Defects in D800

[Tommo1965]

good news for people with a faulty D800

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/07/04...roblem-solved/

[I @ M]

good news for people with a faulty D800

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/07/04...roblem-solved/

Yep, he is reporting what is generally known now but he is only about a week or two late to the party.
He does like to promote himself as being first at a lot of things but in reality -------

[Sifor]

I was told it’s basically a case of hooking the camera up to the laser calibration jig, and letting a piece of software run a calibration routine point by point – there are no physical or mechanical adjustments made to the camera. The software then writes this somewhere in the camera’s ROM for future use.

This seems to suggest the issue could be fixed for most people via a firmware update?

[I @ M]

This seems to suggest the issue could be fixed for most people via a firmware update?

Very doubtful, it is a calibration problem that is not entirely consistent with every ( affected ) unit.

As is usual with bodies being manufactured, each one is calibrated individually at the time of manufacture to fall within factory tolerances and it seems that there was a bit of a hiccup in the process in the early days of production.

No big deal really in the scheme of things and it seems that ( so far ) factory rectification is working.

[arthurking83]

This seems to suggest the issue could be fixed for most people via a firmware update?

Not if the calibration of the AF module is out(which is what's obviously happened to the affected D800s)
For the AF calibration to be correctly set, it would have to be done on a per camera basis, as each camera could be incorrectly calibrated by varying degrees of inaccuracy.

Think of it as AF fine tune adjustment. All modern higher end cameras have it now, and a standardised firmware fix would be akin to claiming that all 85mm f/1.4 lenses require an AF fine tune of -10.

That is your camera, my camera, Mango's camera, Andrew's camera and even Lance's camera, who has no AF issues!! all require a AF fine tune of -10 for any 85/1.4 lens.

ie. it's not so simple.

[Sifor]

ie. it's not so simple.

Thought so, but would've been nice..

[Lance B]

A software fix actually makes sense when you think about it.

From what I can understand of the issue, it was basically the left AF point back focusing and to a lesser degree the right AF point back focusing. The issue were also aperture dependant and also distance dependant, which to me rules out a hardware issue. Forget your theories on smaller apertures DOF covering up the issue, this is just nonsense. The fact is, if you shoot at f2.8 you can still clearly see where the mid point of focus was and therefore you would still see whether it is back focusing or not.

Now, the whole AF module is one unit as far as I know. The only way this could be out of alignment would be because it was bent or curved back at the extreme left and right sides and the left side being bent more than the right. However, this dosen't explain the variances of aperture and distant dependant back focusing. If it is out of calibration due to a mechanical misalignment, then it would manifest itself at all apertures and all distances and this is not the case.

It seems to me that the issue is closely related to focus shift that can occur in the wide aperture lenses. In my case, the AF issue only occurs very occssionally with my 85mm f1.4G and then this very occassional event only occurs at wide apertures, like under f2.8, and at distances, say, over 4mts. The issue only occurs so rarely, that I am not concerned about a fix and will only send my camera in for a fix if and when I am sure there is a correct fix. All my other lenses perform perfectly as many would have seen from my posted photos since I obtained the D800.

The problem is, as there have been such wide reporting on the problem, and many seem to have the issue, then a whole raft of issues then begin to be uncovered. Due to the reported issues I think people are now testing their AF to death and finding things that they wouldn't normally find and this is clouding the issue. I do believe that people are also finding back/front focusing with the centre focus points as well and this just muddies the left/right AF point issue compounding the issue and I think this is making many think that it is a mechanical issue.

The problem here is that if your centre points are back focusing due to mechanical misalignment with a particular lens then this can make testing for the left/right point AF issue a nightmare and just makes the whole thing a disaster waiting to happen as you have no concrete reference point to start with, "chasing your tail" for want of a better term.

However, if the left/right AF point issue wasn't there, then we would just do a normal AF Fine tune check for each lens and then that'd be it, we would have calibrated our lenses as you would on a D700 or D3 or whatever.

[Sar NOP]

Think of it as AF fine tune adjustment. All modern higher end cameras have it now, and a standardised firmware fix would be akin to claiming that all 85mm f/1.4 lenses require an AF fine tune of -10.

