D7000 focus issues with sample images. Please help?

[GHP]

Hello all.

I have recently bought a D7000, and have not been satisfied with it's sharpness from day 1. I have run around 800 images off so far, and all the lenses I have require various amounts of fine tune, normally around -10 to -14 to get near to a "good image".

I was convinced it was my technique, or settings, or any number of things, but now I am thinking it is the camera. My "best" lens, a pro bit of glass, the 80-200mm f2.8 fares no better, even on a tripod.

So today I took my Nikon 12-24mm f4 lens out for a test.
I have had this lens for a while and have some stellar images shot with it on my D70, so I know it's a good lens, especially around f8.
For the test, I didn't use a chart, or lens align, instead I took it to a local park, and set it on my tripod, aperture priority, f8, 125th sec, and used remote mirror up, 2 sec delay, then shoot.

As a reference, I shot first in live view, which focusses in a different way, here are the images from the live view.

All shots are resized in LR3, with no sharpening, and saved for web.


Image #1 screen shot from NX2 showing focus point using live view.


ViewNX2-Live view screen shot by scubacrazy, on Flickr

Image #2 Here is the full frame shot taken with Live view


Live View full frame by scubacrazy, on Flickr

Image #3 is a 100% crop from the focus area


Live View 100% crop by scubacrazy, on Flickr

Image #4 is a screen shot from NX2 showing single point AF


ViewNX-Single-point AF screen shot by scubacrazy, on Flickr

Image #5 is full frame single point AF, no focus adjustment


Single point AF with 0 compensation by scubacrazy, on Flickr

Image #6 is 100%crop from focus point of image #5


Single point AF 0 comp 100% crop by scubacrazy, on Flickr

As I am only allowed to post 6 images per post, I will finish in the next post.....

 

[GHP]

Continued from above.

Image #7 is full frame of single point AF, with -10 focus adjust


Single AF with -10 comp full frame by scubacrazy, on Flickr

Finally, image #8 is 100% crop of image #7


Single point AF -10 comp 100% crop by scubacrazy, on Flickr

I hope all the EXIF is intact, but I'm not sure whether Flickr strips it out.
Anyway, all were tripod, aperture priority, f8, 125th sec, iso 100
Focal length was set to 14mm, as it is a tad sharper than 12mm.
I believe my D7000 has an issue, would you agree it needs sending in to Nikon, although for a 3 week old camera it annoys me to think it is not right out of the box.

Especially compare image #6 with image #8

Thanks for your patience, sorry for the rambling post.

 

[HoppyUK]

Isn't that what what AF adjust is for?

 

[arad85]

I believe my D7000 has an issue, would you agree it needs sending in to Nikon, although for a 3 week old camera it annoys me to think it is not right out of the box.

Going to depend on if all lenses are out by the same amount and whether one setting is going to cut it for you.

I agree with Richard that's that is what microadjust is for, but also agree with you that I'd be well miffed if everything were out. Have you rung Nikon/contacted whoever sold it to you? You should be able to swap it with whoever you bought it from if it's less than 28 days...

 

[badboy1984]

talking about that, i think i will do some testing on my D7000 as well on my lens.

For zoom lens how do i macro adjust? i.e 28-70?

 

[GHP]

Isn't that what what AF adjust is for?

Yes it is, but I don't see why I should be calibrating the camera when Nikon should be doing it before it leaves the factory.
After all, you wouldn't be too happy if you bought a brand new Porsche and then had to to service it before it would perform to it's spec.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Martyn...]

Yes it is, but I don't see why I should be calibrating the camera when Nikon should be doing it before it leaves the factory.
After all, you wouldn't be too happy if you bought a brand new Porsche and then had to to service it before it would perform to it's spec.

Cheers,
Gary

That would mean them matching it to every single lens they ever made, a bit impractical if you think about it.

No different to your Porsche needing it's wheels balancing when new tyres are fitted.

 

[Richard Peters]

Yes it is, but I don't see why I should be calibrating the camera when Nikon should be doing it before it leaves the factory.
After all, you wouldn't be too happy if you bought a brand new Porsche and then had to to service it before it would perform to it's spec.

Cheers,
Gary

It was calibrated at the factory, and if it can be corrected within the range of fine tune they will more than likely say it is within accepted tolerances.

They produce so many of these things that you could never expect every single body to be perfect out the box with every single lens. Whilst it would be nice, it's just not realistic. I understand the frustration, because I (and many others) have to use fine tune as well, but that's why it's there.

