D2X Focus Performance and Repair/Replacement Poll

[twig]

I am curious to see a poll of people who have encountered no problems with their D2X versus those that have had to send it to Nikon for repair or replacement (or who have not sent it in yet, but know they have problems).

Aisde from the initial cost, the number of problem reports I see here and elsewhere are certainly going to prevent me from buying a D2X any time soon. Perhaps though I am over-estimating the feedback from a few problem units on the internet. Please vote for only one option

 

[JerseyJay]

Twig,

Checked for focusing problems and have NONE. Camera works perfect.

 

[mattmak]

I posted this on another form, thoguth I'd post here too.. need to vent a bit.. But I'm really glad that my dealer is willing to help. there *are* good people out there.

Well, I just got back from Mississauga where I picked up my D2X for the *second* time. Again, the thing came back with cleanings and "all within spec" on the invoice. So I went outside, shot some street signs with the 70-200VR, and came back in to show then that the sign's text wasn't sharp, but the wires behind the sign were tack sharp. it is the EXACT SAME BEHAVIOUR as all the photos on the CD I left with them... I then got told that I was doing everything wrong.. but man, the guy I was dealing with certainly was hard-headed, and there was no way that I was going to convince him HE was wrong.

He didn't even know how the focus system works. He was telling me that I can't use single point focus to focus on the eye of the subject when taking a portrait, and that I should be using group dynamic. He even said that I shouldn't be focusing on the eye because it was too small of a detail - he said focus on the chest, and I even explained to him that it was a close-up and that the chest wasn't in the photo. And according to him, VR makes things worse.. even if the shutter speed is 1/2000... and to top it all off, THEY DID ADMIT that my photos on the CD were proper tests, and are "slightly" (in his words) off, but the way to fix that is to shoot raw because you can adjust focus later on with "sharpening"... I'm sorry but you can't get back an edge that uses 6 pixels of width to define itself without ruining the rest of the image. I was ready to lose it, but it wouldn't have helped my cause. I had to start agreeing with him even though I know he was wrong just to make him listen and get him to suggest more ways for them to prove that the camera was in spec... I left upset and unhappy and was going to return the camera to the dealer...

But luckily for me there are some good people on this planet and I'm going to get a bit of help from someone who has more power dealing with Nikon. Until then, I'm waiting for Nikon Service to call me when they get their D2X in so that I can go back and compare my camera with theirs... not sure what I'll do when I actually get the call.. or if I'll even get a call.

So frustrating!! You'd think that they'd want to make their customers happy. But all they have to offer are young, arrogant, stubborn fools to deal with at the service desk. Not saying that all young people are that way. Actually I'm fairly young (younger looking than the guy at the service desk) and maybe I would have be treated better had I given off the vibe of being more experienced... But still, the whole ordeal was ridiculous and I can't believe that the noticeable amount of backfocus I'm getting is within spec...

Anyhow, the saga is not over yet and I remain hopeful that I'll have a usable D2X/70-200VR combo in the near future...

Sorry to post only negative stuff here..

Matt

 

[Ruffles]

Mines been in once and while it seems better, it's still not fixed. After my family reunion, I'm sending it in a second time.

 

[mcampos]

I picked mine up from Torrance yesterday, I took 50 shots this morning of various subjects hand held and every shot came back in focus. However all the shots are predominantly soft. The first 500+ shots were mostly out of focus so it seems adjusting the auto focus mechanism helped one problem.

I will probably push for a replacement at this point.

On the other hand I am still not ready to give up on Nikon, that is unless they come out with a D2Xs within 2 months that corrects this problem!

 

[jfenton]

Mike...

I'm confused by your comment that your shots were in focus but soft?

Was this reviewing them straight out of the camera, or after processing?

I had plenty of problems with my first camera but I'm a bit confused as to how they can be in focus but soft?

Lastly, what aperture were these shot at with the 70-200? This lens isn't known for being at it's best at 2.8 and really isn't perfect until 5.6....especially on a D2X.

I'm certainly not trying to argue your findings...just trying to rationalize them.

 

[mcampos]

Jim,

Yes I often manage to confuse people!!