That is your camera, my camera, Mango's camera, Andrew's camera and even Lance's camera, who has no AF issues!! all require a AF fine tune of -10 for any 85/1.4 lens.

You're 100% right here.
I use my 85/1.4G at f/1.4 more than 90% of the time. With the D800, shooting wide open with this 85mm is less reliable than my other DX cameras. Last week, I decided to use for the very first time the AF fine tune in the D800 (I've never used it on my D7000). Set to -15, my 85/1.4G becomes now much more reliable (and accurate) at f/1.4 than before : at any AF mode (any AF points) and at any distance, the keeper rate is over 90% !

[arthurking83]

Now that Mongo has sorted his issue and started another thread, we can deviate slightly from the original point of the thread:

A software fix actually makes sense when you think about it.

........






......



The problem here is that if your centre points are back focusing due to mechanical misalignment with a particular lens then this can make testing for the left/right point AF issue a nightmare and just makes the whole thing a disaster waiting to happen as you have no concrete reference point to start with, "chasing your tail" for want of a better term.

.....

Actually, what's interesting here is that of all the available devices in the Wide World of Nikon, the device that actually has the best possible chance of producing the best and most accurate AF calibration data, is right there in your hands!! The camera itself!
Contrary to Lance's comments, the camera does have an AF reference point to begin with, and that's the sensor itself.
(long live useless features and functions huh!) .. I am of course referring to LiveView, which when it first appeared was scorned by most as a useless feature.
I loved it from the word go, one of the best features available to the SLR type camera.

If any device is capable of providing a spot on AF calibration starting point, or reference point, it has to be the sensor itself.

If Nikon were actually smart about this issue, they'd have included an self diagnostic feature in the camera(hopefully for future generation cameras!) where the camera would be able to produce a range of AF tests when prompted by the user or owner or tech back in the service lab, whereby it uses a system of comparative images and data, for both AF module accuracy compared with the images and data produced by the sensor's direct AF ability.
This way any and all lens focusing anomalies would be committed to memory within the camera without any need for the user to do the tedious testing themselves and set the AF fine tune.

If the owner/user didn't have the means or know how on how to do it themselves, they'd take it into the shop, and the tech folks would set it up on the bench and the camera would do it's thing automatedly, making the service quick and easy. Turn around time would be massively reduced, to as much as zero, as the option would be there for the owner to do it themselves .. which leaves the servicing folks to concentrate on other actual broken devices.

My suspicions would be that Mongo would have had a much less stressful experience re all of this rigmarole of D800 misfocusing!

PROBLEM is tho, that Nikon would never do this, even tho in many ways it'd be in their best interest to do so with the nett result of higher levels of customer satisfaction.

Not too long ago, Nikon made a quite seriously stupid decision to force all workshops around the globe to update to specific Nikon standards, which required that all these workshops would have to invest substantial amounts of money into specialised equipment.
With this also came the prospect of low return on investment rates for this type of expenditure, which made for very few servicing centres that would take up the offer.

ie. Nikon were trying hard to put the independent service people of of work .. to corner the market for themselves basically.

So the prospect that Nikon would add self diagnostic features into their high end cameras is going to be pretty much a no go!
Makes it especially saddening when it should be a pretty simple matter of including a separate firmware code for it with minimal space requirement .. and the hardware and ability for adjustments already exists within the camera.

So if you want a lesson on how to alienate your most loyal customer base ..... then shoot yourself in the foot and end up with said foot in mouth, after which point you end up contracting foot and mouth disease and finally end up a a point where euthanasia is the best course of action ... follow Nikon's escapades!!

Speaking of customer satisfaction, apparently if you own a Pentax DSLR, you have the best, most trouble free camera brand ..... followed by Nikon, and closely thereafter by Canon(according to JD Powers sources).

Fortunately I've had an extremely great run from my Nikon equipment, as I suspect most will too.
Occasional gaffs happen in every facet of life, and DSLR's shouldn't be immune to them.
But if the manufacturers were smart enough to allow for such important errors, and other trivial matters, even diehards like myself .. pretty much a Nikon person all the way through .. but not blindly so, would more readily forgive them for it.
Send out a service report for it, set the camera up so that it could do it's own automated testing and correction, and away we go.
I'm not even affected by the issue, but I'm annoyed by it, as I was and am so close to getting the D800 myself. Last thing I want is a problematic camera to send somewhere to have it fixed, which requires time and effort!

