Lol - I'm assuming that is bird intestines! ::what:: The hawk didn't appear to want to eat those after pulling them out.
Nikon NY Repair Center
- Thread starter hark
- Start date
Lol - I'm assuming that is bird intestines! ::what:: The hawk didn't appear to want to eat those after pulling them out.
TwistedThrottle
Senior Member
All noodles, no meatballs
One thing I've noticed over the past couple of days is the VR takes much longer to settle - and that might be causing some of the soft images. Today I held down the BBF and waited at least 2 seconds for the image to stop shaking before taking the pics.
No Shake Reduction here although it could probably use it a little. However, this is MUCH better compared with what I've been getting the past several months.
No Shake Reduction here although it could probably use it a little. However, this is MUCH better compared with what I've been getting the past several months.
I have reached no end of frustration with the Nikon Repair Rep. Supposedly they can't see any softness in the images I submitted although I sent close up images which show the lens focuses normallyyet images taken from a distance are soft (it's always been the distance ones that don't focus well). But more importantly, he is ignoring my repeated question as to why he isn't address the VR issue. It was included when I sent in the lens the first time, and as soon as I realized it was omitted from the service order, I called a second and third time trying to get it added to the repair. I even wound up with more than one repair order number due to my calls. It shouldn't take the Normal VR an extra second or two to settle down before the shutter is pressed when the Sport VR works properly. Images taken with the Normal VR have a tendency to jump around inside the viewfinder and aren't always in focus unless I hold down the button and wait longer than usual for the image to settle.
He wanted me to turn off the AF Tuning. I did that and submitted images yet received another request for the same thing. I've never had any luck with getting a repair done correctly the first time. In the past, the repairs that weren't successful the first time were my D600 (3 failed repairs), 20mm f/2.8 lens, SB-910, and now this lens. :grief:
He wanted me to turn off the AF Tuning. I did that and submitted images yet received another request for the same thing. I've never had any luck with getting a repair done correctly the first time. In the past, the repairs that weren't successful the first time were my D600 (3 failed repairs), 20mm f/2.8 lens, SB-910, and now this lens. :grief:
In the interest of customer satisfaction at this point they should have just replaced the VR components or the lens. Wish you had a better experiences.
Yes, it would be nice if they'd do that. He wants another image with the AF Fine Tuning turned off. I told him I never had any value set for the 300mm lens alone - only for the 300mm lens coupled with the 1.7x TC. But I went out yesterday trying to find a suitable subject. One that needs to be in the far distance since that where the AF suffers. I settled on some signs, but it was so immensely hot here - and of course the signs are near asphalt - that heat refraction showed up. So I need to go out again today since the temps will be a little better.
I'm curious as to how many hours you estimate that you've spent on this ordeal?
I have no idea. One thing he asked is for me to turn off AF Fine Tuning. Although I forgot to do that, there isn't any value listed for just the 300mm lens since I don't use the lens alone. I am surprised by what he wrote and need to go out yet again. But it makes me wonder why would the AF Tuning affect the image if it is turned on without being set to any number.
This is what he wrote:
Fred Kingston
Senior Member
That would make sense to me Cindy. If all your images have AF Fine Tune turned ON... then trying to analyze image sharpness between the two states would be impossible. AF Fine Tune adds a focus bias... If all images are from the same state "ON"... then it becomes impossible to determine exactly what bias is being applied from one lens to the next and whether the AF Fine Tune is even actually working. IOW, if your AF Fine Tune for lens X is a +5, is it really adding a +5 and NOT a -10? Or if is a +5, is it really even adding a +5 at all? Without the camera and lens in hand to test, it would be difficult to determine without two images, one with +5 and one with AF Fine Tune OFF or at base 0...
