Over the past couple of weeks my D700 seems to be producing softer images than it used to. I’ve tried my Nikon 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 VR, 50 f/1.4, and today with a brand new 200-400 f/4 VRII (a rental, not mine unfortunately), all with the same result. I’ve reset the camera to factory default setting. I’ve cleaned the sensor, mirror, and focus screen. The result is the same whether the camera is hand held or tripod mounted (followed the steps for testing focus very carefully) I finally contacted NikonUSA and they had me upload raw, unprocessed images to their website They said they wanted their technicians to look at the files and then they would get back to me. I’ve got until Friday and then I go on vacation for two weeks in Maine on the waterfront, near Acadia (hence the 200-400 rental), primarily to shoot. I’ve read most of the threads here on soft images and none seem to have my specific problem. Has anyone encountered this problem before? Any suggestions/help that anyone can offer would be greatly appreciated. I’m losing faith that Nikon will get back to me before I leave.

Since the limit on posting files is 150kb, I've posted a 100% crop of the focus point (on the number 5) on my flickr page. The softness is only apparent at 100%. The only processing was the crop and the conversion to .tif so I could upload. This is the link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/32325251@N06/4858267073/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Stop and take the picture, you may not get a second chance.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Have you recently bumped the camera with a lens on it, or have you dropped the camera, even a short distance? How far were you from your target? How did you focus manually or AF? Did you get a focus confirmation? How is your AF set? Quite frankly it looks pretty sharp to me, maybe just slightly bit soft. Have you changed your post processing procedures? Have you tried a bit more sharpening?

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

Thanks for the reply Bob, great questions. I'll tackle them one by one:

Have you recently bumped the camera with a lens on it, or have you dropped the camera, even a short distance? Not that I can recall. I would be horrified if I bumped the camera and would remember it like the time my kid dropped my 60mm f/2.8. Though I will concede it could have happen, but I doubt it.

How far were you from your target? For the focus target test it varied by lens. I made sure I stayed in the focal zone and did not get too close. The shots I took today with the 200-400 were in the parking lot of my workplace with the target ~250' away. I shot pix at 200mm, 300mm, and 400mm of zoom. All had the same softness at 100% zoom.

How did you focus manually or AF? Both ways were tried.

Did you get a focus confirmation? Yes, every time. The image is always tack sharp in the view finder when I get the chirp and green dot.

How is your AF set? I've shot tests in continuous, single, and manual, all with the same results. I've also tried single point and all of the dynamic point settings.

Quite frankly it looks pretty sharp to me, maybe just slightly bit soft. I agree. But, that slight bit of softness did not used to be there. The images used to be tack sharp. I like to print big (17x22) and sharpness counts.

Have you changed your post processing procedures? No. Nikon Transfer off the card via SanDisk 12 in 1 card reader, USB connection into a Dell Latitude XP Pro, SP3, with a Color Munki calibrated screen. ViewNX as the viewer and Capture NX2 as the editing software.

Have you tried a bit more sharpening? I've run up and down the sharpening scale while on the phone with NikonUSA and the camera is currently set to the greatest sharpness I could get out of the images, +4.

Some additional information:
The camera has about 40,000 clicks on it.
AF is currently activated by the AF-On button.
Test shots have been tried with and without flash, same results.
Test shots have been tried with and without the MB-D10 attached.

I fear a trip to Nikon on Long Island is in the cards for my much beloved D700.

Stop and take the picture, you may not get a second chance.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Well just based upon reason, since ALL of your lenses are a bit soft, it would appear to be a camera problem, not the lenses, especially since they all worked great before. My questions were a means to think through any recent changes you may have made like changing a1 setting. In AFC mode the focus will not lock even if you get the focus indicator. If you have not set a1 to focus the other two modes can take a picture even if it is out of focus.

Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"

Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!

I have a similar problem. Mine is in the shop. It could be you need to do a fine tune focus adjustment for each lens and your camera.

Thanks for the reply. NikonUSA specifically asked if I had fine tuned any lenses and I told them I had not. They replied that was good. Today is the 7th day since I submitted my photos and feedback in the thread they opened. Does anyone have any idea how long Nikon takes to get back to you?

Stop and take the picture, you may not get a second chance.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Hi Patrick,

The possible causes that come to mind are:
1. The in camera sharpness settings were inadvertently changed.
2. The lens mount on the camera body is warped, loose or misaligned.
Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!

Best Regards,
Marty

>Since the limit on posting files is 150kb, I've posted a 100%
>crop of the focus point (on the number 5) on my flickr page.
>The softness is only apparent at 100%. The only processing
>was the crop and the conversion to .tif so I could upload.
>This is the link:
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/32325251@N06/4858267073/sizes/o/in/photostream/

I'm not sure what you're seeing, but there's nothing wrong with my eyes and I'm not seeing any softness. You're reaching the limits of perceptual sharpness when doing analysis at 100% (the equivalent of printing an uncropped D700 photo at ~40" wide I think). I'm saying that your sample/test image is as sharp as you're going to get from any Nikon body and Nikkor lens combination under normal exposure circumstances at that viewing magnification. You might be able to achieve a fractional improvement by using better lighting, but that's just a guess/hope.

