed........

I guess the word 'discussion' threw me off. Pardon me whilst I dig out my dictionary.

 

[MopsterUK]

Thanks, Charlie. "Sigma Lottery" gives me lots of confirmation that it happens, but I'm still not understanding the technical details.

Whatever, it's not important and it's not what the thread's about anyways!

It also becomes complicated when you throw in other factors like focus shifting on fast lens. This is also worth looking into if you use wide apertures on fast lenses .

 

[MopsterUK]

..........

@480sparky , you are correct in soem regards to your statement. I am saying " "I have a problem with my gear. I won't tell you what the problem is". However, I am not saying "but I want everyone to discuss it."........

Sorry.

....... Advice and discussion welcomed........

I guess the word 'discussion' threw me off.

I don't want to get further into an argument about words used or not used here. I was clear about many things in my OP (which is available for scrutiny) but sadly I was vague and less direct than I should have been about what I would actually like to discuss.

 

[480sparky]

OK, let's try this:

Post some sample images you say have the problem. Preferably, a link to full-size, unedited ones.

 

[otherprof]

So, "Tell me the factors of 12, but don't mention 2 or 3 or 4 or 6 or 1 or 12. This is the same game Thrasymachus tried to pull on Socrates!

 

[cgipson1]

Thanks, Charlie. "Sigma Lottery" gives me lots of confirmation that it happens, but I'm still not understanding the technical details.

Whatever, it's not important and it's not what the thread's about anyways!

It also becomes complicated when you throw in other factors like focus shifting on fast lens. This is also worth looking into if you use wide apertures on fast lenses .

I have all FAST lenses.. and use them wide open sometimes.. without any issues. But I only use them wide open when it is needed or appropriate. Do I take OOF shots.. yes.. occasionally! And it is almost (99.9%) always my fault.

 

[KmH]

Maybe I have this wrong, but it seems to me that the body simply runs the lens this way and that (according, no doubt, to some sophisticated algorithm) until the in-body focusing system says "Yep, that's in-focus", so lens calibration shouldn't matter?

If the lens is sloppy, and drifts off after the body has declared "IN FOCUS, GO GO GO!" I can see that this could be a problem, ok. Is that the kind of thing you're getting at?

ETA: I am pretty sure that modern cameras DO NOT say "the subject is 4.29 feet away" and then set the lens to whatever the lens claims is "focused at 4.29 feet" I am pretty sure that they focus pretty much like you and me - they adjust until the image is "in focus" where there are a couple of techniques for determining what "in focus" is. I could be wrong on this, however.

Some of the auto focus information (distance) the AF module in the camera needs and uses is provide by electronics in the lens.

Focus calibration is best done by sending the lens in with the camera.

If the OP has 3rd party glass, the OP is pretty much SOL.

I also wonder if the OP ever looked at page 246 of the D7000 user's manual.

On a final note. The D7000 is a mass produced consumer electronic product. All mass produced consumer electronic products have some amount of variation. Each manufacturer sets a tolerance range of acceptable variance.

 

[Overread]

The op might want to read this LensRentals.com - "This lens is soft" and other myths

Manufacture tolerances can mean that you can have perfectly fine lenses and perfectly fine camera bodies, which when those specific items are combined result in less than perfect results. If you want a fix you have to send both lenses and the cameras into Nikon for correction and calibration with each other. Note that if you own any 3rd party items most big 3rd party companies (sigma, tokina, tamron etc....) will have a similar process to allow you to have your lenses sent with the body for calibration. (I would do Nikon first then any 3rd party as the 3rd party companies will only adjust the lenses - the own brand might make adjustments to the body as well).

 

[MopsterUK]

OK, let's try this:

Post some sample images you say have the problem. Preferably, a link to full-size, unedited ones.

I will not, for the reason that I do not need you to confirm if I have a back focusing problem or not. What does it prove if I do not post any images nothing. It neither confirms or denies your suspicions. However, as proven many times in experiments "anybody that is trying to look for something is most likely going to find it" this is regardless of what is in front of them. This is the reason for why scientist 'try' to stay objectionable.