When I was out testing this lens again today, I noticed something. I hold the back button (only using the center focus point as single point focus), and press the shutter button. As the camera takes the image, immediately before the mirror closes in the viewfinder, I see the image jumping slightly within the frame - making my subject no longer exactly in the center. And since I have the focus point enabled on my rear screen, quite often the focus point isn't on top of my subject because of the image moving. And that is more of a VR issue than anything. And it's possible with me holding down the back button, the camera might refocus in that moment and focus on whatever the focus point lands on. I'll see if I can take a photo of the rear display showing how the focus point is no longer on a subject. At least that might be one reason.
Here are a couple from yesterday's outing. Considering both are cropped quite a bit, and the focus point moved partially off of them, the sharpness isn't too bad. I focused on the face which is slightly soft. It's having to wait the extra time for the VR to settle that is a big pain. But if the focus point had focused way behind, then neither would have been acceptable.
My 70-300 will do this occasionally. Never determined if it was related to VR or the mirror moving. Don't seem to have the problem with any other lens. Maybe only happens on longer focal lengths. Are you able to duplicate it when not using BBF?
Would it be helpful to turn on focus point in playback? It might give an indication as to whether the camera thought it achieved focus and where. Be interesting to try on a mirrorless.
I have the focus point enabled for playback. It only happens in Normal VR, not Sport or without any VR. This is the only lens I have that I've noticed it happens.
My D500 hasn't been focusing well at all lately despite cleaning its contacts as well as the contacts of my lenses. The thing is it seems almost every time I clean a lens' contacts, there is a small bit of grime that comes off on my Pec Pad. Makes me wonder where it comes from since I haven't used the lens too much between cleanings.
So this week I cleaned the contacts inside the D500 yet again. But this time I wrapped a Pec Pad around my finger - DRY not moistened like I've done in the past - and reached to the back of the body's contacts. There was a flat triangular piece of black stuff between 1/8" to 1/4" in diameter that came off. Afterwards when I tested the D500 with my 80-400mm lens, the difference in sharpness was quite noticeable.
But when I attended the falconry event yesterday, I was hesitant to use my D500. So I opted for my first D7200 (which was out of commission for a couple years) along with the 80-400mm. I had far more in focus than I've had in the past when I used the D500. The only problem I experienced was trying to engage the back button while wearing gloves along with glove liners. :beguiled:
So Jake @BackdoorArts also attended and was super nice to meet up early to test my D500 and 300mm f/4 PF. He took one photo of a bush, previewed the back, and said 'it looks sharp to me.' We chatted a bit then walked over the snowy field to get closer to some bushes. Small birds were flying around, but with my 300mm, they were still pretty far away. I figured it would be a good test to see if there was any improvement to the focus. One issue I've had is getting consistently focused images of birds in flight.
I took a handful of test images. Almost everything was in really good focus especially considering how far away they were. Here are a couple of examples.
This one is an uncropped image edited with my normal workflow.
Here is a cropped version - which is a rather extensive crop - also using my normal workflow.
And here is another image already cropped quite a bit and edited. The AF might have caught a branch, but it's still FAR superior in sharpness considering the results I've been dealing with for a long time.
All my problems started with the refurbished Nikon 1.7x TC that I purchased 2-3 years ago. But I don't want to give up in it just yet. When it works well, its results are impressive. So hopefully this week I will be able to test it out with the 300mm f/4 PF again and see if the focusing and sharpness is more consistent.
So this week I cleaned the contacts inside the D500 yet again. But this time I wrapped a Pec Pad around my finger - DRY not moistened like I've done in the past - and reached to the back of the body's contacts. There was a flat triangular piece of black stuff between 1/8" to 1/4" in diameter that came off. Afterwards when I tested the D500 with my 80-400mm lens, the difference in sharpness was quite noticeable.
But when I attended the falconry event yesterday, I was hesitant to use my D500. So I opted for my first D7200 (which was out of commission for a couple years) along with the 80-400mm. I had far more in focus than I've had in the past when I used the D500. The only problem I experienced was trying to engage the back button while wearing gloves along with glove liners. :beguiled:
So Jake @BackdoorArts also attended and was super nice to meet up early to test my D500 and 300mm f/4 PF. He took one photo of a bush, previewed the back, and said 'it looks sharp to me.' We chatted a bit then walked over the snowy field to get closer to some bushes. Small birds were flying around, but with my 300mm, they were still pretty far away. I figured it would be a good test to see if there was any improvement to the focus. One issue I've had is getting consistently focused images of birds in flight.