If you want everything to be perfect then it might be worth sending in all your lenses with the body and asking them if they can set them all up together so you know they are perfect. I've heard of people doing that before.

 

[GHP]

That would mean them matching it to every single lens they ever made, a bit impractical if you think about it.

Not at all. One would expect to purchase a new product (for £1000) and expect it to work, straight out of the box, with any lens I choose to fit to it, whether new or old. Especially as all my lenses have been tried on a mate's D300 and a D700 and perform as they should,
There's nothing impractical about having decent quality control.

No different to your Porsche needing it's wheels balancing when new tyres are fitted.

I disagree.
Totally different. Your analogy would be more like cleaning the sensor after several hundred/thousand shots. That is a regular maintenance task, which is to be expected. If I pick up a brand new Porsche and after a few hundred miles I find it is only performing to 75% of it's capabilities, of course I am going to be annoyed, and would want it sorted ASAP, it certainly wouldn't be down to me to adjust the engine to make it work properly.
I just find it incredible that people are prepared to spend this amount of money on a camera body and then defend the manufacturer for shipping substandard goods from the factory.

Just because the camera has micro focus adjust doesn't mean it should be needed.

 

[Richard Peters]

Just because the camera has micro focus adjust doesn't mean it should be needed.

Exactly, it's not needed in every case. But for those times it IS needed, like now, that's why we have it. The fact they introduced it as a feature surely tells you it's something that was deemed necessary

 

[GHP]

It was calibrated at the factory, and if it can be corrected within the range of fine tune they will more than likely say it is within accepted tolerances.

The problem is that all of my lenses seem to need a similar amount of micro adjust, which indicates to me a calibration problem for that body.If they say it is within tolerance, they need to have finer tolerances.

They produce so many of these things that you could never expect every single body to be perfect out the box with every single lens. Whilst it would be nice, it's just not realistic. I understand the frustration, because I (and many others) have to use fine tune as well, but that's why it's there.

I think that's exactly what people should expect. Essentially , a product has to be fit for purpose, and it's purpose is to take a sharp picture. It is failing to do that.
After all, there have been plenty of other models produced without these problems.

If you want everything to be perfect then it might be worth sending in all your lenses with the body and asking them if they can set them all up together so you know they are perfect. I've heard of people doing that before.

I doubt they would do that under warranty. After all, only 2 of my lenses are brand new, bought with the camera, the rest I've had for a while.
Also, a major pain having to be without my entire kit for who knows how long.

 

[srichards]

Have you tried tests where there isn't stuff in the way of the tiny distant object you are trying to focus on? Are you using a tripod to exclude any movement by yourself?

 

[GHP]

Exactly, it's not needed in every case. But for those times it IS needed, like now, that's why we have it. The fact they introduced it as a feature surely tells you it's something that was deemed necessary

The thing is Richard, it is needed in every case for me, at least for every lens that is. I stand by my statement that I shouldn't need to do this for each and every lens I possess.

 

[arad85]

The thing is Richard, it is needed in every case for me, at least for every lens that is. I stand by my statement that I shouldn't need to do this for each and every lens I possess.

If it's only 3 weeks old, have you talked to the supplier? I think I'd be asking for a new camera.

 

[GHP]

Have you tried tests where there isn't stuff in the way of the tiny distant object you are trying to focus on? Are you using a tripod to exclude any movement by yourself?

I don't believe the "stuff in the way" will make any difference to the focus point. This can be seen in the 100% crop of the -10 compensation shot. The distant focus point is sharp, whereas the branch closest is unsharp.

In the post I describe my method, using a tripod, remote firing with mirror lockup and 2 sec delay to eliminate camera shake. it was a very still day, so no wind either.

 

[GHP]

If it's only 3 weeks old, have you talked to the supplier? I think I'd be asking for a new camera.

I'm calling them later today.

 

[Martyn...]

Not at all. One would expect to purchase a new product (for £1000) and expect it to work, straight out of the box, with any lens I choose to fit to it, whether new or old. Especially as all my lenses have been tried on a mate's D300 and a D700 and perform as they should,
There's nothing impractical about having decent quality control.



I disagree.
Totally different. Your analogy would be more like cleaning the sensor after several hundred/thousand shots. That is a regular maintenance task, which is to be expected. If I pick up a brand new Porsche and after a few hundred miles I find it is only performing to 75% of it's capabilities, of course I am going to be annoyed, and would want it sorted ASAP, it certainly wouldn't be down to me to adjust the engine to make it work properly.
I just find it incredible that people are prepared to spend this amount of money on a camera body and then defend the manufacturer for shipping substandard goods from the factory.

