# Lack of faith in NIKON products!



## MopsterUK (Jan 18, 2013)

Hi all, I am new to this site and the clientele that use it.

First of all I know that to a set of people my thread title would be very provocative. I'll set out my current situation and what i'd like possible advice or discussion on. I started out my hobby of photography with a d3100 and kit lens. Over the years I've invested primary in glass (with the view that in the future I would most likely go to a full frame body) and then up to the D7000. I planned on keeping my d7000 as a back up for when I eventually needed or desired to go to a full frame camera. However, I am at the stage where I could do with a second body. My first thought was ahhh go with a second d7000 or wait (as there is no do or die need to own it straight away) for a d7100 or d8000 which is likely to come out within this year. 

So what is the issue at hand as everything here looks like I'm pretty figured out on what I feel I need and want, as well as how I wish to progress.

Since owning my D7000 I noticed that images were not as sharp as images with my d3100. However, as every now and then I'd get a good shot I just initially assumed it was the user behind the camera rather than the camera itself. As I grew more and more concerned I started reading up on focusing and running several test. I noticed much beloved d7000 was back focusing. I braced myself for the worse as I sent it back to Nikon for repair. it came back with a suggested recognition and fix to my problem. However, the problem was not fixed. On returning the camera to Nikon for further repair I got a response saying unable to recreate the problem. However, I know it exist.

This situation left me with a lack of faith in the current stock of Nikon bodies out there and with future releases. I accept any camera can have a problem but it's the issue of poor after care to resolve the problem. This has lead me to re-evaluate my plans.

As I said I wanted a second body. What is the point of getting a second body if I feel I may be in a similar position. My ideas on upgrading to a Nikon full frame is also now feeling shabby. The d800 is too much for what I want. The d600 is two similar to the d7000 to warrant my interest (IMO). The d700, well I've not looked to much into it but essentially I'd like to move forward with technology. So I feel that there is no full frame Nikon that is suitable for my needs/deserve at the moment. 

I'm now at a point where I'm considering jumping ship to cannon and going with a full frame option there. This isn't the ideal thing as I'd prefer to stay with Nikon as I've invested time and money into my hobby with Nikon. Additionally, from what I've used (albeit brief) I wasn't overtly found of the ergonomics of Canon.

So there is my situation. I might end up cutting of my nose to spite my face. What do you good people make of this situation? Advice and discussion welcomed.

*N.B. Firstly, I'll just add this here, I don't want this really to turn into a discussion of fanboy vs fanboy from either Canon or Nikon camps. That sort of argument doesn't interest me. Secondly, I'm not looking for anyone to try and search a) if my problem exist or b) recommend ways to resolve my back focusing problems on the d7000.*


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 18, 2013)

You didn't list what glass you had been using on the D7000! Some 3rd party lenses have a long history of back / front focusing. 


Please let us know what lenses you have .... and what lenses you see this issue with most.


----------



## MopsterUK (Jan 18, 2013)

Please read my post fully and properly. I admit many people may make mistakes, or admittance with their post (I do this a lot).However, please reread and take particular care at reading the NB section at the bottom. You'll understand why I have not mentioned my glass. It is an unnecessary to my post.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 18, 2013)

MopsterUK said:


> Please read my post fully and properly. I admit many people may make mistakes, or admittance with their post (I do this a lot).However, please reread and take particular care at reading the NB section at the bottom. *You'll understand why I have not mentioned my glass. It is an unnecessary to my post.*



We will have to agree to disagree on that.. many (even most) backfocusing are due to the lenses. Since your post about a lack of faith in Nikon is based on the backfocusing issues you claim to have happened, than the backfocusing is a central issue... whether you want to discuss it or not. 

Without having all of the facts, and pertinent data... how can we possibly discuss this?

That is like saying HONDA is bad because you got a flat tire on a Honda... but won't tell us what condition the tires were in when it happened,or if you ran over something sharp! How would that be the fault of Honda?


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 18, 2013)

I will just step aside and let others discuss this... since I refuse to comment without needed information. Probably best.....


----------



## MopsterUK (Jan 18, 2013)

Why is it needed information? At what point have I asked to discuss back focusing? to what extent do I talk about back focusing or in anyway my desire to talk about back focusing? Have I gone to any lengths in my post to specifically state that I do not intend, desire, or wish to talk about back focusing?


----------



## 12sndsgood (Jan 18, 2013)

So you have tested a few diffrent lenses and your sure the problem lies with the camera and not the glass itself?


----------



## MopsterUK (Jan 18, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> MopsterUK said:
> 
> 
> > Please read my post fully and properly. I admit many people may make mistakes, or admittance with their post (I do this a lot).However, please reread and take particular care at reading the NB section at the bottom. *You'll understand why I have not mentioned my glass. It is an unnecessary to my post.*
> ...



My lack of faith has clearly been stated as a result of Nikons inability to resolve a problem. The problem so happens to be back focusing. It gives the subject some context. Your analogy isn't really applicable here is it? think about it. Read the post. Read the essence of the post. If you like I can state the essence.


----------



## shefjr (Jan 18, 2013)

I'm guessing another troll.


----------



## MopsterUK (Jan 18, 2013)

12sndsgood said:


> So you have tested a few diffrent lenses and your sure the problem lies with the camera and not the glass itself?



With out going into detail and a needless amount of repeating. The answer is 'YES', I know there is a problem with my camera and not anything else. 

Just to repeat 'I'm not in need of anyone to help me localize or analyse if I have a back focusing problem or not.'

But thank you for your contribution.


----------



## MopsterUK (Jan 18, 2013)

shefjr said:


> I'm guessing another troll.




How so? I've put a lot of effort into my original post. The least someone could do is read it properly before replying. 

In essence the post is about Nikon and their products. The lack of choice for me in moving to full frame. A lack of faith in their abilities to resolve issues. At no point did I post... Could someone please tell me if I have a back issuing problem? In fact in the NB it says please don't post. However, you'll always get people that want to talk about back focusing.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 18, 2013)

MopsterUK said:


> How so? I've put a lot of effort into my original post. The least someone could do is read it properly before replying.
> 
> In essence the post is about Nikon and their products. The lack of choice for me in moving to full frame. A lack of faith in their abilities to resolve issues. At no point did I post... Could someone please tell me if I have a back issuing problem? In fact in the NB it says please don't post. However, you'll always get people that want to talk about back focusing.