Frankly, if all of your lens and body combinations are this sharp at 100% and you're seeing something that's not making you happy, have you considered having your vision checked? If that's not it, have you considered that if everything you're looking at on your computer monitor seems soft, maybe it's your monitor that needs to be replaced? Sorry for what might be inappropriate suggestions, but your sample/test shot at 100% looks appropriately sharp to me.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

Hi Patrick,
Have to agree with Howard, image looks OK to me,
Regards,
Gary

My Nikonians Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Hi Patrick,

I agree i can not see anything wrong.


Dutch Nikonian
Shoot everything without bullets.

Music was my first love,photography my last.

www.arthurbender.nl

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I was experiencing the same issue- just not crisp regardless of lens choice and so decided to raise my aperture setting a bit(I love to shoot wide open ) and began seeing the cripness I thought was lacking in my images- hope u get it resolved before u leave on your fabulous trip!

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Patrick,

I was wondering the same thing as Kelli. Not sure if you're prone to shooting wide open, but I do notice a lack of sharpness in general when I do. It depends on the lens and other factors, but generally I find the best sharpness somewhere around f/5.6 with my better glass.

To be honest, my first impressions of my D700 were that it seemed less sharp overall than my D300. It's an impression that stays with me, although I haven't noticed any degradation in softness. It's not a problem for me, as I generally apply high-pass sharpening as a smart object in CS5, which makes the sharpening effect editable during or after post-processing.

Hey, I'm in CT too. Let me know if you'd like to shoot sometime. Collinsville is always a great place and I'm due for another trip there.

Bob

Please visit my Nikonians gallery

Thanks for the feedback everyone. Nikon USA finally replied after reviewing the test shots I posted that they want to service the camera. In the meantime I rented another D700 body and it is producing sharper images. So, despite questions about my vision, Nikon and I think there may be something going on with the camera.

Bob, I'd really enjoy doing a shoot some time. When I get back from Maine I'll send you a note.

Stop and take the picture, you may not get a second chance.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>Thanks for the feedback everyone. Nikon USA finally replied
>after reviewing the test shots I posted that they want to
>service the camera. In the meantime I rented another D700
>body and it is producing sharper images. So, despite
>questions about my vision, Nikon and I think there may be
>something going on with the camera.

Patrick - if Nikon is basically agreeing with you that there's some inappropriate softness (that some of the rest of us aren't seeing), then maybe I'll go get my own eyes checked! Seriously.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

Patrick,

Please let the group know the outcome of the Nikon service. I, like others, think your sample is very sharp. It is certainly consistent with the best of my D700 images. Maybe I'm not getting the best that that camera can potentially offer. Thanks.

Regards,
Preston
Coastal NC

Patrick,
If it's not too much to ask, could I invite you to post similar pics of images with the new rental that you say is taking sharper images? I sure don't see anything wrong with what you posted before and I'd like to know what I am missing.

thanks,
Tom

>Thanks for the feedback everyone. Nikon USA finally replied
>after reviewing the test shots I posted that they want to
>service the camera. In the meantime I rented another D700
>body and it is producing sharper images. So, despite
>questions about my vision, Nikon and I think there may be
>something going on with the camera.
>
>Bob, I'd really enjoy doing a shoot some time. When I get
>back from Maine I'll send you a note.

Tom
D5000IR, V1, Oly OM-D E-M5
Nikkor Zooms: AF-S 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 VR, VR, AF-S 18-135 f/3.5-5.6
Nikkor primes: 24 f/2.8Ai-S, 28 f/2.8D, Micro 60 f/2.8, 85 f/1.4D, Nikkor-C 500 f/8 Refl.
Nikon 1 lenses: 10mm f/2.8, 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 VR, 30-110mm f/3.8-5.6.
Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4, Sigma 70-300 Macro f/3.5-5.6.
Oly 12-42mm f/3.5-5.6, 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3, 12mm f/2.0, 45mm f/1.8, 75mm f/1.8.
Lumix 20mm f/1.7, 14-140mm f/4.0-5.8, 100-300mm f/4.0-5.6
Gitzo GT3541L, Manfrotto MT293A4, MP 680B
Markins M-20, RRS BH-25 Pro

Hate to be the differing opinion but it looks alittle soft to me. The funny thing is I kind of think mine is the same. Wonder if that is from factory. I just assumed that with this camera post processing is a must.


