hans98ko wrote:
Coincidentally, I do and have viewed the report on it's air crash investigation pointing to skin structural failures ripping a big hole out of the aircraft thus causing it's crash. If I recall correctly, it started from the edge of a window frame due to metal fatigue very similar to what we are seeing here on the D800.
Also Coincidentally I had flew on one of them in the early 60s by British Airways.
Yep, repeated pressurisation of the fuselage caused metal fatigue at the corners of the square windows, and the aircraft fell apart in flight. Blimey, flying on one is something, given the subsequent history. I assume you read how they discovered the fault? They built a huge tank enclosing a fuselage, and repeatedly filled it with water, then emptied it, creating external pressure changes, until it ruptured.
Yes, now you mentioned it I do recall how they did it including sealing all gaps and openings with sealant to prevent water entry.
Nice knowing you Leif, one who is interested in photography as well as history of aircrafts and their engineering aspects.
Hans
hans98ko wrote:
Maybe I should have clarify a little better what I meant when I said big and heavy lenses. It is not restricted to just the 400mm, 500mm, 600mm, 800mm or the 1200-1700mm, those are monsters that never should have use the tripod mount on the camera at all. What I meant are lenses starting at around 800-900 grams like the 14-24mm, 24-70mm, 28-70mm, 70-200mm, 200mm and 300mm. These are some of the most common lenses that most people own and used, and also more likely that they hung them by the tripod mount or move around on a tripod or monopod. ...Show more →
I would hypothesize that the 14-24 is fine, as is the 24-70: not because of weight, but because of length. In my own "layman" tests, it's clear that the force on the frame from the 14-24 is quite small in comparison to the 70-200.
I'd also back up my "layman's perspective" by stating: if I'm using a Nikkor lens on a Nikon body, and the lens is not provided with a separate foot / strap mount, then I have every reasonable expectation that it's safe to use the lens attached to the body, and attach the body via the tripod mount.
Where I think people get in trouble, again, is attaching a lens like the 70-200 - quite long, nice leverage - and neglecting to use the foot.
I think my earlier example in this thread is valid as well: if I pack a body with such a lens attached, and I don't provide adequate support for both the lens and the body, it's conceivable that the bag could suddenly decelerate, shift position, and enough force would be applied to the frame to cause a crack: while leaving no mark whatsoever on the external body.
I was pointed to this thread from another forum after I complained that the base of my camera is not tight and the camera wobbles a bit when mounted on a tripod.
I opened the base and after seeing the tiny structure that it attaches to I just closed it up
After reading this I'll reopen the camera and check if it has the fracture
My camera has not been pampered and sure has more signs on the base that will indicate sever mishandling according to replies I read here from nikon service
In my opinion I caused the problem by carrying the camera/lens/tripod with the camera mounted on the tripod, or after the camera/tripod fell on rocky ground, or when I carry the camera / tripod by holding the camera and letting the tripod hang still attached, the base support looks flimsy and will certainly fail with just a bit of load.
BTW my "heavy" lenses are - 70-300 VR, sigma 150 f2.8 macro and a collection of smaller lenses
I'll report what I find ...
what I will do is
- If my camera is cracked I'll glue it together
- I'll also look into finding a way to attach an L-Plate to the loop for the camera strap above the connectors door, so it has a way to distribute the load and handle any torsion hopefully better than the current base support.
- change the way I handle my camera .. I'll now consider it a heavy and fragile piece of expensive equipment
- use it until it dies
- at this point any further $ spent in photo equipment will likely not be Nikon
armando_m wrote:
In my opinion I caused the problem by carrying the camera/lens/tripod with the camera mounted on the tripod, or after the camera/tripod fell on rocky ground, or when I carry the camera / tripod by holding the camera and letting the tripod hang still attached,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your camera fell on hard ground from a tripod and you're done with Nikon because it was damaged? That grass will be no greener with any other brand - if anything, probably worse if the same thing happens. You'll need to move up to a Canon 1-series for something of similar build in another brand, and those aren't designed to fall off tripods either.
Hi Armando,
Welcome to FM!
Please do not apply any glue to it if your fracture is around the same area because no glue will withstand those tension forces.
Also the fumes from super glue can damage the sensor surface by coating the surface with a hazy film.