Their recent marketing slogan, seems to say it all I think .... I am Nikon ... yeah right!! meaningless garbage unless being a Nikon actually means something!
As it stands it only means one thing, Nikon are becoming complacent, and they seem to displaying a lot of arrogance and sterility towards the people that have made them what they are.
If their current strategy maintains this kind of momentum, I can't see a bright future for Nikon.

[Lance B]

Now that Mongo has sorted his issue and started another thread, we can deviate slightly from the original point of the thread:




Actually, what's interesting here is that of all the available devices in the Wide World of Nikon, the device that actually has the best possible chance of producing the best and most accurate AF calibration data, is right there in your hands!! The camera itself!
Contrary to Lance's comments, the camera does have an AF reference point to begin with, and that's the sensor itself.
(long live useless features and functions huh!) .. I am of course referring to LiveView, which when it first appeared was scorned by most as a useless feature.
I loved it from the word go, one of the best features available to the SLR type camera.

If any device is capable of providing a spot on AF calibration starting point, or reference point, it has to be the sensor itself.

I agree that the sensor is the reference point, but I think you are being a little nefarious and argumentative for the sake of an argument, Arthur.

Realistically, and this was the point of what I asid, if you have a viewfinder left point and/or right point AF sensor that is back focusing, but the centre points are fine then your only reference point in the VF are those centre AF points in order to get the left AF (and possibly right AF) issues sorted. If your centre points are off due to the need to AF fine tune on a particular lens, then that needs to be sorted first making the central AF points the reference point to then get the left and right AF points sorted.

If Nikon were actually smart about this issue, they'd have included an self diagnostic feature in the camera(hopefully for future generation cameras!) where the camera would be able to produce a range of AF tests when prompted by the user or owner or tech back in the service lab, whereby it uses a system of comparative images and data, for both AF module accuracy compared with the images and data produced by the sensor's direct AF ability.
This way any and all lens focusing anomalies would be committed to memory within the camera without any need for the user to do the tedious testing themselves and set the AF fine tune.

There is an aftermarket fosu test set up that you can do yourself:
http://www.reikan.co.uk/focal/

I am sure that Nikon would have something similar or may even use an aftermarket set up. I know many of us think manufacturers are stupid, but I am sure if they can design a highly complex camera like a D800 or whatever, they have the know how to get focusing correct and much better than we think we can. However, this comes down to cost and how accurate you want it all to be. Everything comes at a cost and you can have the best most accurate focus for all points if you want to pay for it. This applies to all things and the rule is, everything made built down to a price, it's a fact of life and I think we just need to remember that.

What I think has happened with the D800 is that they do a central AF point calibration on the production line, but this is obviously not enough.

If the owner/user didn't have the means or know how on how to do it themselves, they'd take it into the shop, and the tech folks would set it up on the bench and the camera would do it's thing automatedly, making the service quick and easy. Turn around time would be massively reduced, to as much as zero, as the option would be there for the owner to do it themselves .. which leaves the servicing folks to concentrate on other actual broken devices.

My suspicions would be that Mongo would have had a much less stressful experience re all of this rigmarole of D800 misfocusing!

Firstly, they have to know that there is a problem and then they have to have a work around to fix the issue. This obviously takes time and in the mean time, the service centres around the world just have to wait and see. Japanese are always very tight lipped about what they do and nothing we can say will alter that.

The point is, none of these service centres know what is going on and they therefore try to fix it themselves thinking it is a hardware issue.

From what I have read on other forums, it seems that Nikon does have some sort of a jig made up for just this very problem, but it will take time for all service centres to get one. However, the idea that there is a jig and that each service cetre needs one is just rumour. It may be that they do not need a jig and can be calibrated without one, a la my original opening sentences about reference points.

PROBLEM is tho, that Nikon would never do this, even tho in many ways it'd be in their best interest to do so with the nett result of higher levels of customer satisfaction.

Not too long ago, Nikon made a quite seriously stupid decision to force all workshops around the globe to update to specific Nikon standards, which required that all these workshops would have to invest substantial amounts of money into specialised equipment.
With this also came the prospect of low return on investment rates for this type of expenditure, which made for very few servicing centres that would take up the offer.

ie. Nikon were trying hard to put the independent service people of of work .. to corner the market for themselves basically.