But you missed out what lenses you are using, if you have Sigma they are well know for focus problems


----------



## MopsterUK (Jan 18, 2013)

gsgary said:


> MopsterUK said:
> 
> 
> > How so? I've put a lot of effort into my original post. The least someone could do is read it properly before replying.
> ...



lol, this is almost pointless. I also have not stated what lighting conditions I shoot in. Neither have I stated if I use hand held, tripod or shutter release. Furthermore, I haven't stated what apeture or what type of AF systems I'm using with the mystery subjects that I am shooting. All of which are relevant for back focusing. The reason for this is that I'm not trying to discuss if I have a back focusing issue or not. Back focusing is irreverent to this discussion.

Please Read this in conjunction with the OP.



> *N.B. Firstly, I'll just add this here, I don't want this really to turn into a discussion of fanboy vs fanboy from either Canon or Nikon camps. That sort of argument doesn't interest me. Secondly, I'm not looking for anyone to try and search a) if my problem exist or b) recommend ways to resolve my back focusing problems on the d7000.*


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 18, 2013)

"Advice and discussion welcomed."

Seriously?


----------



## MopsterUK (Jan 18, 2013)

JacaRanda said:


> "Advice and discussion welcomed."
> 
> Seriously?



yes 'advice and discussion welcomed' pertaining to the thread. If I said in my original post 'please help me I'm not sure i have a back focusing problem or not' or 'I'm not sure if I have a back focusing problem. What do you guys think?' then yes I can understand the replies. However, that wasn't the case. I'm starting to think that less in my OP would have been more. Yet, I'd still have people asking 'what problem has caused you to lose faith in Nikon?'.


----------



## amolitor (Jan 18, 2013)

I am fascinated.

Can someone explain how a back focusing problem can be the fault of the lens? I am happy to stipulate that it's possible, but I don't see how.


----------



## amolitor (Jan 18, 2013)

It's not actually clear what we ARE supposed to discuss. Not Canon versus Nikon, nor any of the technical details of your problem. What else is there to talk about in your post?

How much it sucks that your camera is misbehaving? How sorry we are for you? That Canon is actually much better at service than Nik.. oops, off limits, and also most likely not even true.


----------



## shefjr (Jan 18, 2013)

amolitor said:


> It's not actually clear what we ARE supposed to discuss. Not Canon versus Nikon, nor any of the technical details of your problem. What else is there to talk about in your post?
> 
> How much it sucks that your camera is misbehaving? How sorry we are for you? That Canon is actually much better at service than Nik.. oops, off limits, and also most likely not even true.



Hence the reason I'm calling Troll.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 18, 2013)

I'm lost.

Seems the OP is saying, "I have a problem with my gear.  I won't tell you what the problem is, but I want everyone to discuss it."


----------



## sam_franklin (Jan 18, 2013)

What you're saying is your problem is to do with Nikon's customer service rather than you wanting to discuss the actual back focussing issue? Fair enough but, people are asking you questions which may help you solve your problem and you're rejecting their help. If you want to discuss Nikon's customer service then feel free to do so, but if people are trying to help you with something extra - let them?! 

</rant>


----------



## 12sndsgood (Jan 18, 2013)

hello, welcome to the internet.


----------



## SCraig (Jan 18, 2013)

480sparky said:


> I'm lost.
> 
> Seems the OP is saying, "I have a problem with my gear.  I won't tell you what the problem is, but I want everyone to discuss it."



Actually I get the impression he doesn't want to discuss anything, only to agree with him on something ambiguous and understood only by him.


----------



## MopsterUK (Jan 18, 2013)

Where to start replying first specifically.

@*amolitor* ​






, yes lenses can be the cause of back focusing problems (as well as front focusing problems). Some cameras allow you to adjust for this if the issues has developed due to a mismatch of between the tolerance of both the lenses and sensors.

@*480sparky**

*, you are correct in soem regards to your statement. I am saying " "I have a problem with my gear. I won't tell you what the problem is". However, I am not saying "but I want everyone to discuss it.".

@*shefjr*, could you explain why you belive this to be trolling? 

Next generally

1) it is possible to discuss both nikon and canon. There is a difference between having a real discussion and batting for the team. So yes feel free to discuss away.

2) I'm not looking for woe is me but a general discussion regarding nikon and their products in terms of reliability and available options for upgrade from the d7000.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 18, 2013)

MopsterUK said:


> A lack of faith in their abilities to resolve issues.


 It's quite possible they can't resolve the issue, because it is user error, and THAT'S what people here were trying to help you with.


----------



## MopsterUK (Jan 18, 2013)

sam_franklin said:


> What you're saying is your problem is to do with Nikon's customer service rather than you wanting to discuss the actual back focussing issue? Fair enough but, people are asking you questions which may help you solve your problem and you're rejecting their help. If you want to discuss Nikon's customer service then feel free to do so, but if people are trying to help you with something extra - let them?!
> 
> </rant>




Thank you. That is correct. I appreciate people wanting to help me with my back focusing issue.. I do... It's just that I do not need help with this.


----------



## amolitor (Jan 18, 2013)

Yes, but HOW can the lens be responsible for back focus issues? I see how the body can be, due to misalignments between the focusing systems and the sensor plane, but that all seems to be in the body.

How does the lens create a back focus problem?


----------



## sam_franklin (Jan 18, 2013)

MopsterUK said:


> Where to start replying first specifically.
> 
> @*amolitor* ​
> 
> ...



Maybe this could've been made clear from the start rather than leaving us all befuddled as to what to talk about.


----------



## TonysTouch (Jan 18, 2013)

Just because it is older technology doesn't mean it isn't better technology. Upgrading to a higher class of camera is eye-opening no matter how old it is. I made the switch from a D5100 to a D300 and it is superb. Somewhere down the line I will add a D700 to the mix.


----------



## MopsterUK (Jan 18, 2013)

This post was meant to quote another person post... it was specifically targeted as a reply to them.

It's nothing personal, but thank you for your insight into my mind.... is that what i'm meant to reply?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 18, 2013)

> What do you good people make of this situation?



You know, the above is the ONLY question you actually asked in the original post.
Perhaps you should ask specific questions that will guide the answers that you seek.

Don't be frustrated, your question is waaaaaay vague.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 18, 2013)

shefjr said:


> I'm guessing another troll.



I don't think the OP is a troll... we have been having PM conversations in the background that sound like the OP really does care. A troll would not bother.. plus the OP sounds educated, and coherent, unlike most trolls. I do suspect that there are some communication issues, possibly cultural or langauge... not sure!


----------



## gsgary (Jan 18, 2013)

Why not get a Sony A99


----------



## MopsterUK (Jan 18, 2013)

sam_franklin said:


> MopsterUK said:
> 
> 
> > Where to start replying first specifically.
> ...




I am sorry, you are correct I should have made that clearer. Sadly I was so focused on trying to provide enough detail of my situation whilst trying to avoid my issue of back focusing that I seemed to of lost being more straight to the point.


----------



## amolitor (Jan 18, 2013)

gsgary said:


> Why not get a Sony A99



And some Pocket Wizards!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 18, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I am fascinated.
> 
> Can someone explain how a back focusing problem can be the fault of the lens? I am happy to stipulate that it's possible, but I don't see how.



Amolitor... if a lens is calibrated to where it focuses 4" behind what the body defines as a focal point.. would not the lens at fault? Or since many third party lenses are backwards engineered to hopefully work with the OEM bodies... they may not be as precise (in focusing) as an OEM lens... do you concede either one of those scenarios is possible?


----------



## TonysTouch (Jan 18, 2013)

So if you still plan on using the D7000 as a backup camera, why WOULDN'T you want some assistance in correcting the focus issues you are having? The people on this forum are really good at preventing others from spending money... Most of the time.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jan 18, 2013)

This thread has WIN splashed all over it


----------



## MopsterUK (Jan 18, 2013)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> > What do you good people make of this situation?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I think I have now learned from this  I should ask more direct questions instead of being vague.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 18, 2013)

gsgary said:


> Why not get a Sony A99



Gary.. that is not nice! lol!  yeechh...


----------



## amolitor (Jan 18, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > I am fascinated.
> ...



Maybe I have this wrong, but it seems to me that the body simply runs the lens this way and that (according, no doubt, to some sophisticated algorithm) until the in-body focusing system says "Yep, that's in-focus", so lens calibration shouldn't matter? 

If the lens is sloppy, and drifts off after the body has declared "IN FOCUS, GO GO GO!" I can see that this could be a problem, ok. Is that the kind of thing you're getting at?

ETA: I am pretty sure that modern cameras DO NOT say "the subject is 4.29 feet away" and then set the lens to whatever the lens claims is "focused at 4.29 feet" I am pretty sure that they focus pretty much like you and me - they adjust until the image is "in focus" where there are a couple of techniques for determining what "in focus" is. I could be wrong on this, however.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 18, 2013)

amolitor said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Why not get a Sony A99
> ...



I am assuming you are aware that PW does not make SONY compatible pocket wizards? Neither does Radio Poppers. You can use the standard non-TTL PW's with Sony.. but only with a cheesy hotshoe adapter. Just FYI!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 18, 2013)

amolitor said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > amolitor said:
> ...



Lenses have to be calibrated also... especially in something as precise as optical focus! If that calibration is off.. watch out!  Please google Sigma Lottery... you will see a lot of Sigma's are famous for this! And on bodies that are precise with other lenses.

Ever sighted in a scope on a rifle, or adjusted the viewfinder on your camera for Sharp Focus for your particular eyes? Same Principle!


----------



## shefjr (Jan 18, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> shefjr said:
> 
> 
> > I'm guessing another troll.
> ...



Then Charlie, I shall digress. :thumbup:


----------



## MopsterUK (Jan 18, 2013)

TonysTouch said:


> Just because it is older technology doesn't mean it isn't better technology. Upgrading to a higher class of camera is eye-opening no matter how old it is. I made the switch from a D5100 to a D300 and it is superb. Somewhere down the line I will add a D700 to the mix.



I really should look more into the D700. In honesty I have overlooked at based on my new over older technology, where applicable, mindset.


----------



## amolitor (Jan 18, 2013)

Thanks, Charlie. "Sigma Lottery" gives me lots of confirmation that it happens, but I'm still not understanding the technical details.

Whatever, it's not important and it's not what the thread's about anyways!


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 18, 2013)

MopsterUK said:


> ..........
> 
> @*480sparky**
> 
> *, you are correct in soem regards to your statement. I am saying " "I have a problem with my gear. I won't tell you what the problem is". However, I am not saying "but I want everyone to discuss it."........



Sorry.



MopsterUK said:


> ....... Advice and  discussion welcomed.*......**.*



I guess the word 'discussion' threw me off.  Pardon me whilst I dig out my dictionary.


----------



## MopsterUK (Jan 18, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Thanks, Charlie. "Sigma Lottery" gives me lots of confirmation that it happens, but I'm still not understanding the technical details.
> 
> Whatever, it's not important and it's not what the thread's about anyways!




It also becomes complicated when you throw in other factors like focus shifting on fast lens. This is also worth looking into if you use wide apertures on fast lenses .


----------



## MopsterUK (Jan 18, 2013)

480sparky said:


> MopsterUK said:
> 
> 
> > ..........
> ...



I don't want to get further into an argument about words used or not used here. I was clear about many things in my OP (which is available for scrutiny) but sadly I was vague and less direct than I should have been about what I would actually like to discuss.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 18, 2013)

OK, let's try this:

Post some sample images you say have the problem.  Preferably, a link to full-size, unedited ones.


----------



## otherprof (Jan 18, 2013)

So, "Tell me the factors of 12, but don't mention 2 or 3 or 4 or 6 or 1 or 12.  This is the same game Thrasymachus tried to pull on Socrates!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 18, 2013)

MopsterUK said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks, Charlie. "Sigma Lottery" gives me lots of confirmation that it happens, but I'm still not understanding the technical details.
> ...



I have all FAST lenses.. and use them wide open sometimes.. without any issues. But I only use them wide open when it is needed or appropriate. Do I take OOF shots.. yes.. occasionally! And it is almost (99.9%) always my fault.


----------



## KmH (Jan 18, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Maybe I have this wrong, but it seems to me that the body simply runs the lens this way and that (according, no doubt, to some sophisticated algorithm) until the in-body focusing system says "Yep, that's in-focus", so lens calibration shouldn't matter?
> 
> If the lens is sloppy, and drifts off after the body has declared "IN FOCUS, GO GO GO!" I can see that this could be a problem, ok. Is that the kind of thing you're getting at?
> 
> ETA: I am pretty sure that modern cameras DO NOT say "the subject is 4.29 feet away" and then set the lens to whatever the lens claims is "focused at 4.29 feet" I am pretty sure that they focus pretty much like you and me - they adjust until the image is "in focus" where there are a couple of techniques for determining what "in focus" is. I could be wrong on this, however.


Some of the auto focus information (distance) the AF module in the camera needs and uses is provide by electronics in the lens.

Focus calibration is best done by sending the lens in with the camera.

If the OP has 3rd party glass, the OP is pretty much SOL.

I also wonder if the OP ever looked at page 246 of the D7000 user's manual.

On a final note. The D7000 is a mass produced consumer electronic product. All mass produced consumer electronic products have some amount of variation. Each manufacturer sets a tolerance range of acceptable variance.


----------



## Overread (Jan 18, 2013)

The op might want to read this LensRentals.com - "This lens is soft" and other myths

Manufacture tolerances can mean that you can have perfectly fine lenses and perfectly fine camera bodies, which when those specific items are combined result in less than perfect results. If you want a fix you have to send both lenses and the cameras into Nikon for correction and calibration with each other. Note that if you own any 3rd party items most big 3rd party companies (sigma, tokina, tamron etc....) will have a similar process to allow you to have your lenses sent with the body for calibration. (I would do Nikon first then any 3rd party as the 3rd party companies will only adjust the lenses - the own brand might make adjustments to the body as well).


----------



## MopsterUK (Jan 18, 2013)

480sparky said:


> OK, let's try this:
> 
> Post some sample images you say have the problem.  Preferably, a link to full-size, unedited ones.



I will not, for the reason that I do not need you to confirm if I have a back focusing problem or not. What does it prove if I do not post any images nothing. It neither confirms or denies your suspicions. However, as proven many times in experiments "anybody that is trying to look for something is most likely going to find it" this is regardless of what is in front of them. This is the reason for why scientist 'try' to stay objectionable.


----------



## MopsterUK (Jan 18, 2013)

Overread said:


> The op might want to read this LensRentals.com - "This lens is soft" and other myths
> 
> Manufacture tolerances can mean that you can have perfectly fine lenses and perfectly fine camera bodies, which when those specific items are combined result in less than perfect results. If you want a fix you have to send both lenses and the cameras into Nikon for correction and calibration with each other. Note that if you own any 3rd party items most big 3rd party companies (sigma, tokina, tamron etc....) will have a similar process to allow you to have your lenses sent with the body for calibration. (I would do Nikon first then any 3rd party as the 3rd party companies will only adjust the lenses - the own brand might make adjustments to the body as well).



Thank you for your post. I am aware of that exact link. It is one I have often recommended to people myself as it's very useful. However, I am aware of where the problem is in my situation. But thank you.


----------



## MopsterUK (Jan 18, 2013)

KmH said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe I have this wrong, but it seems to me that the body simply runs the lens this way and that (according, no doubt, to some sophisticated algorithm) until the in-body focusing system says "Yep, that's in-focus", so lens calibration shouldn't matter?
> ...



Thank you, the manual was a pleasure to read when I first got the camera (actually prior to me even purchasing the camera, as was the d800 manual).


----------



## MopsterUK (Jan 18, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> MopsterUK said:
> 
> 
> > amolitor said:
> ...





I should have been clearer, I mean when trying to discern where the fault is. As there are many factors that come into play where focusing is concerned. When in the stage of  may or may there not be a BF problem focus shifting is and added complication one would prefer not to concern themselves with.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 18, 2013)

OK, folks. Move along.  Nothing to see here.

Nothing else to discuss.

Nothing else to suggest.


----------



## MopsterUK (Jan 18, 2013)

otherprof said:


> So, "Tell me the factors of 12, but don't mention 2 or 3 or 4 or 6 or 1 or 12.  This is the same game Thrasymachus tried to pull on Socrates!




Lol, I can see how this thread may seem like this. I have apologised for my part in this and lack of clarity/directness of my opening post.


----------



## amolitor (Jan 18, 2013)

I suspect strongly that you are NOT going to find that Canon has substantially better customer support than Nikon, or vice versa, for the simple reason that competitive forces are driving them to provide very similar levels of support, build-quality-for-the-dollar, and so on. You probably WILL find niches where one is better than the other (e.g. "Canon's lower end lenses are better in the rain than Nikons" or whatever) where one company has decided to devote a little more money and effort to differentiate.

Overall they're going to be very very similar, however.


----------



## Overread (Jan 18, 2013)

The only other common issue I can think of is comparison of 100% crops which results in a softer view when the newer larger MP sensors are compared to smaller MP sensors and both views are set to 100% (the bigger MP value camera appearing softer because the image is that much bigger because of the increase in MP). That said that problem only relates to "softer lenses" type issues as opposed to a shifted focal plane. 

Sadly if you've already sent lenses and camera body to the people at Nikon then you've only two options:

1) Consider a different service centre

2) Consider that the problem is user related. 

Other than that we really can't offer any advice what so ever beyond that. The only thing you might get is a few others agreeing that there is a manufacture tolerance error with their Nikon gear - but heck I've heard complaints about that from all Camera brands - and once its properly addressed for correction it normally goes away as a problem.


----------



## MopsterUK (Jan 18, 2013)

480sparky said:


> OK, folks. Move along.  Nothing to see here.
> 
> Nothing else to discuss.
> 
> Nothing else to suggest.




Again, I'll state that I do not want (never wanted to) to discuss BF issues. I think the issue had been discussed in other earlier post.


----------



## MopsterUK (Jan 18, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I suspect strongly that you are NOT going to find that Canon has substantially better customer support than Nikon, or vice versa, for the simple reason that competitive forces are driving them to provide very similar levels of support, build-quality-for-the-dollar, and so on. You probably WILL find niches where one is better than the other (e.g. "Canon's lower end lenses are better in the rain than Nikons" or whatever) where one company has decided to devote a little more money and effort to differentiate.
> 
> Overall they're going to be very very similar, however.



I think that is true. I think that my initial experience may be localised to a singular instant rather than something that I should generalise to possible future experiences. No company is exempt from these types of issues. I guess like many people I have based my phobias on a single ongoing experience.


----------



## MopsterUK (Jan 18, 2013)

Overread said:


> The only other common issue I can think of is comparison of 100% crops which results in a softer view when the newer larger MP sensors are compared to smaller MP sensors and both views are set to 100% (the bigger MP value camera appearing softer because the image is that much bigger because of the increase in MP). That said that problem only relates to "softer lenses" type issues as opposed to a shifted focal plane.
> 
> Sadly if you've already sent lenses and camera body to the people at Nikon then you've only two options:
> 
> ...




1) To be honest I did not know I had the option to send to a different service centre. I should look more into this and thank you for the recommendation. 

2) User error.... I did write a sarcastic reply constructed via frustration. I realised you are actually trying to help so I deleted it and placed it with the following.

My first thought was that my problem was due to user error. That was until I exhausted this from being the problem.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 18, 2013)

Overread said:
			
		

> The only other common issue I can think of is comparison of 100% crops which results in a softer view when the newer larger MP sensors are compared to smaller MP sensors and both views are set to 100% (the bigger MP value camera appearing softer because the image is that much bigger because of the increase in MP). That said that problem only relates to "softer lenses" type issues as opposed to a shifted focal plane.
> 
> Sadly if you've already sent lenses and camera body to the people at Nikon then you've only two options:
> 
> ...



I have a feeling that this is what's happening. There are several lenses that, when used on he 36 MP D800 seem very soft and ugly, however when you resize the images to a more conventional size of 12 MP they will appear to be much sharper...


----------



## Overread (Jan 18, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The thing is whilst this could be a possibility, the problem is that it would show as overall softness over the whole frame as opposed to a shifted point of focus. It could still be part of the problem of course and might be a major contributing factor - its also something that I know catches a lot of people out, even experienced photographers.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 18, 2013)

Did you try fine focus adjustment?  Most all of my AF-S lenses need adjusted but my older AF lenses do not. (go figure).  My 18-105 needs a -20 adjustment to be sharp at close distance.


----------



## Geaux (Jan 18, 2013)

I was about to say...you do realize d7000 has a fine adjustment control?


----------



## bart2 (Jan 18, 2013)

Almost wish i didnt become a member|


----------



## MopsterUK (Jan 18, 2013)

greybeard said:


> Did you try fine focus adjustment?  Most all of my AF-S lenses need adjusted but my older AF lenses do not. (go figure).  My 18-105 needs a -20 adjustment to be sharp at close distance.






Geaux said:


> I was about to say...you do realize d7000 has a fine adjustment control?



Yes I am aware of the fine tune adjustment. 



bart2 said:


> Almost wish i didnt become a member|



How come? I hope this conversation hasn't discouraged you? One thing I have taken away from this experience is that this would be a good place to come to if you genuinely needed help. There are some who will give you very good coverage and then there are others who would over reach their own abilities. The one thing they all got in common though is the desire to be successful in helping (or resolving) the issue.


----------



## Tony S (Jan 18, 2013)

No help from me on this, but it has been an intereting read to see all the different directions this has gone. Good thing it's a slow day here at work and this helped me to stay awake.... sort of.

  It always sucks when you don't get the quality of product you want or the satisfaction from the customer service of any company when you have problems.  That's why I don't like Ford trucks.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 18, 2013)

bart2 said:


> Almost wish i didnt become a member|



If I had a "like" for everytime someone said that...


----------



## Overread (Jan 18, 2013)

You'd have a lot less likes that you'd do now


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 18, 2013)

No, they'd "like" be doubled!


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 18, 2013)

OK, I read the entire thread and I'm still not certain what the question really is.
The OP saying that he was vague didn't clear it up.

It's not clear that the OP actually tested his lenses in various situations to locate when, where the OOF stuff occurred.
How specific was the complaint to the service center?

I've had my Nikon bodies in for service to the NY with fine results; some people with difficult problems have had other results.

Some circumstances require a lot of input from the user to guide/help the technicians. 
If the OP did all that and didn't get resolution, then I'd escalate the complaints.
If the OP didn't do the testing to find the circumstances that gave bad results then that would be my next step.
Abandoning the brand because of an unresolved issue is like giving up a Ferrari because it needed constant service.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 18, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> OK, I read the entire thread and I'm still not certain what the question really is.
> The OP saying that he was vague didn't clear it up.
> 
> *It's not clear that the OP actually tested his lenses in various situations to locate when, where the OOF stuff occurred.*.



The OP and I exchanged a number of PM's... and he did state that he felt he was fully capable of testing the backfocus issue to his satisfaction, and that he is thoroughly convinced the fault lies with his D7000. He would not discuss lenses, or anything related to the backfocus since he felt that was not essential to the issue. Past that I will let the OP repond if he chooses to!


----------



## sm4him (Jan 18, 2013)

SIX pages...

Wow.
Just. Wow.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 18, 2013)

sm4him said:


> SIX pages...
> 
> Wow.
> Just. Wow.



Feel better now?


----------



## sm4him (Jan 18, 2013)

Okay, we'll work on your premises. D7000 is not as sharp as your D3100 and it's not user error and it's been sent for repair and now they say it's fixed and you say it's not.  It's frustrated you to the point of losing faith in Nikon.

Do I pretty much have that right? If so, all I can say is:
(EDIT: If I do NOT have it right, don't bother to tell me...I'll be off somewhere, watching paint dry instead...)

Sometimes, you get a lemon. Sometimes, you get bad customer service. Sometimes, those things happen in combination, and repeatedly. I know of NO companies for which this is not true. Therefore, all I can tell you is, "you pay your money and you take your chances."

I'd stick with Nikon, personally. Not likely to get yet another lemon the next time. But there are just no certainties in life or in photography.


----------



## IByte (Jan 18, 2013)

MopsterUK said:


> How so? I've put a lot of effort into my original post. The least someone could do is read it properly before replying.
> 
> In essence the post is about Nikon and their products. The lack of choice for me in moving to full frame. A lack of faith in their abilities to resolve issues. At no point did I post... Could someone please tell me if I have a back issuing problem? In fact in the NB it says please don't post. However, you'll always get people that want to talk about back focusing.



So basically you're venting on the supposed lack of quality an errors you are receiving from Nikon?


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 18, 2013)

IByte said:


> So basically you're venting on the supposed lack of quality an errors you are receiving from Nikon?



At this point, I don't know.  Nor do I care.


----------



## Joves (Jan 18, 2013)

MopsterUK said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > "Advice and discussion welcomed."
> ...



But the problem here is and throught the thread is that you are complaining about Nikons service not fixing a back focusing issue. So now you lost faith in Nikon. 



Bitter Jeweler said:


> MopsterUK said:
> 
> 
> > A lack of faith in their abilities to resolve issues.
> ...


This is what I am thinking. 


MopsterUK said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > OK, let's try this:
> ...



See here someone tries to help and you will not. And on the aspect of the scientist and experiments. Have you done controlled shots using a scale set at a 45° with a zero point and graduations, to actually determine if it is back focusing. Also for the test to be correct you need the camera to be perfectly level with the zero on the center of the lens axis, and for to be square and plumb to get accurate readings. But I am guessing you have not done that. Also that you will not list your lenses shows that you blame Nikons lack of service not fixing a problem that maybe to using third party lenses, which you still will not list, but lets still blame Nikon. It is like you want an agreement and pity fest.




MopsterUK said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > The op might want to read this LensRentals.com - "This lens is soft" and other myths
> ...



Well all good and fine that you point people to this. But no you are not aware apparently. You just seem to want us to think oh evil Nikon did not take care of me so they are the bad. Well I am sorry but maybe it is you who are the problem. If you are disillusioned with Nikon get rid of it and buy a Canon.


----------



## BrianV (Jan 18, 2013)

MopsterUK said:


> Please read my post fully and properly. I admit many people may make mistakes, or admittance with their post (I do this a lot).However, please reread and take particular care at reading the NB section at the bottom. You'll understand why I have not mentioned my glass. It is an unnecessary to my post.




Switch to a Canon. List your gear in the classified. You could try a Leica. You will not have autofocus problems.


----------



## Geaux (Jan 18, 2013)

I still wanna see the soft exampes.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 18, 2013)

I'm guessing another BOT.. since this was stolen from Post #9!


----------



## coastalconn (Jan 18, 2013)

Interesting thread


----------



## xyphoto (Jan 18, 2013)

Ok, just read six pages of discussions on the iPhone. Big headache now. Better go to sleep. I only suggestion is that if you suspect the fault is at the camera, then sell it and get a new one. It's really your choice. Disappointment is not going to fix the issue.


----------



## KmH (Jan 19, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> I'm guessing another BOT.. since this was stolen from Post #9!


*Then don't quote it and help the spammer spam.*


----------



## MopsterUK (Jan 19, 2013)

I'll try to respond to everyone but I am sorry if I've missed anyone out.






The_Traveler said:


> OK, I read the entire thread and I'm still not certain what the question really is.
> The OP saying that he was vague didn't clear it up.
> 
> 
> It's not clear that the OP actually tested his lenses in various situations to locate when, where the OOF stuff occurred..




The question I made is a vague question, it is open to interpretation and selection on what to actually discuss. The context of the discussion initially was intended to be spawned from, whilst pertaining, to my situation but not specifically about my situation, or limited to it. 


I have learned from my mistake. I should have been less vague and asked more direct questions. Although I'm not sure I would have got the type of debate I'd have wanted if I asked more direct questions. On the other hand, I don't believe I'm getting the debate I intended by being less direct.


You are correct in that it is not clear from the post if I have tested my lenses in various situations etc. I can clear that matter up by stating the following. As cgipson1 has said, I am satisfied with the level of diagnosis and analysis that has been done. I am satisfied to the point that I do not wish to discuss if my camera has back focusing or not.


I hope this clears up the matter




sm4him said:


> Okay, we'll work on your premises. D7000 is not as sharp as your D3100 and it's not user error and it's been sent for repair and now they say it's fixed and you say it's not. It's frustrated you to the point of losing faith in Nikon.
> 
> 
> Do I pretty much have that right? If so, all I can say is:
> ...




@sm4him, you pretty much have it right in your post. Your post outlined one aspect that is able to be derived from what I posted. However, I want to state that there is a lot more scope in my original post that is available for discussion (this ties in with the reply I've made above)


I agree that sometimes you get a bad lemon, in this instance it appears that I am in this category. Although I accept that premises, I do believe that any company have a legal and moral duty to act with honour to avoid (or remedy) selling a lemon. I am not saying that Nikon is not acting honourably at this point. I'm aware that my reaction may seem like a "knee jerk reaction" and that I may be "throwing the baby out with the bath water". However, the notion of moving to another Nikon body or obtaining another d7000 is something also open for discussion. The thought of moving to a Canon would essentially be addressing only one of my issues that I have right now; the lack of foreseeable options in the full frame market for a d7000 owner to upgrade to. I'll state that what I'm saying here is not proposed as matter of fact but matter of opinion (which is also why my leading question was less direct as closed ended questions often leads to closed ended replies). 




IByte said:


> So basically you're venting on the supposed lack of quality an errors you are receiving from Nikon?




I'll keep this reply concise, nope.




Joves said:


> But the problem here is and throught the thread is that you are complaining about Nikons service not fixing a back focusing issue. So now you lost faith in Nikon.




The problem here is that this thread has taken on its on development into discussing back focus. I've stated in the title a loss of faith in Nikon products. What would be more accurate is if I said it less definitive by adding 'at this time'. 




Joves said:


> This is what I am thinking.




You have stated here your analysis and conclusion. What is this based on feeling or evidence? The following quote elaborates some flaws in your logic. I will need your help in telling me if I've got the idea of what you are trying to say.




Joves said:


> See here someone tries to help and you will not. And on the aspect of the scientist and experiments. Have you done controlled shots using a scale set at a 45° with a zero point and graduations, to actually determine if it is back focusing. Also for the test to be correct you need the camera to be perfectly level with the zero on the center of the lens axis, and for to be square and plumb to get accurate readings. But I am guessing you have not done that. Also that you will not list your lenses shows that you blame Nikons lack of service not fixing a problem that maybe to using third party lenses, which you still will not list, but lets still blame Nikon. It is like you want an agreement and pity fest




If you read this back you can see that you have you a) made assumptions on what I have or have not done. There is no evidenced just 'guesswork'. b) You've taken a lack of divulged evidence as a form of substantial 'anti evidence'. The correct interpretation is that a lack of evidence is just that 'a lack of evidence'. 


I get the gist here that you are stating that I am refusing help on a back focusing issue. This aspect is true. I am refusing help of this kind as it is not required, desired, or needed. I also get the impression from what you are saying that I have hatred towards Nikon (or some other emotional relevant fuelled word). This is not the case. I am weary of purchasing from Nikons current crop which is a natural human reaction to have. I'm not asking (and never did) for people to agree with me (in fact, I've never stated anything worthy of needing agreement or disagreement <I would have to double check that though>) or for pity. 




Joves said:


> Well all good and fine that you point people to this. But no you are not aware apparently. You just seem to want us to think oh evil Nikon did not take care of me so they are the bad. Well I am sorry but maybe it is you who are the problem. If you are disillusioned with Nikon get rid of it and buy a Canon.




I should have tied this to your above quote. I feel like replying to this last section is repeating what I've already mentioned above to you. At no point have I represented Nikon as 'evil'. Lets get things in perspective. I've said I've had problems with a Nikon product I haven't said Nikon kill babies. 


You've stated I may be the problem. I am aware of that fact and went to great lengths to assess if this was the case. At no point have I said focusing cannot be a user error. As much as I can conceive that a user can be the error it seems unfathomable for some to conceive that a camera (or specifically for some 'a Nikon') body could be at fault. Some people until this thread couldn't conceive that the lens could be at fault in focusing issues.


Your final point was more a statement to evoke emotional responses 'If you are disillusioned with Nikon get rid of it and buy a Canon'. I'm just going to highlight that rather than dignify it with a response. 






BrianV said:


> Switch to a Canon. List your gear in the classified. You could try a Leica. You will not have autofocus problems.




I will refer you to elements of the above reply.




Geaux said:


> I still wanna see the soft exampes.




It is easy to obtain many examples of soft focusing through any search engine such as Google.




xyphoto said:


> Ok, just read six pages of discussions on the iPhone. Big headache now. Better go to sleep. I only suggestion is that if you suspect the fault is at the camera, then sell it and get a new one. It's really your choice. Disappointment is not going to fix the issue.




Sadly I don't think I could sell the camera in good conscious knowing that I'm effectively selling someone a lemon. I would be extorting someone elses naivety. The prospect of buying another one, as you mentioned, is worth considering. I know that it is unlikely I would get another camera in the same situation (especially if I switched retailer).


----------



## SCraig (Jan 19, 2013)

IByte said:


> So basically you're venting on the supposed lack of quality an errors you are receiving from Nikon?





MopsterUK said:


> I'll keep this reply concise, nope.



All I can say is that if you have been as secretive and confusing with Nikon in trying to get your camera repaired I'm not at all surprised that the results were not what you wanted.  Telling someone that your camera is back-focusing but then refusing to explain how you came to that conclusion and refusing to provide empirical evidence that it actually is back-focusing is not a good way to get help.  I've come to the same conclusion that I expect Nikon came to due to the lack of any evidence to the contrary:  User error pure and simple.

I'm finished with this thread.  It's an utter waste of time.


----------



## molested_cow (Jan 19, 2013)

Hey hey I will tell you what you want to know. Go ahead and jump ship. We don't need this thread to begin with.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 19, 2013)

I would look into a used Minolta d-slr. Very cool "old-school" ergonomics, quite different from other companies' products.


----------



## BrianV (Jan 19, 2013)

No need to reply to everyone. Sounds more like a farewell speech to the world of Nikon. Should have started it with 

"Three-Score and Seven years ago, Nikon emerged from the ashes to create a new vision in photography...Today their service department threatens the focus of that vision..."

I've used Nikon's repair service for one camera that was under warranty. The problem was with the autofocus of a Lite-Touch zoom. The autofocus was off, and two trips to Nikon did not correct it. Prints from test rolls accompanied the camera. As their repairs did not work, their test procedures are inadequate. This is where buying a camera from a "Brick-and"mortar" shop that will assist in getting the problem corrected is important. It is also where the "lemon" laws are important. The last Nikon camera that I bought new was a Rangefinder, an S3-2000 that cost as much as a D800. No problems, but if there were- I have the factory service manual and just adjust the focus mechanism myself. If you buy a Nikon rangefinder, I have the Nikon SP Service manual in PDF format.


----------



## colnago1331 (Jan 19, 2013)

I can't believe I'm wading into this mess, but what the hell.....

You titled your thread "Lack of faith in NIKON *products*!" (emphasis added), however your initial post indicates that your problem is not with Nikon products but rather with the "poor after care to resolve the problem."



MopsterUK said:


> Since owning my D7000 I noticed that images were not as sharp as images with my d3100. However, as every now and then I'd get a good shot I just initially assumed it was the user behind the camera rather than the camera itself. As I grew more and more concerned I started reading up on focusing and running several test. I noticed much beloved d7000 was back focusing. I braced myself for the worse as I sent it back to Nikon for repair. it came back with a suggested recognition and fix to my problem. However, the problem was not fixed. On returning the camera to Nikon for further repair I got a response saying unable to recreate the problem. However, I know it exist.
> 
> This situation left me with a lack of faith in the current stock of Nikon bodies out there and with future releases. I accept any camera can have a problem but *it's the issue of poor after care to resolve the problem*.




(Emphasis added). This, of course, would imply that your issue is with Nikon's customer service and not necessarily the product itself, especially since you recognize that "any camera can have a problem. . . ."

At the same time, you discuss back focusing issues you're having with your D7000 and, for whatever reason, you refuse to provide information requested as to the lenses you are using and the "testing" that you have done to ensure that this was not user error. And that's fine - if you're convinced that you've narrowed the issue down to the D7000 itself and not either (a) lens issues or (b) user error then, to some degree, we must, in responding to your post, take this as fact.

Later, you write this:




MopsterUK said:


> 2) I'm not looking for woe is me but a *general discussion regarding nikon and their products in terms of reliability and available options for upgrade from the d7000*.



(Emphasis added).

In an effort to respond, sm4him wrote:



sm4him said:


> Okay, we'll work on your premises. D7000 is not as sharp as your D3100 and it's not user error and it's been sent for repair and now they say it's fixed and you say it's not. It's frustrated you to the point of losing faith in Nikon.
> 
> 
> Do I pretty much have that right? If so, all I can say is:
> ...



In response, you wrote:



MopsterUK said:


> @sm4him, you pretty much have it right in your post. Your post outlined one aspect that is able to be derived from what I posted. However, I want to state that *there is a lot more scope in my original post that is available for discussion* (this ties in with the reply I've made above).



(Emphasis added). The problem is, there's not more scope in your original post that is available for discussion because you've shut down most of the other discussion, which pertains to possible _causes of_ or _solutions to_ your back focus issues. As you've admitted, your original post was vague in terms of your actual question(s) for discussion. In fact, it was somewhat contradictory, because, as I noted above, while your title sets forth that you have an issue with Nikon _products_ your original post expressed a dismay with the "after care". Notwithstanding this, you later ask, more clearly and directly, for a discussion regarding "[N]ikon and their products in terms of reliability and available options for upgrade from the d7000".

So I guess there are only two ways to go from here. One - the mods could lock this thread because, quite frankly, it's so vague and confusing and has gone so far off any reasonable course that it is, in no way, informative or conducive to producing the kind of discussion that this site is used to. Or two - you could actually clarify what it is you want to discuss. Not to toot my own horn, but I'm a smart guy. I've got a bachelor's degree in rhetoric and writing and a law degree. I practice law (litigation to be exact) and I do a lot of reading, writing and analysis and I'm very good at what I do. And, quite frankly, after reviewing this entire thread I still don't know what you want the topic or topics of discussion to be.


----------



## invisible (Jan 19, 2013)

Very interesting thread. Sounds to me that your camera is crap. Such a burden. I'll be more than happy to take this weight off of your shoulders for a song.


----------



## MopsterUK (Jan 19, 2013)

SCraig said:


> All I can say is that if you have been as secretive and confusing with Nikon in trying to get your camera repaired I'm not at all surprised that the results were not what you wanted. Telling someone that your camera is back-focusing but then refusing to explain how you came to that conclusion and refusing to provide empirical evidence that it actually is back-focusing is not a good way to get help.


 
If I have been 'secretive and confusing with Nikon in trying to get my camera repaired' then I would fully expect to get nothing but poor service in reply. Seeing as that wouldn't benefit me then it would seem most peculiar for me to take that course of action, would it not?



SCraig said:


> I've come to the same conclusion that I expect Nikon came to due to the lack of any evidence to the contrary: User error pure and simple.


 
Essentially, you have based this on your feelings. I'll explain (again and hopefully for the last time) as to why I will not provide you any evidence. I'll use the Honda flat tyre analogy that was mentioned in an early post.