I took a handful of test images. Almost everything was in really good focus especially considering how far away they were. Here are a couple of examples.
This one is an uncropped image edited with my normal workflow.
Here is a cropped version - which is a rather extensive crop - also using my normal workflow.
And here is another image already cropped quite a bit and edited. The AF might have caught a branch, but it's still FAR superior in sharpness considering the results I've been dealing with for a long time.
All my problems started with the refurbished Nikon 1.7x TC that I purchased 2-3 years ago. But I don't want to give up in it just yet. When it works well, its results are impressive. So hopefully this week I will be able to test it out with the 300mm f/4 PF again and see if the focusing and sharpness is more consistent.
Hopefully the solution.
Thanks, Jeff. I really want the 1.7x TC to work with my 300mm f/4 lens and will be testing it out for the umpteenth time. When it works, it is a phenomenal combo. But most of the issues I've had involve images taken at a distance as well as flying birds and/or low contrast birds (already have the AF calibrated automatically in the D500). Jake suggested calibrating the combo manually which I can also do. Images taken from a closer distance are impressive. Considering how well my D500 worked with the 80-400mm lens after removing the black substance from the camera's contacts, I am interested to see if there will be any improvement using the combo on my D500.
Since I tested out the 300mm lens on my D500 Saturday - small birds at a distance and was impressed - I went out on Monday with this lens and the 1.7x TC. Nope. Everything was soft. This one I managed to sharpen enough although it is excessively sharpened. It was the best of the images I took.
But just to be sure, yesterday I went out with just the lens, and it performed very well. So cleaning off grime from the lens' contacts as well as the contacts inside the D500 body seemed to resolve the issue with the lens. Obviously the refurbished 1.7x TC just isn't going to cut it.
So today I went out with the 300mm and the 1.4x TX on my D500 and came across this Red-Tailed Hawk. The lens does very well with this 1.4x TC which hadn't been the case ever since I began having issues with the lens.
So question for anyone - and there is no wrong answer here - the background and the hawk are pretty much the same color and brightness. I darkened the background as well as lightened it yet didn't like either. Both of these are 'as is' so to speak since none of the changes to the background were pleasing. Curious what others think they'd prefer ... a darker or lighter background Or would it be best just to leave it as is?
But just to be sure, yesterday I went out with just the lens, and it performed very well.
So cleaning off grime from the lens' contacts as well as the contacts inside the D500 body seemed to resolve the issue with the lens. Obviously the refurbished 1.7x TC just isn't going to cut it.So today I went out with the 300mm and the 1.4x TX on my D500 and came across this Red-Tailed Hawk. The lens does very well with this 1.4x TC which hadn't been the case ever since I began having issues with the lens.
So question for anyone - and there is no wrong answer here - the background and the hawk are pretty much the same color and brightness. I darkened the background as well as lightened it yet didn't like either. Both of these are 'as is' so to speak since none of the changes to the background were pleasing. Curious what others think they'd prefer ... a darker or lighter background Or would it be best just to leave it as is?
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
As someone who has asked for ice water in hell, um, good luck with that.
Had two D500's and two 300mm f4's, both of which worked great on their own and with the 1.4x, but were non-starters with the 1.7x. After seeing Steve Perry's piece on FTZ's today where he mentions how good the Z9 is with them (same or better focus speed as a D850) and that they're even better with a TC, I'm wondering if the improved focus systems on the Z's would turn that sow's ear into a purse of some type? I'd take it down to Allen's and ask if you can slap it on a Z6ii to see what's what. If you want more keepers a move to mirrorless is going to be the answer. It's just how long it takes you to get there. Granted, the Z6ii with the FTZ is slower focusing, but there's always the 100-400mm Z lens...