The next thing is, if in case enough users reported the same issues and some law firm decided to file a class action suit and Nikon decided to fix them, they can waive their responsibilities.
hans98ko wrote:
Hi Armando,
Welcome to FM!
Please do not apply any glue to it if your fracture is around the same area because no glue will withstand those tension forces.
The next thing is, if in case enough users reported the same issues and some law firm decided to file a class action suit and Nikon decided to fix them, they can void their responsibilities.
Not trying to be rude, but are you suggesting Nikon should be paying for his repairs after his camera fell off a tripod onto "rocky ground"? He isn't going to be entitled to any free repairs if that is the case, no matter what camera he buys. Pretty sure he voided most of his warranty when his camera hit the pavement.
It all depends on if it is just cosmetic damage or major damage. The next thing is this repair would have require a major servicing including the replacement of the main chassis anyway.
I have dropped my Canon EOS 5D from a height of 1.5m on rocky surfaces and all it needs is a lens hood replacement and a minor scratch on the power button. I sent it in to Canon for servicing and after their inspection they even advised me not to waste $200 to replace the full camera back where the button is located as a single unit. I used it for another year or so before selling it without a single issue.
I do not want warranty service, as I said it is my fault it broke, but it did from the weakest point
I'm agreeing with the opinion that this is a cheap design to have in a 3000 dollars camera, the little beam maybe 3mm wide and 2mm thick, needs to support the torsion of a camera that can easily weight 1.5KG with a lens attached.
I do not want warranty service, as I said it is my fault it broke, but it did from the weakest point
I'm agreeing with the opinion that this is a cheap design to have in a 3000 dollars camera, the little beam maybe 3mm wide and 2mm thick, needs to support the torsion of a camera that can easily weight 1.5KG with a lens attached.
You mentioned glueing the broken part, may I suggest JB Weld. It is a two part metal epoxy. I'd do a test run on two similar metal bits for best approach and bonding surfaces.
Thank you Armando for your confirmation of my initial analysis and assumptions that it was actually caused by tension forces rather than compression forces due to your fracture is actually lifted much more than the other 2 pictures. If it is due to impact damage which means compression forces, there would have been little chip offs due to obstructions from the bottom piece.
Also can you help me to confirm if the screw on the right of your picture also on the same section that the fracture was found was ever used? That screw if not used can reduce the chance of spreading the fracture horizontally, which means a total failure over time. But will make the tripod mount even weaker with one less screw.
Thanks! Hans
So Nikon USA just needs to open up a camera and look at this section as well as the section at the back edge of the main chassis which is another point of possible fracture due to it being the fulcrum of forces, can just classify it as impact damage even with absolutely no sign of external damage.
Good luck Nikon USA!
When I mentioned "glue" I meant epoxy, I have used a metal reinforced paste in the past with great success, one of it's advertised uses is to fix carburators, i'm pretty sure it will adhere to the magnesium frame
Here is an schematic of the D800 rear frame which was kindly shared by Mr. Sten Rasmussen in the fotozones forum
Thanks! Armando
The one to the left of your wordings "This piece is 3.5mm wide..." in your photo. Was that screw installed on your unit?
Yes, I do have access to the diagram you have and a couple more. The diagram you have shows that the fracture does not affect the alignment of the sensor or in anyway linked to the lens mount. If I am not mistaken those diagrams all came from the service and maintenance manual.
Once again thanks!
Hans
I was pointed to this thread from another forum after I complained that the base of my camera is not tight and the camera wobbles a bit when mounted on a tripod.
I opened the base and after seeing the tiny structure that it attaches to I just closed it up
After reading this I'll reopen the camera and check if it has the fracture
My camera has not been pampered and sure has more signs on the base that will indicate sever mishandling according to replies I read here from nikon service
In my opinion I caused the problem by carrying the camera/lens/tripod with the camera mounted on the tripod, or after the camera/tripod fell on rocky ground, or when I carry the camera / tripod by holding the camera and letting the tripod hang still attached, the base support looks flimsy and will certainly fail with just a bit of load.
BTW my "heavy" lenses are - 70-300 VR, sigma 150 f2.8 macro and a collection of smaller lenses
I'll report what I find ...
what I will do is
- If my camera is cracked I'll glue it together
- I'll also look into finding a way to attach an L-Plate to the loop for the camera strap above the connectors door, so it has a way to distribute the load and handle any torsion hopefully better than the current base support.