Linda Williams
PA Nikonian

"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
lenses"

>Hate to be the differing opinion but it looks alittle soft to
>me. The funny thing is I kind of think mine is the same.
>Wonder if that is from factory. I just assumed that with this
>camera post processing is a must.

As the OP stated, he only sees what he perceives as softness when viewing a 100% crop of an image. I don't think it's possible to obtain a razor sharp 100% crop of a 12.x megapixel image no matter how the camera is set up to make the test shot. Note that a 100% crop of a 12.x megapixel image is equivalent to a looking at the full original image printed at 40" wide. It's pushing the boundaries of the technology. No 35mm/FX, 12mp image can stand that sort of magnification without to some degree falling apart. I think the OP is asking more of the camera than it's technically capable of producing.

It's tough enough getting razor sharp 100% crops from 30+ mp medium format digital cameras, let alone FX. I think what other Nikonians (including me) have commented on is that the sample image appears to be about as sharp a 100% crop as we ever normally expect to get. Is it technically sharp? No. Is it as good as anyone can reasonably expect from a D700 100% crop? Yes. IMO that is.

OTOH, if Nikon tells the OP that his camera can be tweaked to do even better, I'll be sending mine in too for tweaking. Doubt it though.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

Update: Nikon Service sent a repair estimate of $224.00 + tax and shipping (the body is ~1.5 years old and out of warranty). Service repair level is B2 which apparently means replacement parts and service work. I won't know specifically what was wrong until they finalize the bill. Gave them my CC# and now have to wait. I hope I get it back in time for my 2 day class at Lime Rock Park in Connecticut on 9/3&4, I'd hate to have to rent another body again. I'll update the post as more information is received.

Stop and take the picture, you may not get a second chance.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>Update: Nikon Service sent a repair estimate of $224.00 +
>tax and shipping (the body is ~1.5 years old and out of
>warranty). Service repair level is B2 which apparently means
>replacement parts and service work. I won't know specifically
>what was wrong until they finalize the bill. Gave them my CC#
>and now have to wait. I hope I get it back in time for my 2
>day class at Lime Rock Park in Connecticut on 9/3&4, I'd
>hate to have to rent another body again. I'll update the post
>as more information is received.

Really looking forward to your results with Nikon service. My D700 has a similar problem that began about three weeks ago. Mine went from super clear and sharp images to a soft focus with all lenses. Nothing in menu selection regarding sharpness seemed to matter and the softness is uniform in all areas of the image. The camera is this way with studio light strobe or outdoors in natural light. Mine may be a few months older than your camera and it seens a lot of use, so maybe just wear and tear and things moving out of alignment. Yes, the lenses really are clean

My camera body is "In Shop" right now. It took around a week to move from "Estimate Accepted" to this stage. Regardless, Nikon is working on getting it back to me by this Thursday, though no promises. I'll post the details of the service and repair once I know what they are.

P.S. Lensrental.com has been a real good source for rentals while my body has been in the shop. I'd recommend them to a friend.

Stop and take the picture, you may not get a second chance.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Thanks. Good to know and that sounds like pretty quick turnaround on the service.

This week marks the third week it's been there...

Stop and take the picture, you may not get a second chance.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Hmm... maybe they are not so fast. I'm thinking while the Nikon is in for service I will try a Canon 5D just to see what it delivers. The problen for me is an investment in Nikon lenses so finding a Nikon solution has been a priority.

Generally, until this recent development, I've been very happy with the output. I've been shooting test shots with a focus chart this morning, varying lighting, lenses and camera settings progressively and it seems bloom between very dark and very light is causing the soft focus look. It varies within the zoom range of each lens and with the degree of exposure. Maybe I will wait until your camera gets back and keep analyzing the problem until I send mine in for service. What sharpness is there from edge to edge and depth of field is exceptional, just a uniform soft focus that may have to do more with bloom and contrast than actual focus. Hmm...

Well, my repaired D700 arrived from Nikon yesterday. Here’s what they did:

Upgraded firmware from 1.01 to 1.02
Adjusted the mirror angle
Adjusted the auto focus operation
Adjusted the AE operation
General check and clean
They also replaced all the exterior rubber, though I’m not sure why. I assume they need to when they take a camera apart.

There was nothing provided as to what may have caused the need for repair. When I get home from work I’ll repeat the test shots I took prior to the repair and compare the images. I’ll also post the results. To that end, it may take until the long weekend before I have the time to perform the tests.

So, I can’t confirm yet that the camera’s function has improved. But, since Nikon said they would only make adjustments/replace parts that were out of spec, it is my expectation that sharpness has improved and that I wasn’t imagining things or expecting more than the camera could provide. I took two test shots in my office and they look good, but that is only anecdotal.

Time to earn some money for the company, I'll follow up again later.

Cheers!