Lets say you are in America and I'm in the UK and you want to help me with my problem remotely. Lets say that my Honda has a flat tyre. I know it's flat because I can clearly see it's flat. All evidence suggests its flat. Evidence I can verify as I can see this. What if this flat tyre was during a journey and I had to keep the tyre on there in order to get back and as a result it was worn away the integrity of the tyre wall. Lets say I can go one step further and say I know the cause to why it's flat; a big nail that is protruding the tyre wall.

In this scenario I am in a situation that I have a problem, I know why I have the problem and I know how to get it resolved. In this case, I need to have the tyre replaced as a repair of the puncture is no good. This is all able to be assessed without a third party intervening to diagnose my problem remotely.

Therefore, how would sending you evidence of my flat tyre change the current situation of my flat tyre? Who would it benefit by sending you evidence of my flat tyre? The only person it benefits is you and your curiosity.

This is similar to my situation. As I am confident that I have a back focusing problem that is a result of the Nikon body then it serves no purpose for me to try and persuade you otherwise.

-------------------------------------------------


@colnago1331, I'm happy that you did wade into this mess. In particular I have liked your reply as it brought the thread into some logical alignment. I want to address the issues of contradictions that you raised. I think I understand why it may be viewed as a contradiction.
 You stated the following:



colnago1331 said:


> You titled your thread "Lack of faith in NIKON products!" (emphasis added), however your initial post indicates that your problem is not with Nikon products but rather with the "poor after care to resolve the problem."


 


colnago1331 said:


> (Emphasis added). This, of course, would imply that your issue is with Nikon's customer service and not necessarily the product itself, especially since you recognize that "any camera can have a problem. . . ."


 


colnago1331 said:


> In fact, it was somewhat contradictory, because, as I noted above, while your title sets forth that you have an issue with Nikon products your original post expressed a dismay with the "after care".


 
I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that here you are conceptualising both the experience with the 'Nikon product' and with the 'Nikon customer service' as mutually exclusive (or to some degree). I do not hold this conception. Had I not had a problem with the product I would have no need to talk to the customer service regarding said problem. Therefore, if I buy into any Nikon product I am also buying into their customer service.



colnago1331 said:


> At the same time, you discuss back focusing issues you're having with your D7000 and, for whatever reason, you refuse to provide information requested as to the lenses you are using and the "testing" that you have done to ensure that this was not user error. And that's fine - if you're convinced that you've narrowed the issue down to the D7000 itself and not either (a) lens issues or (b) user error then, to some degree, we must, in responding to your post, take this as fact.


 
This is a logical premise to work from. I do not understand why people have taken a contrary stance to this logical principal. In general, many responses have come from the position 'this must be a matter of opinion rather than fact' without having any evidence to support either way. In conclusion, people only have my word which they can choose to invest in or not.

You responded to this quote



MopsterUK said:


> However, I want to state that there is a lot more scope in my original post that is available for discussion.


 
I will state that I was wrong here in adding the words 'a lot'.  Although, I concede that there is not a vast amount more scope to be discussed I do not concede that there is no more scope to be discussed from my original post.  I shall explain further what I mean by this in reference to your following post:



colnago1331 said:


> The problem is, there's not more scope in your original post that is available for discussion because you've shut down most of the other discussion, which pertains to possible causes of or solutions to your back focus issues. As you've admitted, your original post was vague in terms of your actual question(s) for discussion. In fact, it was somewhat contradictory, because, as I noted above, while your title sets forth that you have an issue with Nikon products your original post expressed a dismay with the "after care". Notwithstanding this, you later ask, more clearly and directly, for a discussion regarding "[N]ikon and their products in terms of reliability and available options for upgrade from the d7000".


 
In my original post I talked about more than just 'Nikon customer services' and 'back focusing'.




MopsterUK said:


> As I said I wanted a second body. What is the point of getting a second body if I feel I may be in a similar position. My ideas on upgrading to a Nikon full frame is also now feeling shabby. The d800 is too much for what I want. The d600 is two similar to the d7000 to warrant my interest (IMO). The d700, well I've not looked to much into it but essentially I'd like to move forward with technology. So I feel that there is no full frame Nikon that is suitable for my needs/deserve at the moment.
> 
> I'm now at a point where I'm considering jumping ship to cannon and going with a full frame option there. This isn't the ideal thing as I'd prefer to stay with Nikon as I've invested time and money into my hobby with Nikon. Additionally, from what I've used (albeit brief) I wasn't overtly found of the ergonomics of Canon.
> 
> ...


 
There are different discourse themes that can be derived from this. The first two paragraphs here provide scope for other themes to have been developed; i.e. if I was upgrading I might get this, I like the use of old technology more than the newer technology, If I had an issue of some kind with my Nikon product Id stay with Nikon as x and y make a logical reason for me to , I think Nikons future crop of cameras will be worth holding out for. I think there were only a few people that addressed anything other than back focusing (whilst staying relevant to the thread). People have said they do not know what to be discussing as it wasnt prescribed to them in the form of discrete questions. However, the back focusing was one thing that I did prescribe not to discuss, yet it was the only topic that people wanted to discuss. I ended up making a suggestion postulated in a form of a question as I realised (as you mentioned '...the kind of discussion that this site is used to). As I stated, Ive learned that this forum may not be a good place for general discussion; instead more direct discussion based on a prescription of what should/needed to be discussed. Therefore, I have failed to utilise the forum in its most beneficial way. People could have chosen what sort of voice this thread had. They could have chosen to discuss other aspects from my post.



colnago1331 said:


> So I guess there are only two ways to go from here. One - the mods could lock this thread because, quite frankly, it's so vague and confusing and has gone so far off any reasonable course that it is, in no way, informative or conducive to producing the kind of discussion that this site is used to. Or two - you could actually clarify what it is you want to discuss. Not to toot my own horn, but I'm a smart guy. I've got a bachelor's degree in rhetoric and writing and a law degree. I practice law (litigation to be exact) and I do a lot of reading, writing and analysis and I'm very good at what I do. And, quite frankly, after reviewing this entire thread I still don't know what you want the topic or topics of discussion to be.


 

I agree with the sentiment of this paragraph. This thread has almost turned into a game of "can you guess what the question is" or "$10, I bet he's wrong and it is user error". It serves no real informative value (accept maybe an insight into those who participated and a lesson on assumptions). I feel this thread only serves as a form of entertainment, not for all but some.


----------



## Overread (Jan 19, 2013)

It seems that we are going in circles without any clear resolution - in light of this I think its time to draw this to a close and to move on from this matter. I hope the OP has luck in resolving his problem.


----------