- change the way I handle my camera .. I'll now consider it a heavy and fragile piece of expensive equipment
- use it until it dies
- at this point any further $ spent in photo equipment will likely not be Nikon ...Show more →
Armando,
Did your body suffer from an impact event that you remember, or did you just notice the loose attachment to the tripod one day ?
If your body suffered from an impact, was one of your lenses attached during the event?
If your camera never suffered from an impact, did you contact Nikon about a repair?
Hans
the base has all the 4 screws - plus the ones around the battery compartment also 4 of them
film4ever - the D800 fell with a sigma 15mm fisheye, while attached to the tripod, the fall may have been 60cms of height , it fell over the flash hot shoe, at the time I noticed nothing wrong with the camera , this was over 2 yrs ago.
Just last December, I took a few shots on my tripod that looked worst than my handheld shots - more blurry - but I do not know how long the frame has been damaged.
Armando,
Thanks for all the help you have provided. You really take nice and sharp photos of those defects, the white balance is also well controlled.
Now, let's see if I can help you to identify your problem to resolve your out of focus issue.
First use another lens that you have not dropped.
Then use a tripod to take pictures of a fixed target using live view mode, view finder mode, and live view mode zoom to 100% and use manual focus.
Find out which mode is out of focus.
If life view mode is out of focus, check if your sensor is dirty and needs cleaning.
If view finder mode is out of focus, try to clean the focusing sensor at the bottom of the mirror box by blowing with a blower.
If all 3 methods are out of focus, then is time to send in your camera for servicing.
Regards, Hans
Wow... I have been out of commission for a few days and assumed by no notifications of thread contributions in my mailbox, that nothing had been added. .. I have a lot to catch up on..
but first... Again, thank you all for taking the time to contribute to this whether you think this a design flaw or my error. I appreciate all the input tremendously.
For the record: The largest/heaviest lens I have had mounted on the camera would be a 24-70. I can't imagine that using that lens would cause a break in the frame, but I will go back and read more of the technical input you all have added later this evening. My mind is open to anything; I just want to understand what went wrong.
As far as a tripod: I'm not sure if I've said it before in this thread, but I don't use a tripod often. Maybe a half dozen times with this body. It's interesting that armando pointed out about his base feeling flimsy on a tripod. I'm not sure if what I experienced is similar, but I rationalized it to myself as a result of my lack of brawn. If it matters, my tripod is a Vanguard with a ball mount, but whenever I'd have it mounted and pan a few times, I'd notice it getting loose again and I feel like I'm constantly having to tighten the mount. Again, I'm don't exactly have a strong grip so it would have to have been made out of cardboard for me to crack it that way... unless it was already weak? (again, I'm just speculating, not accusing... I want to understand this as much as you all do)
hans: When you mentioned the tripod mount at the base of the camera is not in anyway connected directly to the main chassis, is that strictly a D800 thing? or are there other models?
As it stands right now, my camera is en route back to Melville, but delayed due to the weather.
Re: Armando's photo: Is it me or is it a coincidence that these cracks are all in the same spot? Can you understand my concern?
Mary, there's no good excuse for this.
PROFESSIONAL camera should be able to be used on a frickin tripod without voiding the warranty for Pete's sake. " target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Meanwhile, I just watched this Nikon promo video and couldn't help but think about all the IMPACT DAMAGE this dude must have incurred. WARRANTY REVOKED!
It's funny, but it's more sad than funny when you've got your hard earned money on the table.
Meanwhile it looks like Canon is poised to introduce a new higher rez 5D camera next week...
I think one of the main issues (at least for me) is that even when a Canon has had *real* impact damage (yes, cameras do get knocked and dropped) **Canon does not cancel the warranty.** I have run commercial photo studios in New York City for the past 20 years, and have dealt with Canon repairs the whole time.
They simply fix it at a good price, and fast. And ship it back to you overnight. End of story. The warranty lasts for a year in all cases. (except maybe water damage.)
Why does a pro camera company (Nikon!) cancel a warranty just because a professional camera has seen some use?!? This is a real WTF which Nikon had better deal with before Canon comes out with a better sensor and people like me stop purchasing Nikon altogether.