I may be off here, in my mind an image can be in focus, but yet soft, sort of when you put a softening filter in front of the lens, the camera will lock focus, but the image will be soft. What's your opinion on this?

I guess a better statement would have been that the colors were very drab. The shots I took with the 70-200 were all at 5.6, 1/500. I guess I should have taken some with the lens even more closed down.

I am still not getting the images that I have seen out there with my D2X, I am looking to feel pain when I take a picture of someone bleeding!

I am going to a botanical garden today with my tripod to do more testing. The sun should come out and I should have bright diffused light. I'll let you know what I get.

 

[jfenton]

Mike

The reason I asked was that I haven't seen a D2X that takes "in focus" yet soft images....and I've looked at lots of images for folks since I had the issue with my original camera.

What are you using for settings on the camera?

If you're looking for more brilliant, jump out and bite you images, I'd look more towards your color, tone, etc settings and what you're doing in processing.

Which color mode are you shooting?

When you shoot your botanical stuff, do me a favor and shoot some at
Adobe RGB, color mode 3, with no hue adjustment. Tone adjustment should be set to LESS or whatever the lowest setting is actually called.

I've been doing lots of floral shots the past few days and these images are simply stupendous at these settings. Mind you, I do process in NC to bring out the best in them, but my tweaking is very, very minor.

Try and shoot them under ISO 500 so that you don't loose any color due to high ISO and make sure that NR is off.

let me know how it works out?

Lastly...any chance you still have one that is "in focus but soft" that you haven't deleted yet?

Good Luck

 

[mcampos]

Thanks Jim,

My focus settings are AF-S with single area AF. My white balance yesterday was set at direct sunlight 0, although there was an overcast, the RGB histogram was showing more balanced with this setting than with cloudy. My color space is setup to Adobe RGB, but I also tried sRGB to see if I saw a difference. I usually have sharpening to normal on the D2X because I find myself adding it all the time in Capture, so I figure may as well put it in, yesterday I set it to none for some of the last shots to be able to get least processing I could out of the camera. Tone compensation is set at normal and hue is set at 0.

I try to get the exposure as close as I can by looking at the histogram to make sure the highlights are not blown out and see if the shadows do not get too bunched up on the right.

I usually shoot RAW and do whatever post processing in Capture prior to saving them as TIFF. With the D2H the post processing needed seems to be much less than with the D2X, I am not looking forward to spending a lot of time on every image to get it right, but you may be on to something here as far as color settings, this may be the problem with yesterday's images. I also may be expecting more than the camera can give before processing the image. For example I shot a 7-11 sign yesterday and I would like to see the red and green pop out. I can get this done in post processing, but I would like to see better out of the camera.

I do have JPEGs from yesterday that I saved to send to Nikon, these are out of the camera without any processing. I can send you one or two if you wish, or I can put some on Pbase and make sure they are unprocessed.

 

[Rocha]

Jim,

I was also worried that my D2x was giving me soft images, but after reading many of your posts (and especially one over at the Nikonians forum), I started applying the same sharpening as you, and I usually get images just as sharp (not as good though).

Just wanted to let you know that your posts helped me a lot.

Thanks,

Luiz

 

[Beezle]

Jim, I certainly find with some lenses that images are a touch soft irregardless of focus.

In particular, the 17-55. Images always require some amount of USM.

I do have lenses that produce very sharp images so long as the shutter speed is high enough or the setup solid. 85 1.4, 35 f2, 60 micro, etc.

Also: mine was sent in twice, and replaced at the second trip.

I say mine still front focuses too often with certain lenses. Mostly the 17-55. But in the end I came to conclusion that it is either a flaw in the AF system or I just need to rethink the whole focus-on-the-eyes thing. And not a miscalibration. I wish Nikon would introduce a setting WE could change. Focus bias or something like that. This would allow us to tweak where the DOF lands for different sorts of shooting. Would save how many trips to Nikon for that matter.

And that is an issue for me. I am sick and tired of sending stuff to Nikon. I'll make it work as it is.

Anyway, I am slowly gaining in confidence with this camera, and I at this point I believe what problems I have had were mostly my just not having the camera sorted out.

Ed

 

[jfenton]

I'm Confused...

Ed....