It's happening with absolutely everything, automotive, computers (think Apple), Woolwoths/Coles, now cameras and anything with it's own valuable brand name. It's all about tying up your money for life. What are you going to do, jump ship to Canon? Pentax? Olympus? They are all the same. However, some might not be as bad as others, but then do they have the features and back up that you require?

But realistically, I would have thought that making sure all service centres around the world had to be to Nikon standards was a good thing. Who is to say that the service centres as they are were better than Nikon anyway? Where did that idea come from? Being independent suddenly makes you better than Nikon? Wouldn't the speciallised equipment be a better thing in this age of highly complex and highly critical devices that we now use, and not only that the fact that customers are more demanding because their equipment can deliver those more highly critical results. Think of the D800 with it's high resolution now making every lens requiring perfect focus as we can now see any small off focus misses.

So the prospect that Nikon would add self diagnostic features into their high end cameras is going to be pretty much a no go!
Makes it especially saddening when it should be a pretty simple matter of including a separate firmware code for it with minimal space requirement .. and the hardware and ability for adjustments already exists within the camera.

I am sure that this could be done, but at what cost and this is the crux of the matter. All these things are fine, but it costs money.

So if you want a lesson on how to alienate your most loyal customer base ..... then shoot yourself in the foot and end up with said foot in mouth, after which point you end up contracting foot and mouth disease and finally end up a a point where euthanasia is the best course of action ... follow Nikon's escapades!!

Speaking of customer satisfaction, apparently if you own a Pentax DSLR, you have the best, most trouble free camera brand ..... followed by Nikon, and closely thereafter by Canon(according to JD Powers sources).

Fortunately I've had an extremely great run from my Nikon equipment, as I suspect most will too.

As have I. Interestingly, my Pentax cameras and lenses were the worst! The thing is, most Pentax owners are not pros and not always enthusiasts, so most wouldn't even see the issue of the D800 as most probably wouldn't use anything other than the centre focus point. Pro's are waaay more demanding on their equipment and results than nay Pentax user, so any minute issue will be reflected in those "surveys". This is basically what happened to me, the more I got into photography, the more critical I became of my results and the more I found that the accuracy and QC of my Pentax gear just wasn't quite up to par. I jumped ship to Nikon pro gear and haven't looked back.

Occasional gaffs happen in every facet of life, and DSLR's shouldn't be immune to them.
But if the manufacturers were smart enough to allow for such important errors, and other trivial matters, even diehards like myself .. pretty much a Nikon person all the way through .. but not blindly so, would more readily forgive them for it.
Send out a service report for it, set the camera up so that it could do it's own automated testing and correction, and away we go.
I'm not even affected by the issue, but I'm annoyed by it, as I was and am so close to getting the D800 myself. Last thing I want is a problematic camera to send somewhere to have it fixed, which requires time and effort!

Their recent marketing slogan, seems to say it all I think .... I am Nikon ... yeah right!! meaningless garbage unless being a Nikon actually means something!
As it stands it only means one thing, Nikon are becoming complacent, and they seem to displaying a lot of arrogance and sterility towards the people that have made them what they are.
If their current strategy maintains this kind of momentum, I can't see a bright future for Nikon.

LOL. I think you are a little sensitive. I mean, all manufacturers have these sorts of slogans and they are all just as meaningless. You're an intelligent person, why would you even give their slogan a second thought, let alone believe any part of it? These slogans are just there for the masses and to get their names in everyone's minds.

[arthurking83]

I agree that the sensor is the reference point, but I think you are being a little nefarious and argumentative for the sake of an argument, Arthur.

......

apologies if it came across that way, but it wasn't meant to be.

My reply was purely speculative on what could be achieved if someone put their mind to it.

Each AF point still corresponds to a point on the sensor that could be used for phase detect AF point calibration for the module at any time(either by the user or a tech).
That is, when you select a particular AF point and then switch to Lv mode, the af are in Lv mode corresponds to the chosen af point through the viewfinder.
Using this system would allow the camera to diagnose any errors in phase detect AF through the viewfinder.