Stop and take the picture, you may not get a second chance.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I sent mine in with a similar description of problems and they quoted the same $224 plus $12 shipping. I get that sense that is a clean and adjust service and pretty much flat rate. Did you notice an improvement in your camera's performance?

I'm going to get the check out done. I figure it has only seen maybe 10,000 shutter cycles, but I use to get my 35mm Nikons cleaned and tuned up periodically and it kept them in good order.

Nikon takes around 1-2 weeks if you are an NPS member and ship it that way and around a month to 2 if you are not... It also depends on how busy they are and if the replacement parts are in stock or not.

I have my rubber exterior come off on me. It is the small part that is near the 10 pin and pc sync ports. Super glue did the trick but maybe they had this problem before and are fixing it the right way???

Watch out for a hot shoe issue that may occur with your camera. I had three D700s and they all had that problem after a decent amount of use.

-----------------------------------
Photography Workshops: www.inlightinworkshop.com

My Photography: www.ParamourPhoto.com
My Blog: www.ParamourPhoto.net

"Watch out for a hot shoe issue that may occur with your camera. I had three D700s and they all had that problem after a decent amount of use."


What is the hot shoe issue you refer to Michael? Intermittant contact? Corrosion? Breakage? Flash exposure compensation from the menu stopped working?

I've had my D700 for 15 months, used under every condition possible from -40C arctic cold to +40C desert heat, and more recently shooting lightning storms in "moist" conditions and have not encountered any problems with my cam's hotshoe to date.

As to the rubber covers over the 10pin contacts, and access to the video out ports, I use black electrical tape to keep these babies closed and sealed from the elements. Works like a charm, and its easily removed should you need to use them.

Cheers,
Frederic in Montréal

Nothing ventured... nothing gained!
http://www.RemarkableImages.ca

I'm curious as to what the hot shoe issues are also. Most of these are sensitive to voltage requirements of the divice, but I've not had a problem here with shoe connected flash or wireless flash sync devices.

I've had good luck with extreme environment use. I've been out in 20F below Maine winter and 100F Texas summer without camera complaint.

I am not a fan of the rubber door pieces. They look cheap and they are... cheap. I'd rather have the little mini screw in caps I always use to lose.

Perhaps the matter of the hot shoe would be better discussed in a thread of its own...?

Thanks!

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

"Perhaps the matter of the hot shoe would be better discussed in a thread of its own...?"


Why Brian? This is turning into a good thread about relevant D700 issues and things to watch for as they age with possible remedies.

Having every issue spread throughout the forum makes it hard to track. This way I bookmark one link and can see all posted comments.

My 2 cents.

Cheers,
Frederic

Nothing ventured... nothing gained!
http://www.RemarkableImages.ca

>Having every issue spread throughout the forum makes it hard
>to track. This way I bookmark one link and can see all posted
>comments.

...and we would end up with huge threads which are difficult to navigate when you're only interested in one particular issue. The way it's done has been well-proven over the years

So, this thread is about soft images with one particular D700, not a general "D700 problem" thread.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

OK. Well then, thanks for bringing up a subject that... you believe is inappropriate to talk about?

I didn't bring the subject up; I'm just trying to keep this thread "focused"

Anyway, it's fine to talk about it, but this isn't the appropriate place. Here is one discussion about D700 hotshoe problems, from a few months ago.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

Thanks for the link Brian. Also read the four pages on Photo.Pro.

I just bought a SB900 to use in addition to my SB800 and will see how well it works on my 15 month old D700. I use a fair amount of flash fill.

PS Enjoyed your "focused" pun!

Thought I would break up all this type with a photo from a recent commercial shoot for a client, relevant to the flash topic. So far, no problems with loose contacts or misfires.

Girder erection on overpass
Nikon D700, Nikkor 28-70 f2.8D AFS @ 40mm
Nikon SB800 flash, Manually set to 105mm, +3EV
Exposure: 1/8 sec @ f/8, ISO 1600, Manual Mode
Distance to subject, approximately 70 feet





Cheers,
Frederic in Montréal

Nothing ventured... nothing gained!
http://www.RemarkableImages.ca

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

"So, this thread is about soft images with one particular D700, not a general "D700 problem" thread.


I'm not sure I agree with you, as more than one Nikonian above has mentioned problems with soft focus, and I have observed this problem in my own D700.

Once Patrick Delany posts his results from the Nikon servicing, I may indeed be sending mine in for calibration and a tuneup too.

... and I can handle huge threads. I cut and paste relevant posts into a master word file for future ref.

All the best,
Frederic

Nothing ventured... nothing gained!
http://www.RemarkableImages.ca

Sorry for the continued delays, lots of family issues with health and deaths the past two weeks. Hoping for some time away from the hospital this weekend. Playing with the camera would be a welcomed vacation for the mind. I haven't forgotten about this thread...

Stop and take the picture, you may not get a second chance.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

No worries Patrick, take your time as I can sympathize with your plight. My Dad is 83 and suffering from poor health. Family comes first.

