Heads together please guys...

[tashley]

Alon, I have given it much thought: it is true that ensuring exact perpendicular alignment of sensor to subject is very difficult outside of a lab (pretty tough even in one!) but the interesting thing is that, were this the problem, I'd get some shots soft on one side and some soft on the other. This never happens. Hand-held or tripod, it is always the right. And the second shot clearly shows that at these distances and F5.6 there is ample DOF to cover such a small error should it be present. I align these pretty carefully but of course not perfectly, but the 'always on the right' nature of the issue is telling I believe... especially when taken in conjunction with the fact that no other lenses of the many I own in overlapping focal length range show this at all: If I had a natural tendency to angle the camera slightly 'off' it would show with other glass I think!

 

[Alon]

Yes, you have a point.

I don't have a solution.....maybe shims?

Or just get another lens as offered and keep fingers crossed.

Sorry, could not be of more help.

 

[D&A]

Alon, I have given it much thought: it is true that ensuring exact perpendicular alignment of sensor to subject is very difficult outside of a lab (pretty tough even in one!) but the interesting thing is that, were this the problem, I'd get some shots soft on one side and some soft on the other. This never happens. Hand-held or tripod, it is always the right. And the second shot clearly shows that at these distances and F5.6 there is ample DOF to cover such a small error should it be present. I align these pretty carefully but of course not perfectly, but the 'always on the right' nature of the issue is telling I believe... especially when taken in conjunction with the fact that no other lenses of the many I own in overlapping focal length range show this at all: If I had a natural tendency to angle the camera slightly 'off' it would show with other glass I think!

Tim, relative to what I expressed in my post above, I agree that in your case, that it has little to do with precise measurment of camera to subject distance between the right side vs. the left. As you say, the softness is always evident on the right side.

It's related simply to the sample lens you have and whether it's worth pursuing a better aligned or manufactured sample, is a personal decision. I agree, when something is marketed such as a 24-120 f4 lens, one expects a certain level of manufacturing and performance, but Nikon I believe looks at a bit differently when it comes to a mid level zoom, especially one that stretches the limit of optical performance for such a focal length spread in a constant aperture zoom.

My post previous to this one provides my thoughts as to why some samples of this and similar zooms will achieve acceptable level of performance and some simply won't. What I neglected to mention, is Nikon also realizes that the vast majority (world wide) purchasers of this and similar mid level zooms, is often quite different than those using their 24-70 f2.8 and thus allow more leyway in what they consider "acceptable" vs "non acceptable" in a given sample of lens...as unfortunate as it might be.

Dave (D&A)

 

[tashley]

Thanks Dave - and I agree nearly 100% but I do think they should remove it from their recommended list of lenses for the D800 in that event. I also think that from my now reasonably wide experience of Nikon, their standards of QC and repairs (and attitude) are notable poorer than Canon's, however brave and smart their choices of sensors. I have never sent anything to Canon for repair, but here's a shot of my repair documentation from the past 10 months with Nikon!

Tim, relative to what I expressed in my post above, I agree that in your case, that it has little to do with precise measurment of camera to subject distance between the right side vs. the left. As you say, the softness is always evident on the right side.

It's related simply to the sample lens you have and whether it's worth pursuing a better aligned or manufactured sample, is a personal decision. I agree, when something is marketed such as a 24-120 f4 lens, one expects a certain level of manufacturing and performance, but Nikon I believe looks at a bit differently when it comes to a mid level zoom, especially one that stretches the limit of optical performance for such a focal length spread in a constant aperture zoom.

My post previous to this one provides my thoughts as to why some samples of this and similar zooms will achieve acceptable level of performance and some simply won't. What I neglected to mention, is Nikon also realizes that the vast majority (world wide) purchasers of this and similar mid level zooms, is often quite different than those using their 24-70 f2.8 and thus allow more leyway in what they consider "acceptable" vs "non acceptable" in a given sample of lens...as unfortunate as it might be.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Steen]

Heads together please guys ...


It's so obvious that your sample of the lens is defective, having a very weak right side. It's as simple as that, and personally I would never ever accept it.

If it were me I would insist on having my money back so that I could buy another sample via the internet.

In my country buying via the internet gives me the right to let a bad copy go back within the first two weeks without further explanation.

If the Nikon UK folks claim they cannot see that your lens has a defect they are simply lying. I cannot imagine for what reason, it's definitely not serving their business or reputation.

 

[D&A]

Tim,

My lord! If nothing else, you may actually have the world's largest collect of Nikon repair invoices. That alone should be worth something one day. I'd put a smiley face after just writing this sentence, but I know it's certainly not a humorous situation. Just to add a little levity to the situation, I could say whatever lens you used to photograph that image with (of the invoices) is front focusing. Just look how out of focus that middle invoice is! ( I hope you know I'm just kidding).