So, imagine a situation where your camera receives a serious enough knock that pushes vAF(viewfinder AF) out of whack by just enough to warrant it to be an issue, but not enough so that it's worth the hassle of heading to a service dept.
In general, most folks would simply fool around with AF fine tune and get acceptable results.

Perfect AF at the sensor level, which is usually achieve with great accuracy via LvAF(Liveview AF) is all that's important at this point.
If the AF system can still recognise a perfect AF level, via the LvAF, then I can't imagine it being too hard(for a seasoned programmer) to add a routine that systematically checks vfAF points against a set good reference point.
External calibration devices would become redundant, and all it requires is a memory module that could be separate to any other memory on the camera if need be.... apart from the code to execute the routine of course.
If it were smart enough, this calibration checking diagnostic could have enough memory to then fine tune AF for a large selection of zoom lenses as well for those of us with zoom lenses that need varying degrees of AF calibration for various focal lengths!

of course this will add a small cost increase to the camera, but a system such as this, as it's already partially implemented in the form of AF fine tune, would be minimal in terms of a per unit measurement.
More storage capacity is also inevitable for future cameras, so I doubt that any increase in hardware resources will add much to cost either.

My belief now is that most af checking charts and programs and software are made redundant with the advent of Liveview.
in fact it's very rare for me to even take a shot whilst I'm AF checking on most lenses, as it's a simple matter of focusing via the vf, and then switching to manual focus so as to not disturb the focus point set.. and then switch on liveview to check 'sharpness' on the review screen.
With focus mode now set to manual, I then use focus peaking to see if any more sharpness can be had with very fine movements of the focus collar on the lens.
Easy peasy and done in a jiffy.
I really only take a few sample shots later on to confirm that I'd set it right, or not.
Have never felt the need to use any AF calibration assistance products, other than in the old days when Lv wasn't an option.

The other uber cool advantage of having an on board self diagnostic system for AF, would be the finer granularity of using af fine tune at varying focused distances, and apertures as well.

Most, if not all very fast lenses suffer from focus shift, and the ability to embed all this extra data using more complex data capture would allow for amazingly tight tolerances when it comes to AF.

As you already said Lance, considering the need for spot on AF on a high res camera such as a D800(for those of us who choose to AF), I reckon something like this has to eventually feature on some future camera down the road.

Otherwise(as an alternative), I'd like to see cameras using a more smart OS, with the ability to load external apps and features into them at some point in the future.
I think this is going to be another inevitable consequence of modern day device usage.

Horrid, pitiful, currently pretty much dumb firmwares will hopefully become a thing of the past, and I just hope that Nikon latches onto the idea sooner rather than later.

Imagine that!
This is about as ideal as ideal could possibly get .... if it ever eventuates!
Super duper feature rich applications that help deal with issues, and problems of either a software or hardware nature.
The ideal perfect camera for just about anyone, where someone like me gets all the bells and whistles, and yet William who wants a completely stripped down featureless camera also gets what he wants in the same camera package!!
I want video, he doesn't .. I keep the video app, he deletes it! .. easy as you can get, and the tools to make it happen exist already.

It's a matter of how much does this impact on the manufacturers ability to sell accessories, where the problem lies.
If all features can be enabled via a camera menu, rather than using the good ol hardware accessory method(eg stuff like remotes, and intervalometers and so on) .. then it leaves the camera makers short on income streams from some of their other avenues.

But they could sell their own apps based on some proprietary software code, that amounts to a similar sort of system where we as the user purchase these apps as we feel the need too.

.. anyhow, too much rambling about stuff that aint going to happen in Nikon World(but quite possibly in Samsung World! ) ...

I think in the coming months we may start to see more app orientated compacts, to cater for a market that may be getting hammered by the iCamera .. iPhone set.(by all reports).

I'm sure(I read) that Polaroid are using an app based OS on one of their impending, or current new cameras, and Samsung have introduced a new compact with similar operating style too now. So we may have to wait a while longer and see what happens.

[Lance B]

apologies if it came across that way, but it wasn't meant to be.

No problems, I may have overracted a little.

My reply was purely speculative on what could be achieved if someone put their mind to it.