I'm sure once you post your results and comments they will be of the same caliber of your initial posts above. Merci bien... thanks in advance.

All the best,
Federic in Montréal

Nothing ventured... nothing gained!
http://www.RemarkableImages.ca

No problem, Patrick. I hope things get back to normal soon

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

Dying to hear the final conclusion!!

_________
Nathan

"I like photographers — you don't ask questions." Ronald Reagan. (To White House News Photographers Assn 18 May 83)

"The best indices of a person's character are (a) how they treat people who can't do them any good, and (b) how they treat people who can't fight back"

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

There's been some mention in the posts about a new software or firmware update that's available for the D700, including Patrick's post about what service work was performed on his own D700.

You can confirm if your camera has the correct firmware by going to MENU, select the TOOLS icon, then scroll to the last item FIRMWARE and verify the installed version. Most cams ship with 1.01, so you will want to upgrade to the latest 1.02

This morning I visited the Nikon USA site and performed the firmware update myself. After reading through the downloaded PDF instructions, I then used an empty and re-formatted CF card following the procedures outlined. The whole update took about 4 to 5 minutes.

I'm on a Mac, and the one thing I found confusing from the info was the icon they showed on the PDF instructions. It resembled a camera or something, the detail was soft as seen in this screen shot from the PDF:





I could not pull it up in Preview so I had to go to the "Download" file folder (I'm on the Snow Leopard OS)
and find the Nikon file there. The icon indicates its a zipped file as seen in this screen shot:





So I clicked on the zipped file, figuring the .bin file I was supposed to transfer was inside. This just created a second zipped file with the same number. So I guessed (correctly) that the CAMERA would open the zipped file. I dragged the zipped file marked .bin from the Download file to the USB-CF card reader to be uploaded into the CF card.

After the upload was completed, I ejected the card from the reader, then loaded it into the camera, following the instructions on the PDF by going to Menu->Tools->Firmware->UPDATE.

After the update was complete, a message came up saying to switch the camera off. And that was it.

So what does the Firmware update give you? There's a long list, including the ability to use 64gb cards, changes to focus tracking and more which you can read about on the download page.

Here's the link for the firmware update:

http://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/16657/~/current-versions-of-nikon-software

Now to go and test this cam with the new software!
Hope this helps.

@ Brian - I will also post this as a NEW topic in the D700 forum for greater visbility.

Cheers,
Frederic in Montréal

Nothing ventured... nothing gained!
http://www.RemarkableImages.ca

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)

My Nikon came back this AM from Nikon repair after being sent in for soft focus related problems. The worksheet indicated adjusted autofocus and clean and check on everything else including sensor, which all seemed appropriate.

What wasn't so exciting was the enclosed photocopy of page 59 from the D700 manual that addresses FX - DX format setting, with the addition of a strip of paper taped to the page indicating in very large font "Images appear sharper using DX format". The camera was returned set to DX mode. Gee. I guess I could have saved a considerable amount of money by buying a D90. Much less impressed with the D700 and Nikon.

My camera went to the Long Island, NY facility. The returned camera was not set to DX and did not include any copies or notes like the ones you received. I haven't had the time to touch the camera since the workshop I attended 9/3&4 due to continuing family health issues and this weekend will be more of the same. I will redo the tests and post the results. My hope is that next weekend will be my own and that I'll have time for some photo fun. Sorry to hear about your experience. I noted that they did not adjust the mirror as they did on mine. I'd be interested to hear if your camera shows any difference in FX mode since the AF adjustment and cleaning.

Stop and take the picture, you may not get a second chance.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Mine went to Melville, NY also. The photocopy was folded up in quarters and stuck in with the invoice and a mailer card promoting Nikon magazine.

In reference to focus, I took some pictures in FX mode with a setup I had recorded prior to repair and there is a noticeable difference. Much sharper image and contrast appears better, which may have more to do with improved autofocus. They fixed the problem and well worth the time in repair. They were pretty fast also. I think the camera was in the shop for a week and returned second day. I'm happy. Confused at the moment over the FX DX issue, but happy.

>Confused at the moment over the FX DX issue, but happy.

Glad to hear the camera is working better

This is just speculation, but if the camera had an obscure focusing system fault, I suppose it's possible that AF had been working better in DX Crop Mode - where the AF sensor array covers a greater proportion of the frame.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

Makes sense.

As a second issue, would the reduced sensor coverage also draw from the sharper central area of the lens and have the effect of shooting with the lens stopped down. I keep thinking of sensors as a frame of film which is probably not at all correct.

Your post definitely set off my alarms so I opened my PDF version of the D700 User's Manual to page 59 and could not find anything about images appearing sharper using DX format. Then I searched the whole manual for your phrase and several subsets and alternates including "sharper", "DX format", and "focused"; still found no indication that DX produces sharper images than FX format. I think the converse is true.