Just because the camera has micro focus adjust doesn't mean it should be needed.

I am not defending the manufacturer I was pointing out the practicalities, it has micro adjust for a reason, what would really concern me would be if maximum adjustment failed to cure the issue.

As suggested above if you are not happy with the cameras performance take it back, looking again at your images I would expect better results with the 12-24 than you are getting there.

At the end of the day you are the one using it, if you always have the thought at the back of your mind that something is wrong you are not going to be at ease using it.

 

[GHP]

I am not defending the manufacturer I was pointing out the practicalities, it has micro adjust for a reason, what would really concern me would be if maximum adjustment failed to cure the issue.

As suggested above if you are not happy with the cameras performance take it back, looking again at your images I would expect better results with the 12-24 than you are getting there.

At the end of the day you are the one using it, if you always have the thought at the back of your mind that something is wrong you are not going to be at ease using it.

I'm not saying you are defending the manufacturer, sorry if it sounded like that. I meant it as a generalisation.
As for the 12-24, I have some superb images off other bodies, so I know it's a sharp lens, especially at f8, as used in the test. I also tested my 80-200 f2.8, which is a pro quality lens, and was equally disappointed.

And I think your are spot on about me not being at ease using it. Ultimately, I want good quality images from good quality camera and lenses, so I need to get it sorted. I am going to talk to the shop today, and see what they say.

 

[srichards]

If it is way off in general picture taking then I'd take it back and get a replacement.

If you get good results with another body and the same lenses then it really does point to a fault with the D7000 rather than anything you're doing/not doing

 

[GHP]

If it is way off in general picture taking then I'd take it back and get a replacement.

If you get good results with another body and the same lenses then it really does point to a fault with the D7000 rather than anything you're doing/not doing

I agree Suz,
I was thinking it was me, you know, poor technique, camera shake, etc, but I have since taken loads of tests with tripod, real test subjects, rather than charts etc, and I am now convinced it's not me.
Although for a while i thought I was going mad.

 

[Richard Peters]

The thing is Richard, it is needed in every case for me, at least for every lens that is. I stand by my statement that I shouldn't need to do this for each and every lens I possess.

My apologies, when I said every case, I was referring to every camera, not just specific to your camera and lenses

...what would really concern me would be if maximum adjustment failed to cure the issue.

As suggested above if you are not happy with the cameras performance take it back...

This.

If max didn't fix it, then I'd suggest a problem with the body. But regardless, if it's new, just take it back and see if you can get another body.

As an aside, my D3s requires a little bit of focus adjust with all my lenses, and when a TC is added it makes it worse. I have other friends with the same camera and lens setups that haven't had to touch it. As has been said, fine tune is there for these situations, and if it can be corrected it falls within the manufacturers tolerances.

If you're not happy though, just try and get it swapped. I know what it's like to not be 100% happy with camera performance so appreciate where you're coming from.

 

[superpippo]

Hello all.

I have recently bought a D7000, and have not been satisfied with it's sharpness from day 1. I have run around 800 images off so far, and all the lenses I have require various amounts of fine tune, normally around -10 to -14 to get near to a "good image".

So today I took my Nikon 12-24mm f4 lens out for a test.
I have had this lens for a while and have some stellar images shot with it on my D70, so I know it's a good lens, especially around f8.
QUOTE]



hi, sorry to butt in as i do not have a comment to make on your problem but I was wondering if you could explain how 'fine tuning' works. Can I do it with my D80? And if so how?

 

[Johnd2000]

If testing/adjustment reveals that the majority of your lenses are out by a similar amount (in the same direction), then I'd certainly return the camera. If you need -14 on a lens that has been more or less perfect on another body, what are you going to do if you get a lens that's already -10 (for example)?

I've got a few lenses that need a little MFA to correct slight front or back focussing, but I'm comforted by the fact that the total distribution of adjustment ranges from just +5 to -9 and that the majority of lenses are bang on. If I thought there was an underlaying issue with the body, I'd not sleep until it was fixed.

 

[Martyn...]

hi, sorry to butt in as i do not have a comment to make on your problem but I was wondering if you could explain how 'fine tuning' works. Can I do it with my D80? And if so how?

I do not remember my D80 having it.

It is a menu item that allows you to enter a + or - value to the focusing to fine tune it. Both my D300 and D700 have it, but I have not found a need for it yet.

 

[combat wombat]

I've fine tuned all my lenses on my D7000 - like you when I got it I wasn't happy with the sharpness and it particularly showed with my prime lenses wide open, as the depth of field is so narrow.

