There are still discussions in a German forum that the sharpness with activated VC is significantly related to the shutter speed. A guy with a D810 did more than 600 pics
shooting the same object and found the following.
I wouldn't worry at all unless it becomes widely reported. Also impossible to tell if the tester is doing anything different. Handheld tests are nearly impossible to replicate exactly. One guy with a defective lens in Germany shouldn't have many people concerned, and warranty is 5 years.
Time will tell if this is a legitimate issue once people like Roger Cicala get a hold of multiple copies from multiple production runs to test side by side.
Far too many unknowns and far too small of a sample size to even begin to come to any meaningful conclusion. Professional reviews aren't even out yet for the lens. I wouldn't go around saying the 300 PF has an "unresolved problem" based on current information.
CanadaMark wrote:
I wouldn't worry at all unless it becomes widely reported. Also impossible to tell if the tester is doing anything different. Handheld tests are nearly impossible to replicate exactly. One guy with a defective lens in Germany shouldn't have many people concerned, and warranty is 5 years.
Time will tell if this is a legitimate issue once people like Roger Cicala get a hold of multiple copies from multiple production runs to test side by side.
Far too many unknowns and far too small of a sample size to even begin to come to any meaningful conclusion. Professional reviews aren't even out yet for the lens. I wouldn't go around saying the 300 PF has an "unresolved problem" based on current information....Show more →
Why be dismissive when someone reports something?!! Also, these are user issues that real people face when they use their equipment.
There are still discussions in a German forum that the sharpness with activated VC is significantly related to the shutter speed. A guy with a D810 did more than 600 pics
shooting the same object and found the following.
prosumerhacks wrote:
Why be dismissive when someone reports something?!! Also, these are user issues that real people face when they use their equipment.
I have to agree with Mark. Need a larger sample size.
VinnieJ wrote:
I have to agree with Mark. Need a larger sample size.
I agree that a larger sample size is needed
But in between 3 quite experienced people reporting the same problem and one person contacted the Nikon
product management already. I am getting my 300 4.0 PF tomorrow and will run it through a test with the D810.
I dont worry at all but its one of those problems which actually has no logical explanation. I might dont have it
and will report my findings at th eend of the week.
prosumerhacks wrote:
Why be dismissive when someone reports something?!! Also, these are user issues that real people face when they use their equipment.
It's not dismissive it's being logical.
When the sample size is only a single one from a largely uncontrolled (handheld) test, it tells us literally nothing, especially when in the same thread there are tack sharp 1/160s samples. Also the comment was made that "it looks like an unsolved problem up to now" which is a blanket statement based on a single lens (or extremely few) which as far as we know has equal chance of being defective as it does a flawed testing method somehow.
Making blanket statements based on a single lens and many unknowns is just silly. The lens hasn't even been professionally reviewed yet and only a handful of people seem to have it in their possession - don't you think that's a little early to declare a VR issue?
CanadaMark wrote:
It's not dismissive it's being logical.
When the sample size is only a single one from a largely uncontrolled (handheld) test, it tells us literally nothing, especially when in the same thread there are tack sharp 1/160s samples. Also the comment was made that "it looks like an unsolved problem up to now" which is a blanket statement based on a single lens (or extremely few) which as far as we know has equal chance of being defective as it does a flawed testing method somehow.
Making blanket statements based on a single lens and many unknowns is just silly. The lens hasn't even been professionally reviewed yet and only a handful of people seem to have it in their possession - don't you think that's a little early to declare a VR issue? ...Show more →
While I agree with being logical, tearing into someone's description of an issue they noticed and declaring it's not statistically supported, isn't the best approach. The person who made this particular statement seems to merely pointing to a discussion while furnishing some "user" data. I agree that this lens is not professionally reviewed but how many professional reviews in the recent history has been accurate until users clamored for quick redressal for problems which were first reported like these?
prosumerhacks wrote:
While I agree with being logical, tearing into someone's description of an issue they noticed and declaring it's not statistically supported, isn't the best approach. The person who made this particular statement seems to merely pointing to a discussion while furnishing some "user" data. I agree that this lens is not professionally reviewed but how many professional reviews in the recent history has been accurate until users clamored for quick redressal for problems which were first reported like these?
I hardly "tore into" his statement haha, that is quite the exaggeration. I don't think anyone on here is that sensitive. The person made a blanket statement that it is an unresolved issue with the 300/4 VR based on the way it was worded, which is all we have to go on. I strongly disagree with making blanket statements based on little to no data, so I replied to his post. I'm sorry if you somehow took offense to it.
If it turns out to be a legitimate issue, so be it, Nikon will recall and it'll be delayed by a couple months, no biggie. Could also be a simple firmware/communication issue, rather than an actual build/design issue. Time will tell. My only point is it's FAR too early to be coming to conclusions about anything, even though there could very well end up being a recall.
Nikon's lens track record is quite excellent overall as far as quality control goes, if there is a legitimate issue here it would be unusual. Certainly not impossible though. If the issue exists, it sounds like a firmware problem more than anything if it's just at certain shutter speeds.
CanadaMark wrote:
Nikon's lens track record is quite excellent overall as far as quality control goes, if there is a legitimate issue here it would be unusual. Certainly not impossible though. If the issue exists, it sounds like a firmware problem more than anything if it's just at certain shutter speeds.
I agree that the overall quality of Nikon lenses is excellent. But there could be batch and sample variations. Up to
now 3 people reported the same or a similar problem. I they would be novices I would totally agree that it is an
operator issue. But it doesnt look like this.
There were no intension to create a hype. I just wanted to share some finding because I am picking up my sample
tomorrow and if I invest 2000,-€ I want to make sure that the money is well spend. I am optimistic that it might be
a simple firmware problem.
scst48 wrote:
I agree that the overall quality of Nikon lenses is excellent. But there could be batch and sample variations. Up to
now 3 people reported the same or a similar problem. I they would be novices I would totally agree that it is an
operator issue. But it doesnt look like this.
There were no intension to create a hype. I just wanted to share some finding because I am picking up my sample
tomorrow and if I invest 2000,-€ I want to make sure that the money is well spend. I am optimistic that it might be
a simple firmware problem.
scst48 wrote:
I agree that a larger sample size is needed
But in between 3 quite experienced people reporting the same problem and one person contacted the Nikon
product management already. I am getting my 300 4.0 PF tomorrow and will run it through a test with the D810.
I dont worry at all but its one of those problems which actually has no logical explanation. I might dont have it
and will report my findings at th eend of the week.
I tested some more and I didn't start seeing handshake until 1/20. It became obvious by 1/10. That "trouble zone" between 1/100 and 1/200, I didn't have a single shot that showed handshake. All were sharp.