Do you think the Nikon technician was mistaking "smaller image" for "sharper Image"?

Note that you'd have to stand about 30% closer to the subject to fill the FX format frame than you would to fill the DX format frame. This would result in the FX image being displayed with about 12 million pixels and the comparable DX image represented by only about 5 million pixels. That looks like a lot of lost detail to me.

With regard to the D90; it offers 12 million pixels in the DX format so I would expect it to be very sharp. I'm sure that many other factors also influence "sharpness" of the final image, but it would be interesting to see carefully controlled comparisons of comparably sized images from all of Nikon's DSLR's.

Rob Puller
my Nikonians gallery

>With regard to the D90; it offers 12 million pixels in the DX
>format so I would expect it to be very sharp. I'm sure that
>many other factors also influence "sharpness" of the
>final image, but it would be interesting to see carefully
>controlled comparisons of comparably sized images from all of
>Nikon's DSLR's.
>Rob Puller

Well it depends on what you mean by controlled.

When comparing different models and manufacturers I enjoy using Imaging-Resource Comparometer.

They leave the EXIF data intact, although through the years they changed their testing format a bit so it is tough to compare older models with newer ones at times. But the still life tests generally have been used for quite some time.

In fact if you compare and analyze the D90 to the D700 using the New Indoor images you can see the difference of the DOF. Being that they used 70mm focal length they had to move closer with the D700 creating a narrow DOF for the same FOV.

Pete

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Pete,

That is a great site and is what I meant by "controlled"; thanks for the pointer.

I only took a quick look at a couple of images but my impression is that the D700 images appeared to have a little more contrast, which made "sharpness" assessment difficult. I was influenced by the contrast (and likely ownership) to think the D700 was very slightly sharper, but they were so close that I would not argue the point until I looked much more carefully.

Rob Puller
my Nikonians gallery

The copy of the manual page was enlarged to 8 1/2"x11. As I indicated, Rob, The page has a strip of white printer paper, about 8"x1" with "Images appear sharper using DX format" in a very large and all caps font, taped to the page at each end. It was placed right after the table and before the "The DX Format Crop subtitle that appears in the manual. My manual has no such sharper dx reference either.

I was having similar problems. Specifically, getting spot-on perfect focus was a real problem. I could get it if I really worked at getting the focus marks right on the eyes (for example), but if I was only "near" - soft. A friend told me that he heard at a seminar that Nikons have difficulty focusing if you have a "protective" filter over the lens. (I cannot remember if he was talking all Nikons or was just referring to my workhorse 24-70, or...what.) I thought "this has to be an urban legend," but I took my filter off and --- PERFECT FOCUS. It makes no sense, but I shot a wedding a few weeks ago, was not particularly careful with focus, and had very few soft shots.

A friend told me that he heard at a seminar that Nikons have difficulty focusing if you have a "protective" filter over the lens. (I cannot remember if he was talking all Nikons or was just referring to my workhorse 24-70, or...what.) I thought "this has to be an urban legend,"but I took my filter off and --- PERFECT FOCUS. It makes no sense...


Actually, depending upon the situation and light levels, it can make perfect sense. Good quality lenses, be it Nikkor or other leading brands, are designed to focus the various wavelengths of the light spectrum directly to the individual picture elements (pixels) on your sensor.

If you start adding filters, some of the less expensive brands on the market can actually degrade the image. It might be very slight, but it is measurable and visible on enlargements. Of course, some filters like UV-Haze will specifically eliminate certain light wavelengths, to improve image clarity. A filter which does not use high quality glass or incorporate proper and evenly applied multi-coating can also cause increased internal reflections, light scatter or added lens flare. This is why premium filers such as B&W from Germany can be so much more money than the second rate, lesser known brands costing half as much.

Auto focus systems also work their magic best under good light, where a distinct edge is present to assist the sensor circuits contrast detection system. Having a faster lens (like an f/2.8 lens) vs a lens with a maximum opening of f/5.6 will also make a big difference. With some cameras, using an f/5.6 lens plus adding a filter that may have a half to two stop light loss (like a circular polarizer) can cut down the light enough that the auto-focus will shut down, or not give accurate results.

If you're shooting under low light, and the subject is quite dark, this is another situation where the auto-focus might be less than perfect. An example might be photographing a person with dark eyes and a dark complexion under poor natural light inside say a tent.

So if you find yourself in situations where the auto-focus might be hunting, or is not giving you a solid lock, sometimes removing the filter is the best choice. I frequently pull mine off when I want the absolute best clarity and sharpness, especially if my "protective filter" has smudges, smears, dust or even hairline scratches or scuff marks.


