Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Just saw this posted on Nikon rumors . 75 million lenses made to date. Figure 1 percent are bad and that's a low number 750,000k. Wow
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Nothing like enough :ROTFL:Old rules apply buy 3 test all send back 2 keep the good one. It's been a Nikon , canon tune for so long now.
Where in the frame did you acquire focus?HELP!
Bjørn RørslettScandinavian guy? - can't remember his name)
That's the one - Great guy, I used to read him avidly - I think (but I'm not sure) that it was him with the pallet of lenses!Bjørn Rørslett
If they produce that amount of lenses why can´t they simply take that one back and give a new one? They can resell it as refurbished again. I believe it wouldn´t matter that much for them.Just saw this posted on Nikon rumors . 75 million lenses made to date. Figure 1 percent are bad and that's a low number 75k. Wow
In my experience that's exactly what they do - cheerfully and without complaintIf they produce that amount of lenses why can´t they simply take that one back and give a new one? They can resell it as refurbished again. I believe it wouldn´t matter that much for them.
It matters a great deal. Margins are thin and returns are costly. Just check about any of these manufacturers annual reports, this is not a great business for profits. Which is why many of these companies sell other products that make them money. And if you think these companies will stand a division that can keep losing money, go look for a Contax, Minolta, Konica, or Bronica camera at B&H that are not in the used section.If they produce that amount of lenses why can´t they simply take that one back and give a new one? They can resell it as refurbished again. I believe it wouldn´t matter that much for them.
Actually, it doesn't matter: I've shot that scene a thousand times with tens of lenses and at 35mm and focussed dead centre, you can afford to be a little off with the perpendicular. In fact this shot was made as part of a series with several other cameras, including the RX1, all on the same tripod at all at f5.6 and the tripod and head were entirely static throughout. The other shots were all perfect though of course only the rx1 was full frame 35mm. The DOF has slight lack of perpendicular perfection covered. I was leaving on a trip so shot this lens only three or four frames but it looks just like the other copies of the lens on this and other d800 bodies. I severely doubt that every scene I ever shot with this one lens only has been off perpendicular by just enough to make the RHS always weaker... But in fact I do plan to run some more extensive tests before getting back to Nikon, when I get home. I know what the results will be though!Where in the frame did you acquire focus?
If you look at the distant buildings you can tell from perspective that you did not shoot perpendicular to the quay. Therefore, the zone of DOF will not be parallel to the quay, and sharpness will be equal on the LHS and RHS only at an unequal distance from the camera.
DOF at f/5.6 should be sufficient to envelop the buildings, but I dare say it depends on where you acquired focus, hence my question.
For what it's worth, I doubt this is the explanation for the issue, but I figure it's worth mentioning.
I'm sure you're right (about everything except being less knowledgeable) - and I'm also sure that most users would never notice (which only means they're less discerning than Tim).I'm probably the least knowledgeable member answering this topic, but just can't help myself. Could it be just that the manufacturing tolerances achievable with a product like prosumer lenses today are so wide that a camera like your 36 megapixel Nikon is bound to show where the lens begins to fail. It's within accepted tolerances at Nikon and they're happy. It's not what you expect and you're not happy. Slight decentering on both lenses is my guess.
I'm sorry, I didn't want to give that impression. My point was that the manufacturer may well be satisfied with larger tolerances than their customers.... I don't think I'm being nitpicky either...