Another reason for DSLR's to fade; focusing, mechanical issues

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by RichA, Oct 3, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Imagine telling someone their new $2500 camera body will have to be
    worked on the like an old car in order to get it to work properly?
    Sensor-based focusing and viewing simply would not have this kind of
    problem and contrast focusing systems (while some are still slow) are
    inherently accurate.

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=36996147
     
    RichA, Oct 3, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    It surprises me that a high-level Nikon was delivered in this
    condition.

    Regards,

    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Oct 3, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Who knows why? Maybe they're under terrific production pressure since
    the tsunami and are rushing things. In the 1980's in the telescope
    business, two companies released numerous examples of bad product
    because they were rushing production to meet demand.
     
    RichA, Oct 3, 2011
    #3
  4. "RichA" wrote in message
    Imagine telling someone their new $2500 camera body will have to be
    worked on the like an old car in order to get it to work properly?
    Sensor-based focusing and viewing simply would not have this kind of
    problem and contrast focusing systems (while some are still slow) are
    inherently accurate.
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=36996147



    That's why newer cameras have the Auto Focus Fine Tune capability, making
    spot-on focusing possible on a per-lens or camera basis, very easily and
    straightforward.
     
    G Paleologopoulos, Oct 3, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    Alfred Molon Guest

    But if the imager sensor is used for AF all this fine tuning and precise
    mechanical setup becomes unnecessary. Hopefully this sensor P-AF
    technology currently available in the Nikon 1 system spreads and becomes
    available on all new cameras.
     
    Alfred Molon, Oct 3, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Maybe it wasn't delivered in that condition. The user could very well
    have dropped the camera, knocked it about, etc. I has a focusing issue,
    brought it to Nikon, two days later it was fine. There must be a reason
    that guy didn't bring it to Nikon for a warranty repair. The truth is
    that we just don't really know all the facts. But that won't stop rich
    from blathering.
     
    PeterN, Oct 4, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    PeterN, Oct 4, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    Me Guest

    Perhaps it wasn't.
    The poster comments that he'd tried a katz-eye screen (and didn't like
    it) so quite possibly caused the mis-alignment himself when changing
    screens.

    One day perhaps RichA will "get it" that for the foreseeable future, EVF
    vs Reflex or other OVF is a question of compromise and suitability for
    purpose, not some situation for which his prejudice/obsession is any help.
    No forget it - RichA isn't capable of "getting it". I just scanned some
    of his other recent posts where he displays ignorance and obsession on a
    range of subjects. He's just a fucking idiot. EOS.
     
    Me, Oct 4, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Why would you automatically assume it must be the user's fault?
     
    RichA, Oct 5, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Nonsense. Have you ever changed a screen? Exactly HOW would it mis-
    align?
     
    RichA, Oct 5, 2011
    #10
  11. ... or the delivery people, if it was bought online.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 5, 2011
    #11
  12. RichA

    PeterN Guest


    I didn't.
    1. If you read carefully you will see I suggested other possible causes;

    2. The writer stated he changed the ground glass to a Katz-Eye.

    Why do you always criticize the manufacturer.
     
    PeterN, Oct 5, 2011
    #12
  13. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    David below has one suggestion. It could also be cause by accidentally
    moving the alignment lug.
    Neither you nor I was there to see what he did. Don't assume until you
    know ALL of the facts. Oh yes, He also might have not put the screen in
    firmly.
     
    PeterN, Oct 5, 2011
    #13
  14. RichA

    RichA Guest

    I'd like to see a diagram of how the screen seats to see if what you
    are describing is even possible without it being visible askew or even
    falling out of the camera body.
     
    RichA, Oct 5, 2011
    #14
  15. RichA

    PeterN Guest


    Read your own link. It's all there.
     
    PeterN, Oct 6, 2011
    #15
  16. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    And cars still need to be refilled with gas constantly and need oil
    and tires and ...

    hyou'd think that a new car would just work for a good while without
    needing all kinds of work done on it.
     
    Ray Fischer, Oct 9, 2011
    #16
  17. That's the theory.

    In the same therory there needs not to be a lens specific offset
    for the PDAF, there need not be AF fine tuning, either. No need
    for a correction term in the lens. No need for actual misfocussing
    slightly from the correct position as determined by the PDAF +
    offsets to get an even sharper result on the sensor.

    All that's needed (by that theory) is a global offset for any
    length differences between the mirror path and the non-mirror path.
    (And maybe a global offset for each sensor, as they may not be
    completely in plane compared to the sensor --- there's no guarantee
    that the sensor is completely orthogonal to the lens axis, either,
    even with sensor based AF ...)
    That's a downright great idea! Let's slow down everyones focussing
    and heat the main sensor and waste battery power and use an EVF
    that's not up to OVFs for very many tasks. And then let's
    everyone use tiny sensors, so there won't be any advantages
    to a DSLR design any more.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 10, 2011
    #17
  18. RichA

    Alfred Molon Guest

    No, that's reality.
    Phase-AF with the sensor is fast and battery power is not really an
    issue.
    And moving up and down a mirror at high speed requires a lot of energy.
    The sensor P-AF has nothing to do with sensor size.
     
    Alfred Molon, Oct 15, 2011
    #18
  19.  
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 28, 2011
    #19
  20. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    <edited>

    Then, what >does< power the "rear LCD" -- the photographer's
    brain waves, perhaps?
     
    John Turco, Nov 12, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.