Hope this helps.
Frederic in Montréal

Nothing ventured... nothing gained!
http://www.RemarkableImages.ca

There is little or no physics to back any of this up - certainly no which materially impacts autofocus performance. The psychological effect, however, of removing a clear protector results in a photographer who is thinking keenly about focus and therefore paying more attention to it.

Minor smudges, hair, lint, dust and other bits of detritus clinging to a protective filter or a front lens element don't have any appreciable effect on image clarity, sharpness or autofocus performance. Such minor detritus is not within the plane of focus, and occupies such a tiny percentage of the field of view that it is simply not detected by your camera sensor. Let such detritus build up to an obscurant level, and of course there will be a detractive effect. Short of that there's no appreciable effect.

The accuracy of autofocus depends entirely on what's being targeted by the focus sensors. Flat, unrelieved surfaces, absence of shadow-creating texture, absence of line edges, absence of discernible patterns and low light all conspire to confound autofocus systems. A normally clean and clear protective filter (of any quality, from cheap Cokin and up) typically cannot in any physical way improve or detract from quality of a proper focus target. Either you've got a target on which the camera's autofocus system can properly lock or you don't. Some targets fool the autofocus system into focusing slightly ahead of or slightly behind the target (don't ask me what the EXPEED processor is concluding in those circumstances), a situation which sometimes drives photographers nuts enough to start sending lenses into Nikon because of what the photographers believe are physical backfocus or front-focus problems with the lens. That's rarely the case - although there certainly are a very small percentage of lenses which are misadjusted at the factory.

The autofocus systems designed and manufactured by Nikon and its main competitors are not as robustly accurate as we want them to be (or as supremely wonderful as the related advertising and marketing would have us believe). The latest physical autofocus systems and the processors (and programming) which back them up are nonetheless exceedingly good - the best ever - but depend on the presence of contrast or edges or planes of shadow or relief and so on (or any combination of these things), in remarkably low light. If we don't provide a focus taget on which the autofocus sensors can obtain an accurate lock, we won't get focus. A clear protector or UV filter don't enter into the physical equation.

There are no tests or analytical examples of focus accuracy differences between shots made through a clear protector and shots made without a clear protector. That's because autofocus systems are unaffected by the presence of such protectors. Dust abraded or filthy or aberrated or misaligned (e.g., severely cross-threaded) clear protectors will obviously have an affect on image clarity and can in extreme cases also affect autofocus performance. Short of those extremes though, protect the front element of your lens and leave a good quality clear protector in place.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

There is little or no physics to back any of this up - certainly no(ne) which materially impacts autofocus performance....
There are no tests or analytical examples of focus accuracy differences between shots made through a clear protector and shots made without a clear protector. That's because autofocus systems are unaffected by the presence of such protectors.


I have to disagree with you Howard. From 1994 to 1997 I worked as a tech at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Engineering Headquarters, in Montreal, Canada. Here top engineers would put various lenses used for studio and field use through exhaustive bench tests with spectrum analyzers before purchasing them for CBC TV facilities across Canada.

It was here that I first learned about how different types of glass affects the quality of light, or how it is bent and shaped as it travels through the lens optical path. The use of filters can affect the image outcome and focusing systems. An easy example is how auto focus can be skewed if a photographer uses a linear vs a circular polarizer.

And it does not take much dust buildup to affect the transmission of light, or light scatter. While working as a second engineer on a television mobile truck covering live events (baseball, football etc) with Dome Productions (1997-2000) http://domeproductions.com/services using $50,000 high def Canon lenses, we found even a slight dust buildup could cut light transmission by as much as 10%. Lenses were cleaned daily to assure best results.

Before every broadcast, all television cams went through an elaborate focusing, calibration and alignment using "chip" charts to assure maximum resolution and target focusing, including back focus adjustments. Here's a sample chart used in these alignments and tests.

http://dsclabs.com/front_box_series.htm

All this is to say that, while there may not be that many readily available and neutral tests of various consumer and "pro" filters on the market, my own experience gleaned from working in the broadcast milieu is that some filters are better than others; and yes, they can affect the final image outcome and whether proper focus can be obtained, dependent upon the shooting situations you eloquently outlined.


Short of those extremes though, protect the front element of your lens and leave a good quality clear protector in place.

Agree 100 percent, which is why I use them most of the time.

Respectfully,
Frederic in Montréal

Nothing ventured... nothing gained!
http://www.RemarkableImages.ca

I don't know, so I'm asking, but wasn't this more of a problem with infrared based autofocus and not with current passive CCD contrast autofocus where peak intensity of only contrast is sampled and read?

I think that anecdotal information about what does and does not work well in broadcast (studio and live) conditions merely helps to perpetuate myths. Show me some valid research which demonstrates, without a clear protector in place, consistently better autofocus or even just marginally better autofocus performance and I'll cheerfully start shooting without one.

CBC and other top quality broadcasters think about focus accuracy and image clarity the way scientists at CERN think about the as-yet-undiscovered Higgs boson - that is to say every conceivable variable, no matter how illogically connected or disconnected, must be eliminated in order to physically and psychologically ensure that a signal which will be processed, compressed, filtered, stored, re-transmitted, hammered and beaten by various and sundry electronic and digital connections will end up on a TV screen in someone's home in some sort of decent condition.

Please don't misunderstand. I think CBC has pioneered a lot of interesting things over the years. I'm a died-in-the-wool CBC fan too - yesterday, today and tomorrow - but some the things that broadcast engineers do to 'ensure' that a great quality signal gets to the TV end of the chain verge on voodoo. I've been there too. Radio engineers are just the same. I think the disciplines have become a bit less superstitious since the advent of digital, but not much. Anyway, I'm not criticising the work of great engineers and intensely motivated and talented broadcast technicians. Like I stated above, I'd love to see some autofocus testing results from a controlled study of DSLR bodies and a couple of lenses and half a dozen brands of clear protectors. Not filters though - clear protectors only, because that's what we're talking about here.

I think it's important for photographers to get to know their camera bodies. There are a lot of photographers who make thousands of exposures every single month but who still don't know or recognize the autofocus limitations of the camera bodies they're using. Many photographers believe that digital has made it a legitimate practice to shoot an enormous number of exposures in order to eventually get something good. But an enormous volume of exposures cannot in any way take the place of careful consideration of a camera's autofocus mechanism, its capabilities and its limitations. I believe knowing those three things through direct practice and challenge over time, will reduce the number of exposures needed to capture a higher percentage of keepers, eliminate any concerns about the myths about negative effects of clear protectors, and reduce the amount of time spent post-processing images because there will be a resultant requirement to process far fewer.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

The OP of the original part of this thread has been dealing with a number of problems, and he's been kind enough to post here about the delays. Wish him well.

I think Mr. Tilley is right though. We're w-a-a-y off topic. For the handful of people who download posts and then do text searches for interesting subjects, there are very few of you, so I'd like to dump all this in favor of a new thread. Besides that:



I'm outta' here . . .

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

"Show me some valid research which demonstrates, without a clear protector in place, consistently better autofocus or even just marginally better autofocus performance and I'll cheerfully start shooting without one."


Wish I could Howard, however I no longer have access to the died-in-the-wool fanatical engineers that I once worked with. Quite a few have retired, and shortly after I left CBC-EHQ to join Dome, the Canadian government closed down EHQ for budget reasons.

Sometimes you can view test results of this lens or that filter in Broadcast Engineering, the SMPTE Journal or American Cinematographer which can make for some pretty technical reading, however its rare these days.

I think it would be very interesting to interview or talk with the engineers at B&W, Tiffen or other quality filter makers to get their perspective. Anyone here have those kind of contacts?


"Not filters though - clear protectors only, because that's what we're talking about here."

The original question I responded to by Tom in post 51, was about "protective" filters in general, which for many, including myself, includes UV-Haze, skylight filters, and it might be argued ND filters.

I may be wrong on this (I have not found this on a google search yet) but I believe even the "clear" protective filters have multi-coating to minimize reflections and ghosting.

For those interested in how UV filters work, here's an interesting article from a few years ago that appeared on photo.net, though it mentions nothing about whether these filters affect auto-focus systems.

http://photo.net/equipment/filters


Sorry, no pics to demonstrate what I was talking about, however I concur in general Howard to your well written rebuttal.

And my apologies for going off topic Brian T...

Latah...
Frederic in Montréal

Nothing ventured... nothing gained!
http://www.RemarkableImages.ca

Well, this thread has taken on a life of its own. I love this site! I am happy to report my nephew is off life support and today he left the ICU. My mother is recovering well too from her stint in the hospital. And, the wife's aunt and uncle are resting in peaceful eternally now. With life finally trending towards normal again I fully intend to repeat my test shots on Sunday and post the results here. Thanks to those that offered their kind thoughts over these past trying weeks, I really appreciate it.

P.S. Howard, I will be in Toronto 10/14 - 10/20 with nothing to do but shoot, shoot, shoot while my wife is at her meeting. Since I don't have an Iphone and can't use the good locations app, perhaps I could get your email and hope that you'd be kind enough to share some favorite shooting locations. This will be my first visit to your wonderful city. My email is delany_ct@comcast.net

Cheers all!

Stop and take the picture, you may not get a second chance.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Pat - I'll send you a private email tomorrow morning - preferences, subjects, etc. I'd be delighted to make a list of recommendations.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

Good to hear Pat. Hope you are doing well too, now that loved ones are getter better. My condolences on the loss of your wife's aunt and uncle.

Best regards
Frederic in Montréal

Nothing ventured... nothing gained!
http://www.RemarkableImages.ca