Why are you folks looking for sharp, perfgect images out of the camera????????????????

Images are supposed to need USM!

There is an anti aliasing filter over the sensor just like on all other Dslr's.

Proper sharpening requires processing.

If you can live with whatever comes out of the camera on high in camera sharpening as some do...so be it.

They were however meant to be processed, just like with all previous and current dslr's.

 

[jfenton]

I'm Confused...

Ed....

Why are you folks looking for sharp, perfgect images out of the camera????????????????

Images are supposed to need USM!

There is an anti aliasing filter over the sensor just like on all other Dslr's.

Proper sharpening requires processing.

If you can live with whatever comes out of the camera on high in camera sharpening as some do...so be it.

They were however meant to be processed, just like with all previous and current dslr's.

 

[Rocha]

Re: I'm Confused...

Images are supposed to need USM!

There is an anti aliasing filter over the sensor just like on all other Dslr's.

They were however meant to be processed, just like with all previous and current dslr's.

Hi Jim, that's exactly what I didn't know, remember that not everybody comes from a dSLR background, all my previous cameras (FM2, N90s, F100, F5) were film cameras. The D2x is my first dSLR, and most pictures posted here and elsewhere are scary sharp. People usually post only the camera/lens/fstop/shutter and not much about post processing. I didn't know I was supposed to use unsharp mask on everything (hell, I didn't even know how to use it, as I said this is my first dSLR). When I started getting soft images from my D2x I thought I had a bad unit. After testing, geting used to the camera, reading many posts about sharpening and applying what I learned to my photos, I am satisfied with the results I'm getting.

Luiz

 

[jfenton]

Luiz...

If you've got $75 to invest, I would strongly suggest getting a copy of Ron Reznick's e-boook. It will teach you more than you could ever learn on your own not only about processing with NC and PS, but about acquisition and exposure as well.

It was the best $75 I've ever invested!

 

[MontyDog]

#1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;

 

[Beezle]

Well I mean relatively speaking. I've been using digital cameras since there have been digital cameras. I have spent most of my 20 year software engineering career writing image processing software.

I am not expert (hint: nobody is), but my expectations are realistic. I have read Ron's book and found it helpful, yes. He is one of my favorite pros.

And processing is processing. The only advantage to doing most of it in post is one can change their mind. When taking shots with, say, the 85 1.4 in good light, I will set the camera to "normal" sharpening and the images come off the CF card pretty much ready to use.

Anyway, relatively speaking, I find images are a bit more soft out of the D2X than the 8 MP or lower cameras I have used. I have been working under the assumption this has to do with the fine pitch of the sensors, and nothing to do with the AA filter.

Also, I still see certain kinds of moire with this camera that I had hoped would become rare. But I guess that's a bayer pattern/demosaic thing. So far NC is doing the best with that problem.

 

[lupodimare]

Hello all
I m Giorgio ...Italy here...
last friday i got the Nikon D2x ..at the start of my experience whit "HER" all my pics was blurry and unsharp .. i become from a Nikon d70 and
i was disoriented whit my first result whit d2x
after some tests and hear some advices on how use ...i have to admit who was my fault about unsharp pics (this is my case )
here is a sample shooted whit d2x and nikon macro 60 afd f2,8 USM in nikon capture was 38-5-0 ...just resized for the web ...no other postproduction

this is my experience and i hope will be useful
my best

Giorgio

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Beezle]

Also, I think there is some psychological stuff going on with regards to this camera's resolution.

When I first started using the D2X, I found that I over-used the larger number of pixels by shooting wider than I otherwise would have.

And, I do expect to be able to shoot hand held down to 1/60 or even 1/30 with say a 50mm lens. That is a leftover from the film days I guess.

 

[Rocha]

Thanks for the suggestions Jim and Paul! I will certainly get a book, however, I only got my D2x about 3 weeks ago and I was thinking of buying Thom Hogan's book (but it's not published yet, maybe in the next few days/weeks). I didn't know about Ron Resnick's book, do you think is better than Thom's?

Thanks again,

Luiz

Edit: Ops! I thought both books were about the D2x, but now I see that Ron's is more about digital photography in general, and Thom's is specifically about the D2x. Should I get both?