*** Tim, just an FYI....I just sent you an e-mail through Getdpi. If you don't receive it, just let me know.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Steen]

Heads together please guys ...


One of the more bizarre aspects of this case is that I think few persons have done more than Tim Ashley to spread the word about the new D800/E, e.g. by having the courage to set up the 'forbidden format mixing meeting' between his new 24x36mm D800 and his medium format Phase One IQ180
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/36838-someone-had-do.html

Now it looks like we are about to witness a somewhat different story, the negative side of the coin: the Nikon UK Service Level.
Looks like Nikon UK is not quite aware of the fact that customer discussions and illustrations on the internet make one of the strongest promotional factors in today's marketing.

And I personally believe that at the end of the day the service level does more to the reputation of a manufacturer of electronics than specs and performance of the products themselves.
At least I have years ago come to the conclusion that for me Service is the most important competition parameter when choosing electronic equipment of any kind.

Electronic equipment is nice when it works, when it doesn't it is a time-consuming nightmare.
That's why excellent service is so crucial and that goes for photographic equipment too, including the optics.

We'll see.

 

[tashley]

Thanks Steen - I do think I've done quite a bit of positive messaging about the D800 and I do absolutely agree with you that service, along with QC, are the most important factors. I suspect that the reason one sees so many white lenses at events where there are a lot of pros is that Canon understands this well, though the Nikon guys did say to me on the phone that there were more Nikons in the pro pits at last summer's Olympics than Canons...

 

[ptomsu]

To put some more oil into the Nikon QC fire:

I had and have the issue of far to strong CA with my 1.4/85G Nikkor, which I bought new more than a year ago Had it on the D7000 and now also on the D800E. Had sent it back to Nikon Germany twice with the result it did not at all improve. The stupid answer with the lens coming back was: "We have tested it and it is well within spec's"

So what does it help me? Nothing except that I almost never use this lens since then. Sure these fast primes do have CA, but I have never seen such strong CA in any of my other lenses like 1.2/85 II Canon nor of course in any Leica lens at f1.4. And once I had a similar issue with a Leica 2.8/180 APO I sent it back to Solms and after 5 weeks or so I got it back and it did not show any longer CA.

What do I learn? Maybe the wrong choice staying Nikon in the future, as they simply cannot deliver the right quality for their products. So maybe better to just have a 22MP Canon with assorted glass than the 36MP D800E with lenses not performing as they should nor being able to be adjusted properly.

So stay calm, at least you see that Nikon service in Europe is not any better!

 

[tashley]

Whilst I have every sympathy for you, you story does not incline me to calmness!

:bugeyes:

To put some more oil into the Nikon QC fire:

So stay calm, at least you see that Nikon service in Europe is not any better!

 

[Steen]

If I haven't said it before I'll repeat it now ...
I think it depends a lot on where we are located, we cannot just make a global or even European generalisation about the Nikon service.
I had some very frustrating experiences with two other brands before I gave up and jumped back into the Nikon camp (I'll refrain from telling those two brand names here in order not to be a brand basher).

But here in Denmark I have actually been treated very well by Nikon on those rare occasions when I needed a bit of service.
I also think I have so far been very lucky with nearly all my F-mount purchases.
Maybe just a coincidence and I know it's no consolation for you two guys in Austria and England respectively when you are not having your gear problems solved.

In a way this case is a classic illustration on how some weak links can hurt a brand name in general, so Nikon if you see this do something about it, wake up and do some damage control.
Frustration hurts and frustration is remembered, so really good Quality Control together with really good Service makes the two most important competition parameters.

 

[tashley]

That's very interesting Steen, because it does imply that 'within spec' may be defined (or interpreted) differently by the Nikon service centres in different countries. As usual, in my experience, the no-nonsense, well thought-through epicentre is Denmark. Just one more reason to love the place!

 

[Leigh]

...'within spec' may be defined (or interpreted) differently by the Nikon service centres in different countries.

The specs may be different in different countries.

Since we have no access to them, there's no way to know.

- Leigh

 

[Steen]

Heads together please guys ...


Just saw your summary of the case: Tim Ashley Photography | Caveat Emptor


Especially one detail is scary:

(...) and they added that the sample images I had uploaded to a web page for their review hadn't been looked at because their technicians 'can't access the internet' (...)


Sounds like you are subject to harassment and they are not even trying to identify the problem and find a solution.

How on earth can they deal with the problem if they don't even care to look at your identification illustrations of the problem

At least they could have asked for the pictures on a dvd if really necessary, though not a very reliable excuse.

I think I would contact the company top level in England as well as in Japan and insist on being treated in a fair manner

 

[tashley]

Steen, harassment would require some energy!
:ROTFL: