NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: Erik Lund on May 25, 2016, 10:48:24
-
Chris had some bad luck and posted some images of his D810 with the mount ripped off by a drop to the street with the 300PF attached.
To my big surprise the mount and mirror-box area of the D810 is made from plastic!
And It has an impact on how to handle the camera especially with larger/heavier lenses.
Don't put any stress on this mount!
The difference is huge IMHO, you can see it clearly in the linked images on DPR that Bjørnthun posted.
Here is a thread from dpreview with another damaged D810.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55639396
It seems there is some "plastic" in the construction, and that the D810 may have changed from the D800.
On the D800 the magnesium body shell goes all the way under the mount and stabilises and stiffen that area completely and most of all, the screws that hold the mount has something to bite into a solid metal casting, on the D810 the four screws barely stays put in the plastic, when I unscrewed them they where as loose as expected from self tapping screws seated into plastic, no wonder the camera is so cheap,,,
Nikon statement about the D810:
The Nikon D810 is surprisingly lightweight, yet highly rugged and durable. A body made of magnesium alloy and a stringently tested weather and dust sealing helps to protect your investment against the elements when shooting on location. It’s tough in construction, yet subtle in nuance. In every way, the D810 is designed to surprise — and delight.
-
A camera at this price point should certainly be more solid. Thank you for sharing your insights
-
Treat these new cameras as eggs in a basket - with utmost attention to avoid knocks and bumps. That probably extends to the D500 as well.
No wonder they have been equipped with "AF Fine-Tune" ....
-
I'm not sure how the D500 is build but it's easy to check; Unscrew one screw from the mount and take a look, if it's the coarse threads it's self tapping type for plastic - a close up image of it 1:1 should do it,,,
This is the first time I have bought a Nikon camera and become disappointed with the build quality!
I'm quite happy I didn't let go of the 5.2 Kg of 6mm 2.8 while handling it on the D810,,, not too often that is,,,, Sends shivers down my spine to think of it,,,
-
That probably extends to the D500 as well.
The D500 feels much harder than the D600, but haptic response can be misleading ... Did someone evaluate the D500 already???
-
I learned about the internal plastics of the Df the "hard way" when I crashed my first body. Just awaiting for a D500 user to do the same ...
-
Manuals for Nikon lenses heavier than about 2kg do have warnings that the lens must always be supported (from the lens) and not lifted from the body, e.g. the 200-500/5.6 and 200/2 manuals have such warnings.
-
Seems like Nikon and Sony made similar mistakes with their last gen cameras from 2013 / 2014, the original a7 was plagued by plastic mounts as well, not sure if its just cost cutting or an ill attempt to make lighter cameras (probably both).
Sony corrected their mistakes with the a7S (strengthened mount for cinema lenses) and properly redesigned the second generation of the a7 series, perhaps Nikon did the same with their current gen offerings like the D500? Everything else on the D500 bodies screams pro use with big lenses, I would be amazed if Nikon cut corners on materials.
Attached the metal construction of a7RII btw, seems OK to me but maybe the engineering experts can tell me whats wrong ;D
-
Yes that is correct Illka! And should be followed at all times!
However there is a huge difference in strength and overall durability over time between the to types of Body shell designs and that makes handling of the camera an issue even for instance a 70-200mm 2.8 AFS on the D810 - I would really take care!
-
Breaking news: D500 is also plastic mount. Just checked per Erik's suggestion.
Surprised: no, not really.
Disappointed: yes, definitively.
-
In the case of the D810, the changes may be in order to attenuate vibrations since this has been one of the areas of focus in the update.
-
Thanks for checking Bjørn.
Ilkka - This has nothing to do with vibrations IMHO - just cost down and weight.
-
Lets give Nikon the benefit of the doubt, in general they do tend to know what they are doing. The D500 heavy price point doesn't sound like cost cutting to me but making the best DX camera out there.
What other positive attributes would a plastic construction have besides weight and maybe better vibration characteristics?
Is it perhaps less prone to temperature changes delivering better alignment of the internal parts?
-
I continue to carry the 200-500 on the collar. Tail waiving the dog. Thank you again
-
Jan Anne the is no vibration aspect in this except to the advantage of the magnesium casting.
Plastic have their force in the outer shell of the camera and outer lens barrels where it can absorb impacts, not as an internal chassis
-
So....who's brave enough to check his D5?
-
Upon impact, plastic has the ability to return to its original shape (to within limits) whereas metal, once it is bent, it stays bent.
My experience with the D810 has been very positive, it doesn't have any of the strange AF effects of the D800 that I had. The D810 shows much less colour and distance variability of autofocus error than the D800 which was a nightmare in that respect. E.g. the 105 DC autofocuses very nicely with a fixed -12 to -13 fine tune setting on my D810, whereas it required -20 at infinity and about 0 at close-up distances with the D800, which made its use extremely impractical. Now (with the D810) it works much like any lens, except the skin is so beautiful. I have noticed similar (but less severe) effects with other fast primes (e.g. 85/1.4 AF-S) and so the move to D810 was a delight for me. I also like many other aspects of the camera which have been improved.
I've noticed no AF shift over almost two years (and 60000 frames) of use with the D810; the original fine tune settings that I made after purchase still stand (and they're much smaller than what I needed with the D800). It is also quieter and better shaped for my hands, and the viewfinder shows better contrast in sunny conditions which I'm very happy about as well. The large buffer has also made it practical to use it, e.g., for catwalks, processions and sports without the buffer running out even in hectic shooting.
However, I haven't dropped the D810 so I don't have any data regarding its ability to withstand impacts. I did drop my D800 with 24-70 attached; the AF went haywire a bit which JAS fixed for free. The fact that I haven't noticed any shift in required AF fine tune values in the D810 over time is encouraging however, and I have thought that I should have bought two of those instead of getting the D750 as a second body. The D750 is nice as a small body goes but it's just too small and the grip is too narrow and deep for my fingers. Both the D810 and D750 have been problem free for me. One of the differences that I noticed is that the "focus confirmation dot" on the D810 is quite precise and is possible to use for fine tuning the AF (focus using live view, then turn AF off and go into OVF viewing, go through AF fine tune settings in the menu and check the range of fine tune settings which show the dot, then take a middle value as the new fine tune setting - works without taking a single picture) whereas with the D750 the range of fine tune settings where the focus confirmation dot is seen is too wide to get useful information for fine tuning with many lenses. So with the D750 I'm forced to take test shots to arrive at usable fine tuning values. With the D810 the mean of optimal fine tune settings has been close to zero (I think it's +1 or +2) whereas with the D750 it is around +7. I know these are just one user's findings on one sample of each camera but to me everything that I've seen about the D810 echoes that it is more precisely made than other cameras that I've used, especially regarding the AF. However, once fine tuned the D750's AF has worked well for me and I have no functional complaints about that camera. It's just a bit too small for me to feel comfortable holding and using it. Also I prefer the motor driven, quieter mirror of the D810. I guess the D750 is excellent for backpacking because it takes less space and is lighter than the D810. So there is no one camera which is best for everything and each have their own merits.
Hopefully they will soon make a D810 successor with Multi-CAM 20k; the extended area of cross type point coverage would help me a great deal as I shoot a lot of verticals of people with the focus on the face at the top of the frame, where there are only linear points in the Multi-CAM 3500 cameras. The D5 upon first contact seemed to handle focusing in this area of the frame (far edges of the long dimension of the frame) much better ... but it's a little too rich for me, given that I rarely use CH, preferring manually timed exposures almost always.
I trust Nikon to make whatever improvements they can to improve the camera's impact resistance and long term stability. This is important for AF in a high resolution camera. The D810 has been good to me in that respect but it can be improved I am sure.
-
D5 is all magnesium,,, 8)
-
D5 is all magnesium,,, 8)
Thank .... Nikon
-
Thank .... Nikon
Well, they accept a modest contribution (7000€) in payment for that magnesium body. . :o ;)
If a lot of people buy it, they'll make more like it, and perhaps are able to reduce the price.
-
There is nothing magic about magnesium/aluminium alloy construction vs polycarbonate. The ultimate tensile strength, which is mainly what determines survival of an impact on a flat surface, of magnesium/aluminium is about three times greater than polycarbonate, but polycarbonate is about one third less dense (1.2 g/cm3 vs 1.81), so that parts made of polycarbonate and magnesium/aluminium will have (roughly) the same ultimate tensile strength if the polycarbonate version is somewhat heavier and bulkier.
On the other hand, polycarbonate is much more resistant to penetration (which is why they make "bullet-proof" windows out of it, eg), so it will tolerate a fall onto a protrusion better than magnesium/aluminium.
Young's modulus ("stiffness") is much higher for magnesium/aluminium (42Gpa vs 2.6), so the metal chassis feels much more "solid", but that does not affect impact resistance. The much higher Young's modulus does mean that the metal chassis will damp vibration much better.
Polycarbonate also has the advantage of good electrical and thermal insulation, which simplifies construction.
-
I agree, but; For plastic parts in the mount area - In practise what happens is that a couple of the screws get ripped out of the plastic chassis and the screws opposite breaks the plastic. Or they all get ripped out like on Bjørns Df
See the image of Chris camera and many like it on DPR,,,
On a magnesium chassis there are twice as many threads since it's 'machine screws' not coarse self tapping, so they stay inside the magnesium! And the lens get ripped apart.
It's the Young modulus helping the magnesium!
Re the insulation, they actually have to insert two conductors to have contact between the electronics and the mount so a cost-up!
-
According to Nikon engineers, the monocoque construction can connect the mirror box and the sensor more solidly, which will prevent the mirror box from being deformed when a certain amount of stress is applied through the lens mount.
Even though the metal is more solid against the rip-off, the camera will be unusable anyway when mirror box is deformed and the sensor or the mount is misaligned.
-
the D810 is designed to surprise
I hope my D810 doesn't give me those kind of surprises. :o
-
According to Nikon engineers, the monocoque construction can connect the mirror box and the sensor more solidly, which will prevent the mirror box from being deformed when a certain amount of stress is applied through the lens mount.
Even though the metal is more solid against the rip-off, the camera will be unusable anyway when mirror box is deformed and the sensor or the mount is misaligned.
Good points Akira, with a strengthened mirror box to sensor attachment maybe the lens mount is designed to break to prevent too much damage to the sensor unit?
-
The lens mount of some lenses such as the 24-70 is indeed designed to split into two when the impact is strong enough. This makes it possible to do field repairs on them, for example in the pause between first and second half of a football ('soccer') match.
-
Akira, Marketing,,,
-
There is nothing about the price of either the D810 or the D500 that says "cheap", particularly given the fact that digital system camera models are renewed every second year or so. If this is a cost cutting meassure, it can only help Nikon's margins? Perhaps, or not?
I didn't expect to see "plastic" mount happening with high end Nikons. A D810 is after all 3x the price of a first gen. Sony A7 in Norway right now. Such a price differential will give rise to different customer expectations.
I didn't see this coming. :o
-
Good points Akira, with a strengthened mirror box to sensor attachment maybe the lens mount is designed to break to prevent too much damage to the sensor unit?
Whenever the mirror box is damaged in any way (the rip-off of the mount, deformed mirror box or whatever), the camera would not function properly anymore. So, the difficulty or the cost of the repair may not make that big difference.
Akira, Marketing,,,
Well, such interviews to the engineers are parts of the marketing anyway, but some of the technical explanations make sense to me.
-
The A7 is cheap because it is an old model and doesn't sell.
The A7R II is the "real deal" (the Sony which is in high demand) and costs several hundred dollars more than the D810.
I know I'm generalizing a bit but from discussions with Sony users, many of the early problems were solved in the A7RII. I can't deal with the EVF but perhaps the majority of users (which I'm not) don't take it so seriously. The EVF is a huge distraction for me because of artifacts (e.g jaggies) that are seen when turning the camera following a moving subject. But others have stated they like the VF.
I don't think the D810 construction is a problem in normal use and if dropped, any camera is likely to require repair.
-
The price difference between the D810 and a Sony A7R II is 5%, so for all practical purposes same price in Norway. 5% amounts to about 175 USD, i.e. quite a bit less than "several houndred dollars". Considering that the original first gen Sony A7 is full frame, it's one heck of a deal right now, if you can live with some "plastic" parts. Full frame doesn't get cheaper than this right now. Btw. I don't think sales figures for individual camera models are publicised.
I, as already known, much prefer EVFs, but that is not the subject up for discussion, rather build quality is. The first generation A7 uses plastic parts and is cheap, so you get what you expect. The expensive A7R II uses a metall construction and you again get what you expect. If I had liked OVFs, the D810 would look like a great camera for me, and for the price I would expect it to have a metal construction, particularly the supporting structure around the lens mount. I really thought that the D810 was just an update to D800 electronics + fixing the bottom frame structure.
Sony surprised me by seriously enhancing the build quality of the second generation A7 models, though they still have a way to go regarding the user interface. I did not expect to see Nikon change the build quality the other way around going from metal to "plastic".
If Nikon releases a mirrorless FX format camera in the future, better build quality than Sony would be a key factor for luring me away from Sony.
-
I found lensrentals.com teardown of the 24mp, second generation Sony A7II, which cost half the price of the Sony A7RII or Nikon D810. This is what they write about the lens mount: "The mount is now directly screwed into the magnesium frame of the camera with no plastic spacers, all metal to metal, with just the metal lock spring in between the mount and camera frame."
Here is the link, https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/02/the-a7ii-teardown-a-look-inside-sonys-new-camera/
-
The price difference at B&H Photo-Video is currently about $400. It is the largest camera store in the world and widely regarded as the reference for prices and service. At verkkokauppa.com, a large Finnish online store, it is 500€. Of course, the prices may be different in other places.
-
The A7 is cheap because it is an old model and doesn't sell.
The A7R II is the "real deal" (the Sony which is in high demand) and costs several hundred dollars more than the D810.
I know I'm generalizing a bit but from discussions with Sony users, many of the early problems were solved in the A7RII. I can't deal with the EVF but perhaps the majority of users (which I'm not) don't take it so seriously. The EVF is a huge distraction for me because of artifacts (e.g jaggies) that are seen when turning the camera following a moving subject. But others have stated they like the VF.
I don't think the D810 construction is a problem in normal use and if dropped, any camera is likely to require repair.
Over the years, I have learned that the first generation of Sony's new product line should be avoided. There will be fatal problems along with the exciting features. They will solve many of these problems in the 2nd generation or later.
-
Would Bjorn or Erik care to comment on which part could end up being more expensive to repair if an accident did happen:
- A broken lens mount in the camera, due to the use of plastic? or
- A broken lens, as a result of the camera's mount being strong enough not to break under impact?
Once we get beyond 70-200mm F2.8 or the 300mm P, the value of some of the bigger/heavier telephotos exceeds that of many camera bodies. But what about the most common types of repair costs when a catastrophic fall happens & damage occurs?
-
Any damage to the camera is likely to be much more costly to repair. For pro lenses such as the 24-70 and its ilk, the repair facilities have stockpiled replacements. The lenses with a designated 'breakage' zone is a 20 min job to bring back to life. I have witnessed this process myself a couple of times.
-
You raise a very valid point. IMHO the camera should be able to take a beating without needing repair beyond a new mount from time to time and re-calibrations. So far this has been the case for my gear.
The solution with the break away rear lens part is an reasonable economical solution.
-
Of the many cameras used by me over the years, the robust Nikon F2 Titan and the humble D40X have survived most impacts inflicted to them. Thus plastic in itself might not be the problem, rather the way the material is arranged in the construction.
I must admit having seen the ease with which my first Df demolished itself has left me being [a little] more cautious in the handling of the gear. Just a little.
Pro lenses breaking into halves along the designated break line has occurred several times and apart from any personal pride being hurt, my ribs tend to have taken the beating more adversely than the lenses. After a quick fix at my local Nikon repair facility they have been revived and function as before the incident. Waiting for my body to heal its broken bones takes much longer :D
-
I went over the topic. Can we say that Nikon's statement with regard to the D810 magnesium alloy body is a LIE?
-
No. There is metal in the body.
-
Nikon says that it's a magnesium body and it is,,, no direct lie there, just omitting the mirror box design choice...
Usually Nikon post an image of the Body shell design - So far I have not seen any of the D810,,,
-
Nikon says that it's a magnesium body and it is,,, no direct lie there, just omitting the mirror box design choice...
Usually Nikon post an image of the Body shell design - So far I have not seen any of the D810,,,
I agree, my quest for D810 body frames has also been unsuccessful. I have noting against synthetic plastic materials - sometimes they are more noble than some metal alloys - just that I do not like lies by omission, and emphasizing at the same time "magnesium alloy", even if the result, in the end, is better.
-
I found a picture of the complete mirror box. The price on Aliexpress is US $325.
-
[...] Thus plastic in itself might not be the problem, rather the way the material is arranged in the construction.
You have to have realistic expectations about how severe an impact a camera can be expected to survive. A camera is a box with very fragile contents (not all that different from a human head, and we know a lot about head injuries that we can apply to cameras). A 2kg camera+lens dropped from 1.5 m - lens changing height - hits the ground at 20 kph and with a kinetic energy of 30N - like dropping a 10kg weight on the camera from a third of a meter. Your brain will not survive that fall uninjured, and it is just not realistic to think that a digital camera could be designed to reliably survive it unscathed.
To the extent that construction makes a difference, it is a common mistake, for both the brain and the camera, to suppose that the contents are better protected if the container is stronger and more rigid. On the contrary: the contents are better protected if the container deforms so as to absorb some of the impact. When a camera or a human head comes to an abrupt stop the kinetic energy has to go somewhere, and if it is not dissipated deforming the container it is dissipated on the contents rattling around inside. If protecting the contents from impact is the issue, polycarbonate is a much better choice for the camera shell than metal - small children suffer much less severe brain injuries from falls because their skulls are flexible.
-
Les, what you are saying makes sense completely and I am all for flexible materials taking care of our camera bodies.
I cannot help myself but asking a simple question: Why is the D5 all metal then? If as you say: "polycarbonate is a much better choice for the camera shell than metal."
-
You have to have realistic expectations about how severe an impact a camera can be expected to survive. A camera is a box with very fragile contents (not all that different from a human head, and we know a lot about head injuries that we can apply to cameras). A 2kg camera+lens dropped from 1.5 m - lens changing height - hits the ground at 20 kph and with a kinetic energy of 30N - like dropping a 10kg weight on the camera from a third of a meter. Your brain will not survive that fall uninjured, and it is just not realistic to think that a digital camera could be designed to reliably survive it unscathed.
To the extent that construction makes a difference, it is a common mistake, for both the brain and the camera, to suppose that the contents are better protected if the container is stronger and more rigid. On the contrary: the contents are better protected if the container deforms so as to absorb some of the impact. When a camera or a human head comes to an abrupt stop the kinetic energy has to go somewhere, and if it is not dissipated deforming the container it is dissipated on the contents rattling around inside. If protecting the contents from impact is the issue, polycarbonate is a much better choice for the camera shell than metal - small children suffer much less severe brain injuries from falls because their skulls are flexible.
I remember a presentation by one local photographer who is very experienced with drones. Experienced in his case means that he has had dozens of crashes. Even falling from 10m or more or hitting a pole at 50km/h, the Sony A7R aluminium body was most of the time only slightly dented, but the sensor was almost always shattered because of the large accelerations involved. Also LCD displays, the lens mount, etc. were in very bad shape.
It is not clear what makes more sense -- to save the body but shatter the innards or to save the innards and totally deform the body.
Anyway, big falls are likely not part of the equation. For big drops you better have a good insurance since the repair will always be quite expensive.
-
Les, what you are saying makes sense completely and I am all for flexible materials taking care of our camera bodies.
I cannot help myself but asking a simple question: Why is the D5 all metal then? If as you say: "polycarbonate is a much better choice for the camera shell than metal."
I think this is for the better shielding against the electro-magnetic interference. Nikon high-end cameras are used by Japan Self-Defence Fources, and have to function flawlessly even on the Aegis ships in which the storm of the electro magnetic interference is a big problem for any digital equipments.
Nikon D-single-digit cameras are also used in the space like in ISS. The strong shielding should be prerequisite for such environment, too.
-
I was referring to 'normal use' for me that is; A Pro body with flash and a 28-70mm, 70-200mm or 24-70mm 2.8 AFS - Hitting a door way with camera and or lens, slinging the camera over the shoulder, bumping into people, putting down the camera and lens hard onto a table, letting the camera bag drop to the floor from low height, leaving the camera bag with gear in the rear of the car and driving like I stole the car :)
These things a 'normal' magnesium camera shell body can survive, mine has done since 1990; F4, F5, D1, D1X, D2x, D3, D3X,,, except the old plastic flash shoes where ripped off the SB28 Speedlight's a couple of times,,,
Dropping something from 1 meter onto the floor is not what I call 'normal use'
-
Akira, correct - these 'shields' are also several places inside the magnesium bodies ;)
-
I imagine the D5 and D810 material choices reflect the priorities made in their design.
D5 requirements and priorities
+ high fps rate (the main and submirror must move quickly between frames and settle in their final position as quickly as possible, so that the AF system has good data to work with in the short time between frames in a high fps sequence); this probably is reflected in how the mirror box is constructed and the materials used
- moderate resolution (vibration minimization is important but not to the extent as with the D810; this is not to say the D5 doesn't achieve it)
+ high environmental resistance and ruggedness (not necessarily towards actual drops but smaller bumps, extreme temperatures, extreme humidity) in my experience at least the D3/D3X achieve the environmental resistance better than D700/D800/D810
D810 requirements and priorities
+ highest image quality
- no requirement for high speed, so mirror speed of movement and settling time may not be as critical
+ quietness
+ minimized vibrations during exposure
+ compactness and light weight
+ good ruggedness as long as other priorities are not compromised
Material choices should reflect the different requirements of the different cameras.
-
Dropping something from 1 meter onto the floor is not what I call 'normal use'
I agree completely. A camera should be able to withstand small bumps as you describe, but not a drop on a hard surface from waist level or higher. Insurance is for such cases.
What I like about the single digit bodies is they feel firm in hand, there is no vertical grip mounting knob to keep tightening, the buttons and dials are in optimal positions for both vertical and horizontal use, and the camera just keeps working even in extreme cold and high humidity, the battery lasts forever etc.
-
I was referring to 'normal use' for me that is; A Pro body with flash and a 28-70mm, 70-200mm or 24-70mm 2.8 AFS - Hitting a door way with camera and or lens, slinging the camera over the shoulder, bumping into people, putting down the camera and lens hard onto a table, letting the camera bag drop to the floor from low height, leaving the camera bag with gear in the rear of the car and driving like I stole the car :)
These things a 'normal' magnesium camera shell body can survive, mine has done since 1990; F4, F5, D1, D1X, D2x, D3, D3X,,, except the old plastic flash shoes where ripped off the SB28 Speedlight's a couple of times,,,
Dropping something from 1 meter onto the floor is not what I call 'normal use'
Erik, a small correction...F4 was the only Nikon 1-digit body with the plastic outer shell...
-
True there was plastic bottom and prism for the outer shell on the F4 - but for sure the whole chassis was magnesium!
I think you misunderstand, I actually see the benefit of a outer shell in plastic and rubber to protect the inner magnesium chassis the lenses work really well with that design as well!