My fine tune is anything from -18 to -5 I seem to recall offhand. None of my five lenses are perfect at zero - all require some fine tune. All of them are back focussed which indicates that the tuning done in the factory isn't perfect - moving the zero point +10 would get most of my lenses there or thereabouts.

 

[GHP]

If testing/adjustment reveals that the majority of your lenses are out by a similar amount (in the same direction), then I'd certainly return the camera. If you need -14 on a lens that has been more or less perfect on another body, what are you going to do if you get a lens that's already -10 (for example)?

I've got a few lenses that need a little MFA to correct slight front or back focussing, but I'm comforted by the fact that the total distribution of adjustment ranges from just +5 to -9 and that the majority of lenses are bang on. If I thought there was an underlaying issue with the body, I'd not sleep until it was fixed.

Hi John,
Your first point is basically what I am faced with. I also worry that if I do get a lens which requires more than the "normal" compensation it starts to get close to being unadjustable.
As to your 2nd point, if I were in that situation, I guess I would be happy to accept it, as they would seem to be lens anomalies, rather than body.
unfortunately, apart from my manual focus 85mm f1.4, ALL my lenses need MFA.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[GHP]

I do not remember my D80 having it.
Both my D300 and D700 have it, but I have not found a need for it yet.

OK, OK, rub it in.
I knew I should have waited and saved a bit more for the D700.

 

[GHP]

Well, here's an update.


Took my D7000 in to Fixation repairs yesterday (Monday) for the back focus issue.
Dropped the camera off at 12:30, and got an e-mail from them tonight, (Tuesday) at 17:30 to say I can go and pick it up tomorrow.(Wednesday)
There WAS a back focus problem, which they say has now been adjusted.
Now THAT is what I call a good turnaround.

So a big thanks to all involved.
I will post some images when I get the chance to re-shoot the same scene as in the start of the post, under the same conditions, as a comparison.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[kestral]

Well, here's an update.


Took my D7000 in to Fixation repairs yesterday (Monday) for the back focus issue.
Dropped the camera off at 12:30, and got an e-mail from them tonight, (Tuesday) at 17:30 to say I can go and pick it up tomorrow.(Wednesday)
There WAS a back focus problem, which they say has now been adjusted.
Now THAT is what I call a good turnaround.

So a big thanks to all involved.
I will post some images when I get the chance to re-shoot the same scene as in the start of the post, under the same conditions, as a comparison.

Cheers,
Gary

How much did it cost you?

 

[GHP]

How much did it cost you?

Didn't cost me a penny, as it is under warranty.
If I wasn't able to drop off/pick up myself, there would have been delivery costs, but not in my case.
Just off to pick it up now in fact!!
Actually I am very excited about getting it back and seeing what it is capable of!

I'll let you know!!

Cheers,
Gary.

 

[andy1868]

Just a quick question for people that have been using the adjustment as i didn't deem it necessary for a separate thread

Whats the crack with zoom lenses? For example if I need to fine tune my 18-105, if it requires -8 at 18mm will it also require -8 at 105mm, or is there some variation?

 

[badboy1984]

I think you need to find the value where the sharpness and AF is good on both 18 and 105. Adjusting zoom lens is abit tricky i think.

 

[ausemmao]

Just a quick question for people that have been using the adjustment as i didn't deem it necessary for a separate thread

Whats the crack with zoom lenses? For example if I need to fine tune my 18-105, if it requires -8 at 18mm will it also require -8 at 105mm, or is there some variation?

If there's something actually wrong, then a single adjustment will help. While it may vary some along the zoom range, you'd still see an improvement. If it's ranging from -2 to +2 or something, don't bother changing it.

 

[andy1868]

it was a hypothetical really. I have dabbled in the past but admittedly i don't think i was doing it right and have therefore written off my findings. Having read more in here i think i might give it another go but the zoom variable was something i was never sure about i'll give it a crack over the weekend when i get a good few hours to mess about with no interference

 

[GHP]

Andy, what I was finding was that I was around the -14 to -18 adjustment for all my primes, and trying to dial in my 80-200 f2.8 was causing a few problems. As you say, the adjustment necessary for the 200mm range was different to that required for the 80mm range.
As ausemmo rightly said, it will help if you can find the "average" setting for the zoom, but I decided that I would send it in for adjustment as I wanted my camera to work as it should.

 

[Talon]

I'be finally got round to getting an email from Nikon for this, posting it tomorrow. I've never been happy with the sharpness compaired to the D60 I had previously. I just put it down my lack of knowledge but I've finally decided to try a repair.