Each AF point still corresponds to a point on the sensor that could be used for phase detect AF point calibration for the module at any time(either by the user or a tech).
That is, when you select a particular AF point and then switch to Lv mode, the af are in Lv mode corresponds to the chosen af point through the viewfinder.
Using this system would allow the camera to diagnose any errors in phase detect AF through the viewfinder.

So, imagine a situation where your camera receives a serious enough knock that pushes vAF(viewfinder AF) out of whack by just enough to warrant it to be an issue, but not enough so that it's worth the hassle of heading to a service dept.
In general, most folks would simply fool around with AF fine tune and get acceptable results.

Perfect AF at the sensor level, which is usually achieve with great accuracy via LvAF(Liveview AF) is all that's important at this point.
If the AF system can still recognise a perfect AF level, via the LvAF, then I can't imagine it being too hard(for a seasoned programmer) to add a routine that systematically checks vfAF points against a set good reference point.
External calibration devices would become redundant, and all it requires is a memory module that could be separate to any other memory on the camera if need be.... apart from the code to execute the routine of course.
If it were smart enough, this calibration checking diagnostic could have enough memory to then fine tune AF for a large selection of zoom lenses as well for those of us with zoom lenses that need varying degrees of AF calibration for various focal lengths!

of course this will add a small cost increase to the camera, but a system such as this, as it's already partially implemented in the form of AF fine tune, would be minimal in terms of a per unit measurement.
More storage capacity is also inevitable for future cameras, so I doubt that any increase in hardware resources will add much to cost either.

My belief now is that most af checking charts and programs and software are made redundant with the advent of Liveview.
in fact it's very rare for me to even take a shot whilst I'm AF checking on most lenses, as it's a simple matter of focusing via the vf, and then switching to manual focus so as to not disturb the focus point set.. and then switch on liveview to check 'sharpness' on the review screen.
With focus mode now set to manual, I then use focus peaking to see if any more sharpness can be had with very fine movements of the focus collar on the lens.
Easy peasy and done in a jiffy.
I really only take a few sample shots later on to confirm that I'd set it right, or not.
Have never felt the need to use any AF calibration assistance products, other than in the old days when Lv wasn't an option.

The other uber cool advantage of having an on board self diagnostic system for AF, would be the finer granularity of using af fine tune at varying focused distances, and apertures as well.

I am sure that we will see something like this in cameras one day, especially the pro spec versions. If one camera company does it, then the other will have to follow, as long as they can make it idiot proof for the user otherwise they service centres will have more cameras to recalibrate!

Most, if not all very fast lenses suffer from focus shift, and the ability to embed all this extra data using more complex data capture would allow for amazingly tight tolerances when it comes to AF.

As you already said Lance, considering the need for spot on AF on a high res camera such as a D800(for those of us who choose to AF), I reckon something like this has to eventually feature on some future camera down the road.

Otherwise(as an alternative), I'd like to see cameras using a more smart OS, with the ability to load external apps and features into them at some point in the future.
I think this is going to be another inevitable consequence of modern day device usage.

Even focus shift should/could be part of the program and firmware that would automatically adjust the lens when using different apertures and distances.

Horrid, pitiful, currently pretty much dumb firmwares will hopefully become a thing of the past, and I just hope that Nikon latches onto the idea sooner rather than later.

Imagine that!
This is about as ideal as ideal could possibly get .... if it ever eventuates!
Super duper feature rich applications that help deal with issues, and problems of either a software or hardware nature.
The ideal perfect camera for just about anyone, where someone like me gets all the bells and whistles, and yet William who wants a completely stripped down featureless camera also gets what he wants in the same camera package!!
I want video, he doesn't .. I keep the video app, he deletes it! .. easy as you can get, and the tools to make it happen exist already.

It's a matter of how much does this impact on the manufacturers ability to sell accessories, where the problem lies.
If all features can be enabled via a camera menu, rather than using the good ol hardware accessory method(eg stuff like remotes, and intervalometers and so on) .. then it leaves the camera makers short on income streams from some of their other avenues.

But they could sell their own apps based on some proprietary software code, that amounts to a similar sort of system where we as the user purchase these apps as we feel the need too.

.. anyhow, too much rambling about stuff that aint going to happen in Nikon World(but quite possibly in Samsung World! ) ...