What I'm trying to say is that it is super important the lens stays on the camera no matter what happens, more or less, otherwise you will have to switch to the back up camera, not always easy for a PJ, event type shooting situation where your running around,,,
I was shooting the F4E,,, BTW A true picture machine - I don't think I ever had a bad image with that camera,,,
What could be a way to use plastic in a safe way for the case of the D810 design, could be if they changed the screw design: Beef up the design with a larger diameter screw, double the diameter to 5mm or something, so the screws really could connect the F-mount to the mirror-box - A slight change to the screw holes in the mount would be needed nothing else,,,
It looks like they ignored this and just used same size as for magnesium, just like they do on the plastic lenses,,, It is the initial rip out of the first screw that cascades into a total failure,,,,
-
F4 Chassis,,, and sample of 'normal use' of Nikon camera ;)
-
On the contrary: the contents are better protected if the container deforms so as to absorb some of the impact. When a camera or a human head comes to an abrupt stop the kinetic energy has to go somewhere, and if it is not dissipated deforming the container it is dissipated on the contents rattling around inside. If protecting the contents from impact is the issue, polycarbonate is a much better choice for the camera shell than metal - small children suffer much less severe brain injuries from falls because their skulls are flexible.
That's actually the reason why binoculars meant for use in tough conditions are armoured, for instance those used by the military. There's nothing quite like a thickish rubber or foam armour when it comes to protecting the optics from impacts. However, such armour adds to the weight. In some cases it can be as much as 20% of the weight.
Hermann
-
Perhaps I have merely been lucky, but I often pick up my camera and lens (500 f4) merely by the camera grip. This is with the camera pointing down, and on "plastic" bodies (D7000, D610, D750). So far it has not caused me any problems.
I am not sure how else to alter the focus point selection when shooting hand-held with this lens?
-
True there was plastic bottom and prism for the outer shell on the F4 - but for sure the whole chassis was magnesium!
I think you misunderstand, I actually see the benefit of a outer shell in plastic and rubber to protect the inner magnesium chassis the lenses work really well with that design as well!
What I'm trying to say is that it is super important the lens stays on the camera no matter what happens, more or less, otherwise you will have to switch to the back up camera, not always easy for a PJ, event type shooting situation where your running around,,,
I was shooting the F4E,,, BTW A true picture machine - I don't think I ever had a bad image with that camera,,,
What could be a way to use plastic in a safe way for the case of the D810 design, could be if they changed the screw design: Beef up the design with a larger diameter screw, double the diameter to 5mm or something, so the screws really could connect the F-mount to the mirror-box - A slight change to the screw holes in the mount would be needed nothing else,,,
It looks like they ignored this and just used same size as for magnesium, just like they do on the plastic lenses,,, It is the initial rip out of the first screw that cascades into a total failure,,,,
I didn't mean the plastic outer shell is bad. Rather, I prefer it. The plastic can absorb the shock better than magnesium, which will contribute to protect the camera. I prefer plastic lens hoods to the metal ones for the same reason. Also, plastic won't get as cold as the metal under lower temperature, which will contribute to the user comfort. Even in Tokyo, the cold camera body in winter is uncomfortable.
Perhaps the Achilles heel of F4 would be the shutter unit which is the only one in a single-digit body that didn't boast 150k actuation.
F4 Chassis,,, and sample of 'normal use' of Nikon camera ;)
Oh, I didn't know you were the model for the early logo of Jamiroquai...
-
Perhaps I have merely been lucky, but I often pick up my camera and lens (500 f4) merely by the camera grip. This is with the camera pointing down, and on "plastic" bodies (D7000, D610, D750). So far it has not caused me any problems.
Well, I don't know what to say. :o
I am not sure how else to alter the focus point selection when shooting hand-held with this lens?
You could hang the lens strap (not the camera strap) around your neck and let the weight rest on the strap. Then make the adjustment to focus settings. Alternatively, you can put the lens on the ground so that the lens hood contacts the ground. Finally there is a custom setting which changes the way the button+dial controls work, allowing one to first press the button with one hand and without holding it down, rotate the dial, finally press the button again to end the setting.
-
I didn't mean the plastic outer shell is bad. Rather, I prefer it. The plastic can absorb the shock better than magnesium, which will contribute to protect the camera. I prefer plastic lens hoods to the metal ones for the same reason. Also, plastic won't get as cold as the metal under lower temperature, which will contribute to the user comfort. Even in Tokyo, the cold camera body in winter is uncomfortable.
Perhaps the Achilles heel of F4 would be the shutter unit which is the only one in a single-digit body that didn't boast 150k actuation.
Oh, I didn't know you were the model for the early logo of Jamiroquai...
Erik just tries to combine our Scandinavian Viking heritage with digital photography... :)
-
Breaking news: D500 is also plastic mount. Just checked per Erik's suggestion.
Surprised: no, not really.
Disappointed: yes, definitively.
Can you cite your references?
-
Erik just tries to combine our Scandinavian Viking heritage with digital photography... :)
I'm sure that Erik is "the" person to be the head of the Nikon Torture Test Committee (NTTC). 8)
-
I don't like the sound of the "Breaking News" when it has to do with the possible breaking of the plastic parts in key areas of our camera bodies. LOL. ;D
-
I don't like the sound of the "Breaking News" when it has to do with the possible breaking of the plastic parts in key areas of our camera badies. LOL. ;D
That is a cracker!
-
You could hang the lens strap (not the camera strap) around your neck and let the weight rest on the strap. Then make the adjustment to focus settings. Alternatively, you can put the lens on the ground so that the lens hood contacts the ground. Finally there is a custom setting which changes the way the button+dial controls work, allowing one to first press the button with one hand and without holding it down, rotate the dial, finally press the button again to end the setting.
If you have ever tried walking-and-stalking birds in African thornveld, you would appreciate that none of these methods are practical. Apart from the strap, they simply take too long. I wish I could re-program one of the right-hand-side buttons to take over this role.
As for the strap, it is in the way 90% of the time. Certainly this combination is too heavy to carry slung for extended periods. Thus you would have to sling and un-sling continuously, landing right back at the point where it just takes too long.
-
Can you cite your references?
All it takes is to unscrew one screw, please see posts earlier,,, Bjørn just did that.
There is no risk at all - if you want to check your own camera ;)
Akira et all - Thanks! ;)
-
To add to what Erik just stated: no risk as you only need to unscrew a little to make the screw threads visible, not remove the entire screw. I selected the mount screw on the lower left as it is less likely to be stressed. Use a suitable JIS driver. The threads are definitively 'coarse' indicative of a design for going into plastics not metal. Do remember not to overthighten the mount screw when you are finished with the inspection.
Anyone doubting my observation feel free to open a camera mount screw on your own D500. The outcome will be identical.
-
Perhaps I have merely been lucky, but I often pick up my camera and lens (500 f4) merely by the camera grip. This is with the camera pointing down, and on "plastic" bodies (D7000, D610, D750). So far it has not caused me any problems.
I am not sure how else to alter the focus point selection when shooting hand-held with this lens?
the static load of 3kg is probably not enough to rip the screws out. Damage is much more likely to occur in dynamic situations where you are swinging the camera and lens around. An initial weakening due to dynamic load could then lead to a failure when the lens is hanging down, which would be catastrophic for the lens because it would fall down from considerable height, depending on the hardness of the ground. The camera is comparatively cheap.
This sort of fast shooting where it's apparently impossible to set the lens down to change settings or to use a monopod is inherently risky. You have to be prepared for some losses.
-
If you unscrew all of the mount screws please note one is different than the rest!
-
I think there is a confusion between "plastic" and thermoplastic.
From what I have read what you're seeing is a carbon fiber composite, not unlike what is used on Formula 1 race cars and is stronger than steel. Nikon has already said the D500 is stronger and more durable than the magnesium D300 with the new carbon fiber composite (on the D500).
-
What's interesting is that the D810 is such a great camera, DP Review just did a review on it, 2 weeks ago, and 2 years after it was first released:
DPReview of the D810 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d810)
- "THE FINAL WORD
The Nikon D810 is now nearly two years old, and yet its core technologies still challenge many cameras today, and Raw image quality is unmatched. We still haven't seen another full-frame camera capable of a true base ISO of 64, which gives the D810 medium format levels of clean, noise-free images with comparable dynamic range to boot."
and also ...
- So however frustrating the D810's faults are on occasion, they don't detract from the incredible performance of the camera as a total package. This review has taken a long time to complete, but it's testament to the camera that even after two years, the D810 remains a benchmark in many respects for other models in its class. As such, the D810 earns our coveted Gold award.
So while anyone can nitpick a camera to death (and I have my own ergonomic issues with the D810), it still is a truly great camera today, 2 years after it was released, which really puts into perspective what a game-changer the D810 was when it was first released.
Jack
-
It's their first review of it, not second.
-
So while anyone can nitpick a camera to death (and I have my own ergonomic issues with the D810), it still is a truly great camera today, 2 years after it was released, which really puts into perspective what a game-changer the D810 was when it was first released.
Jack
I believe the D800 and especially the D800E were the real game changers.
-
I believe the D800 and especially the D800E were the real game changers.
From my perspective the D800(E) is kind of an alpha test prototype whereas the D810 is the final, working camera that one can rely on. But it depends on what one does with it.
-
I believe the D800 and especially the D800E were the real game changers.
I understand what you're saying, but I agree with what Ilkka Nissilä said.
According the the recent DPReview, "The D810 isn't a camera that you should necessarily sell your D800 or D800E for, but it's a better camera than both older models in almost every respect."
-
I think there is a confusion between "plastic" and thermoplastic.
From what I have read what you're seeing is a carbon fiber composite, not unlike what is used on Formula 1 race cars and is stronger than steel. Nikon has already said the D500 is stronger and more durable than the magnesium D300 with the new carbon fiber composite (on the D500).
What I know is that these newer camera are - literally - killed by impacts that older cameras survived. In such a context, the assertion "stronger than steel" becomes relatively meaningless.
My Df after not that extreme drop (50 cm): mount screws ripped out, mirrorbox destroyed.
-
As I posted in an other thread; my D810 + TC 1.4x and 300PF after a drop of about 60 cm.
Same kind of damage as with Bjørn's Df.
-
The cracks look like brittle cracks. The material probably was chosen for stiffness but seems to have too little toughness. It is not the carbon reinforced material used for F1 chassis, it is some kind of mouldable material.
-
What I know is that these newer camera are - literally - killed by impacts that older cameras survived. In such a context, the assertion "stronger than steel" becomes relatively meaningless.
My Df after not that extreme drop (50 cm): mount screws ripped out, mirrorbox destroyed.
Bjørn, how was the lens? Did it survive?
The shutter responce of D800/800E is the same as that of D-1-digit bodies, whereas D810 belongs to the same league as D600/610/750/7x00. Nikon designer sacrificed the response to slower the mirror movement to dampen the shock.
-
My 300 PF apparently survived well. It focuses correctly whether AF or MF, VR is operational, and sharpness seems fine. No detectable decentering.
-
My 300 PF apparently survived well. It focuses correctly whether AF or MF, VR is operational, and sharpness seems fine. No detectable decentering.
Thanks, so the construction apparently saved the lens, while all-metal construction might have worked differently.
-
... at the expense of a totally wrecked camera.
-
... at the expense of a totally wrecked camera.
Well, yes. But if the lens were an expensive super-tele, a wrecked camera would be less worse.
-
A wrecked camera can't be used with the lenses still safely stored in your bag. Then a pro must rely on a backup camera and so on, which the pro on assignment hopefully has got available?
-
Have any of you heard of technology used on ships - sacrificial anodes? This is a piece of zinc bolted to the hull to preferentially corrode instead of a more important part, such as a propellor shaft. Since corrosion is going to happen regardless, better to make it happen to something less important.
I have some engineering background and think it is a good design approach to provide for a relatively cheap and easily accessed camera part to break in case of accident, thus protecting more expensive and difficult to access parts.
If you want to use a 100% metal camera, try a Kiev 60.
-
The great fun with lenses is every time you get home and can see the images you got with them.
-
I think a compromise here is best.
While I would not consider a lens something to be caressed like a baby, there is no creative or other benefit from treating it like rubbish, either. I totally understand that when working in the field day in and day out, for long periods of time, eventually accidents happen, it is unavoidable given the way humans are. However by applying a little addtional care when storing and transporting gear, unnecessary wear is avoided. I and my coworkers have built some optics instrumentation for our research over the course of many years and some of it is quite fragile and arguably it has become irreplaceable. We sometimes transport the equipment in a van between cities. Having built it and adjusted it (and repaired it many times with great effort) it has taught us to treat it with respect.
If one is well enough off that one can replace it without a second thought, one can easily forget the work that was needed to make it in the first place. I mean this with no disrespect. I think field work can be extremely demanding and strenuous and I've dropped equiment when I've been tired.
-
I did not get the same reading of John Korner's posts i.e. being "rude or impolite", but, even in this very civilized forum, there are some subjects you better avoid ... So, in the eventuality a post emerges about red Peugeots, I will refrain from any participation 😎
-
My D810 is fine and i do indeed carry the camera at the lens base when any lens longer than 50mm is attached (size wise). My D2h dropped off the table once (approx. 90 cm), because somehow the camera strap hooked into someone's arm and pulled it off the table. Lens (24 F/2.8 AIS) damaged filter ring, camera totally unharmed. I had the camera for one whole day at that point.
I learned from this, but sincerely hope my D810 doesn't follow this same path.
-
A wrecked camera can't be used with the lenses still safely stored in your bag. Then a pro must rely on a backup camera and so on, which the pro on assignment hopefully has got available?
I'd be inclined to think a busted camera is the less worse option here.
How many photographers go out on a mission with a backup lens?
The general consensus is that a backup(or two) cameras is a requirement for pro use.
If this is the case, then a busted lens is disastrous by way of comparison .. what good to have a backup camera available if there is no lens to use it with.
So, using such rationale, a plastic mount isn't such a dealbreaker .. and in fact is probably the better and 'safer bet'
That is, if you're out in the field(and I literally mean field ... remote location with no access to lens repairing facilities!) and there is the possibility that you could damage your gear the chances that you have backup lenses is small to none. You may have multiple lenses, but they will all be different and hence inappropriate for the intended purpose.
But! .... you will almost certainly have backup camera .. maybe we all don't, but many of us do.
Also, if the only real advantage to the plastics use in the mount is for cost reduction, then a simple $1 addition of a series of captive nuts on a metal retaining ring on the rear side of the plastic mount could easily strengthen this plastic mount design.
The way I see it is that the plastic mount design in itself isn't the issue ... the use of cheap self tapping screws is(into plastic).
As has been said a few times already, the issue is that once a force that is sufficient to break one screw has been reached there is a cascading effect and the mount will break.
The use of captive nuts on a metal ring on the rear side of the plastic mount should alleviate this ...
Are Nikon really so pressed for cost cutting that they can't even employ an engineer that could have thought of that!
-
Arthur King 83: I did not mean backup lenses, rather I meant a selection of lenses like a wide angle, normal a tele and say zoom of some kind. Sorry if my post wasn't clear on that. For example a wrecked wide angle but ok camera would let you use your other lenses, if you had only brought that one camera.
-
Having a gear kit with the maximum redundancy within the assignment and trip constraints is a must. Thus never travel on important shoots with just a single camera. If your plans involve long lenses, having one long in combination with a shorter + TCs is advantageous. (for example, 200/2 + TC1.4X, 300/2.8 or f/4). And so on. Weight limits are a practical issue that needs to be factored in, in particular when air travel is involved.
Planning ahead is the key. If your computer dies on the trip and files cannot be processed en route, add a stack of memory cards so cards needn't be recirculated. And so on.
The comments above relate to any camera system, not just the D810 of course.
-
Ok, lets look at it in this manner:
A broken lens is a broken lens and .. while you can (sort of) do something to mitigate the situation, it's much more difficult to keep pace with.
So in the example I wanted to use, a typical situation of a pro at a wedding/party/whatever .. will have two cameras, and two lenses attached to each camera body.
Lets say that one of those cameras is bumped or falls and there is a high chance of breakage.
Lets use 2 situations:
1/. the camera mount is fragile and most likely to break, hopefully saving the lens. Lens can be used on a spare body still back in the camera bag.
(also could still be used with the other body on the other lens, but the swapping out of lenses would be a hindrance .. hence the two cameras two lenses)
2/. camera mount in this situation is strong and so the designed in breakage point of the lens is sheared and renders that lens unusable on the day.
Problem is you don't know which lens will break! is it the 24-70 or the 70-200 .. so the pro tog here needs two copies of each lens to prevent situation two from ruining the days shoot.
With the camera as the single common point here, it's easier and more prudent to have backup copies of that piece of equipment .. and backups for the backup if needed.
The point being that this is the common piece of equipment that ties the shoot together.
of course there is always the issue of a lens simply dying of it's own accord in some other manner .. but this is not the point of the thread.
There are limits as to ensuring against lens issues and redundancy for them .. but the limits for redundancy on camera bodies is far more flexible .. both in terms of space and weight .. and financial too.
Nothing wrong with backing up a pair of D810's with say two (old)D800's ... or three of four (even older)D700's.
But maintaining backups, or some form or redundancy for the two Nikon zooms (for a pro in the above situation) .. is more costly
-
Also, if the only real advantage to the plastics use in the mount is for cost reduction, then a simple $1 addition of a series of captive nuts on a metal retaining ring on the rear side of the plastic mount could easily strengthen this plastic mount design.
The way I see it is that the plastic mount design in itself isn't the issue ... the use of cheap self tapping screws is(into plastic).
As has been said a few times already, the issue is that once a force that is sufficient to break one screw has been reached there is a cascading effect and the mount will break.
The use of captive nuts on a metal ring on the rear side of the plastic mount should alleviate this ...
Yes, but ... Polycarbonate is not an intrinsically cheap material - the bulk price is similar to that of magnesium/aluminium. Polycarbonate is only cheap to use in large scale manufacturing because its process costs are low. It is liquid at moderate temperatures (only about 150 C IIRC) so it can be easily injection molded, it can be drilled, cut and bent cold, like metal (most plastics are brittle at room temperature and break or shatter if you try to work them). Although polycarbonate is very strong it has low surface hardness, ie, it scratches easily - as anyone with a polycarbonate suitcase knows. That is another reason it is easy to work with - self-tapping screws go in with little force, eg - but it also means that screws can't be put in very tight and repeated stress quickly causes loosening.
Adding a metal reinforcing ring would fix that problem, but the ring would have to be placed and bolted on and that additional manufacturing step would remove at least some of the cost advantage of polycarbonate, as well as some of the weight advantage.
-
Ideally nothing breaks and what gear one brings is entirely dependent upon the requirements of the assignment. However, in reality accidents might happen and the emphasis then shifts to risk assessment and damage mitigation instead. Whether the better plan is additional camera(s), or extra lens(es) more or less overlapping in range or functionality, or both; will vary and only the photographer can make the final decision in this regard. Perhaps this aspect is moot due to the lack of availability of additional gear anyway. A "minimum" kit comprising 2 cameras and at least 2 lenses will allow *some* residual functionality even were a camera or lens to malfunction.
In practice the concerns outlined above rarely or never are manifested and only when a crisis emerges, one faces the consequence of whether or not having considered alternatives prior to the shoot. Any 'pro' photographer ought to have contemplated such risks in advance. The is a vast difference between returning with (sub)optimal images, or none at all. A client is not interested in what went wrong - she or he wants results.
-
Ideally nothing breaks and what gear one brings is entirely dependent upon the requirements of the assignment. However, in reality accidents might happen and the emphasis then shifts to risk assessment and damage mitigation instead. Whether the better plan is additional camera(s), or extra lens(es) more or less overlapping in range or functionality, or both; will vary and only the photographer can make the final decision in this regard. Perhaps this aspect is moot due to the lack of availability of additional gear anyway. A "minimum" kit comprising 2 cameras and at least 2 lenses will allow *some* residual functionality even were a camera or lens to malfunction.
In practice the concerns outlined above rarely or never are manifested and only when a crisis emerges, one faces the consequence of whether or not having considered alternatives prior to the shoot. Any 'pro' photographer ought to have contemplated such risks in advance. The is a vast difference between returning with (sub)optimal images, or none at all. A client is not interested in what went wrong - she or he wants results.
Totally agree with the above statement.
An amateur can, and in some case as I experienced, will have much better equipment then a pro (me in my case), and at times may be able to shoot (some) pictures that are 'better' then what the hired pro was able to shoot from the same subject/event.
But the difference indeed is that a pro will always/is always expected to come with successful/quality pictures, whereas an amateur can just play along, bang his chest if his pictures are 'as good' as the pro's, but does not have to take any responsibility if they're not (usually with the excuse 'but I'm not a pro' or 'but he has better equipment') and just fade away.
And yes, that translates in the pro always having to take extra equipment along, just in case of failure, or of something unexpected popping up for which he might just need that one special camera, lens, or whatever he has somewhere in the back of his closet.
When I go out for eg shooting sport (pretty rare nowdays fortunately) I have my 7 fps (that's about the fastest rate I use) D3 as a first pick, but also take along a D800 with grip, which in DX mode allows 6 fps)
For a shoot which requires high res files, I take along 2 D800's, and for a high ISO job my first choice is my DF, with a D800 (I know 'only' ISO 6400) as back up.
Similar with the lenses, all of which in the end results in having to 'schlepp along' a big bag of equipment, most of which often enough (fortunately) is left unpacked without any use at the end of the day. But if something does break down, big sigh of relief that you can simply reach in that bag, and continue as if 'nothing has happened'.
That's what clients are paying a pro for, and if something that nowadays is too easily forgotten when they hire a ' I started photography two years ago and have a DSLR and a big lens' low price 'photographer' http://emgn.com/entertainment/amateur-photographer-turns-late-takes-selfies-ruins-couples-wedding-day/
-
Paul, I entirely agree with your analysis. This also the reason that I'm a happy amateur photographer 😄
-
Well, this is disheartening. When I was trying out the Zeiss 135/2 I was concerned a bit over the weight on the mount, but my 55 Otus, though heavy, hasn't concerned me as much. While I believe most of us will never have any problems, it sure seems as if Nikon quality has taken a step back.
-
.
-
An article in American Photographer magazine told of a top wedding photographer in N.Y., N.Y. who carried two Hasselblad 500cm(s) and (2) two of each lens he used. Rather interestingly he had all of his lenses set with set screws to a focus distance of 7 feet (2.1m). The focused with his feet.
I used to shoot PR. I carried two Nikon F2(s), an 80-200/4.5 and about four prime lenses. The only malfunction I've had on an assignment was extreme drag on film advance with an F2. The camera was fairly new but tested. The problem was Ilford film cassettes where slightly taller than Kodak cassettes. I scraped the long end of the Ilford cassette on the curb and deburred it with my thumbnail. I heard my customer says to someone, "Does he know what he's doing?" :) He loved the photos from that shoot or I never would have worked for him again. I took the camera to Mel-Perce Camera in Hollywood. They checked it with a well worn Kodak cassette and said there was nothing wrong. I noticed the base plate with slightly depressed at the O/C key and did the repair myself. I'm quite certain this was a manufacturing defect. I've never shot a paying gig again without two cameras since.
I haven't shot for higher for 25 years. My main business was photo processing.
Dave
-
With all these revelations on current Nikon manufacturing processes, are there any bodies in production where the lens mount is attached to metal? How about past models?
-
The D5. A PDF brochure can be downloaded from Nikon USA's D5 product page and in it, on p. 17 in the PDF, or p. 32 as the page numbers in the document are marked there is an image of the metal chassis.
-
Equipment is over rated.
Ask Bez about his wedding shoot!!!
Reliability cannot be over rated. Backup backup backup.
The story about the ruined wedding is telling.
Thank you Paul.
-
The D5. A PDF brochure can be downloaded from Nikon USA's D5 product page and in it, on p. 17 in the PDF, or p. 32 as the page numbers in the document are marked there is an image of the metal chassis.
http://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/e/Q5NM96RZZo-YRYNeYvAi9beHK4x3L-8go_p7JUL6JpQMwSj_xzTyyQ==/PDF/D5_Brochure.pdf
Page 21...