 

[MopsterUK]

The op might want to read this LensRentals.com - "This lens is soft" and other myths

Manufacture tolerances can mean that you can have perfectly fine lenses and perfectly fine camera bodies, which when those specific items are combined result in less than perfect results. If you want a fix you have to send both lenses and the cameras into Nikon for correction and calibration with each other. Note that if you own any 3rd party items most big 3rd party companies (sigma, tokina, tamron etc....) will have a similar process to allow you to have your lenses sent with the body for calibration. (I would do Nikon first then any 3rd party as the 3rd party companies will only adjust the lenses - the own brand might make adjustments to the body as well).

Thank you for your post. I am aware of that exact link. It is one I have often recommended to people myself as it's very useful. However, I am aware of where the problem is in my situation. But thank you.

 

[MopsterUK]

Maybe I have this wrong, but it seems to me that the body simply runs the lens this way and that (according, no doubt, to some sophisticated algorithm) until the in-body focusing system says "Yep, that's in-focus", so lens calibration shouldn't matter?

If the lens is sloppy, and drifts off after the body has declared "IN FOCUS, GO GO GO!" I can see that this could be a problem, ok. Is that the kind of thing you're getting at?

ETA: I am pretty sure that modern cameras DO NOT say "the subject is 4.29 feet away" and then set the lens to whatever the lens claims is "focused at 4.29 feet" I am pretty sure that they focus pretty much like you and me - they adjust until the image is "in focus" where there are a couple of techniques for determining what "in focus" is. I could be wrong on this, however.

Some of the auto focus information (distance) the AF module in the camera needs and uses is provide by electronics in the lens.

Focus calibration is best done by sending the lens in with the camera.

If the OP has 3rd party glass, the OP is pretty much SOL.

I also wonder if the OP ever looked at page 246 of the D7000 user's manual.

On a final note. The D7000 is a mass produced consumer electronic product. All mass produced consumer electronic products have some amount of variation. Each manufacturer sets a tolerance range of acceptable variance.

Thank you, the manual was a pleasure to read when I first got the camera (actually prior to me even purchasing the camera, as was the d800 manual).

 

[MopsterUK]

Thanks, Charlie. "Sigma Lottery" gives me lots of confirmation that it happens, but I'm still not understanding the technical details.

Whatever, it's not important and it's not what the thread's about anyways!

It also becomes complicated when you throw in other factors like focus shifting on fast lens. This is also worth looking into if you use wide apertures on fast lenses .

I have all FAST lenses.. and use them wide open sometimes.. without any issues. But I only use them wide open when it is needed or appropriate. Do I take OOF shots.. yes.. occasionally! And it is almost (99.9%) always my fault.

I should have been clearer, I mean when trying to discern where the fault is. As there are many factors that come into play where focusing is concerned. When in the stage of may or may there not be a BF problem focus shifting is and added complication one would prefer not to concern themselves with.

 

[480sparky]

OK, folks. Move along. Nothing to see here.

Nothing else to discuss.

Nothing else to suggest.

 

[MopsterUK]

So, "Tell me the factors of 12, but don't mention 2 or 3 or 4 or 6 or 1 or 12. This is the same game Thrasymachus tried to pull on Socrates!

Lol, I can see how this thread may seem like this. I have apologised for my part in this and lack of clarity/directness of my opening post.

 

[amolitor]

I suspect strongly that you are NOT going to find that Canon has substantially better customer support than Nikon, or vice versa, for the simple reason that competitive forces are driving them to provide very similar levels of support, build-quality-for-the-dollar, and so on. You probably WILL find niches where one is better than the other (e.g. "Canon's lower end lenses are better in the rain than Nikons" or whatever) where one company has decided to devote a little more money and effort to differentiate.

Overall they're going to be very very similar, however.