I think in the coming months we may start to see more app orientated compacts, to cater for a market that may be getting hammered by the iCamera .. iPhone set.(by all reports).

I'm sure(I read) that Polaroid are using an app based OS on one of their impending, or current new cameras, and Samsung have introduced a new compact with similar operating style too now. So we may have to wait a while longer and see what happens.

You could very well be correct. There are almost no limits, other than imagination, as to what can be applied and used.

[Wayne]

Today I had a chance to do some testing with my 200/2VR on the D800.

I found that straight up as suspected, it is back focusing. I was able to obtain easily repeatable results. I ended up at -20 on the AF Micro Adjustment, which is max. I'm not happy with it needing this much adjustment. I will test on the D3s tomorrow. The lighting you see is different due to using a torch to light the target. Both shot wide open @ f/2 using centre focus point, which is recommended for the Lens Align system. The first clearly shows back focusing issue, and the second is corrected in AF Fine Tune to -20.

I will test the outer AF points, once I'm happy with the centre.

[mongo]

Today I had a chance to do some testing with my 200/2VR on the D800.

I found that straight up as suspected, it is back focusing. I was able to obtain easily repeatable results. I ended up at -20 on the AF Micro Adjustment, which is max. I'm not happy with it needing this much adjustment. I will test on the D3s tomorrow. The lighting you see is different due to using a torch to light the target. Both shot wide open @ f/2 using centre focus point, which is recommended for the Lens Align system. The first clearly shows back focusing issue, and the second is corrected in AF Fine Tune to -20.

I will test the outer AF points, once I'm happy with the centre.

an excellent test well demonstrated Wayne. You did get good results with the AR fine tune but Mongo agrees with you, that it is a little concerning that you are at "Max" adjustment to achieve that. There is basically no more leeway to play with had you needed it or should you need it with this lens in the future.

Mongo assumes that you have done this test (as opposed to other tests we have been talking about) because you have determined that you have no left or right AF point focus issues as Mongo had (or still has ?) ? BTW, Mongo has answered your question about Mongo's camera in Mongo's Wren post

[Wayne]

Mongo,

I haven't tested other focus points other than centre at this stage as i just noticed the lens seemed to be back focusing and I ran out of time yesterday to test others. I do intend to test the left/right ones, but won't be for another week at least as I am back to work from tomorrow. I am suspecting that with such a small DOF per the 200/2, it will show any faults easily, and that will mean a trip to Nikon for the body. In any case even if the extreme points are ok, I will probably send the D800 to nikon for adjustment, given it is already on -20 and only bordering on acceptable at that.
The lens is spot on with the D3s, zero AF adjustment needed, so it is not the lens, and I expect a body at this level to be better calibrated so although it 'works' with this lens, I'm still not happy with it.

[Lance B]

You say you used a torch to light the target? I think I would try with natural light and see what results you get.

I would also suggest you look at Reikan Focus test software:
http://www.reikan.co.uk/focal/

[Wayne]

Lance, I actually ran out of daylight at the end of my testing, I was able to produce the consistent back focus under bright sun earlier in the afternoon. I just used the torch as light was fading.

Here is a 100% crop from this afternoon, straight out of the camera, simply cropped and sized for upload. Sam was the only subject I could find and he likes the camera

D800 + 200/2 VR Centre focus point
1/250 f/2.2 ISO200

[Lance B]

Focus looks good.

[Sifor]

Done some more static tests with my D800 and 24-70 2.8 @ 24mm 2.8:

Right:


Centre:


Left:


Right point is slightly out, centre sharp, left is definitely out.

Looks like I might have to send the body off to Nikon.. I guess I couldn't rule out the lens being at issue though?

[arthurking83]

......

D800 + 200/2 VR Centre focus point
1/250 f/2.2 ISO200

Focus looks good.

If the image of the cat is the one discussed here, and the image is cropped the way that the image was cropped is going to make a difference in assessing how good focus was.
I suppose when the person says is a 100% crop, does this mean a 100% pixel size and then cropped or is the image 100% of the actual frame?
If the image was cropped whilst in 100% zoomed view, was the crop made around the central focus point?

As the image is displayed, it looks as tho the centre point focus is on the cat's fur under the ear, whereas the sharpest point is on the cat's eye and inner ear.