D750 -CRASH- and subsequent testing.

A few months ago I had a fall while carrying my camera. I came down
hard but the camera which I was carrying came down even harder on
concrete. It was a hell of an whack. I think the Manfrotto tripod shoe
on the bottom took the bulk of the impact. RichA will no doubt be
disappointed to learn that all those fancy carbon-fibre parts on the
body of the camera remained intact as did the magnesium metal frame.

All of the body of the camera has continued to function properly since
the fall but I have had doubts about Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 lens with
which it fas fitted at the time. I have had no worries about its
mechanical functioning but I was concerned that the impact may have
displaced or distorted key parts of the lens' internal mechanism.

I have just put the lens through a series of primitive tests to see
how well it is working optically. AF fine tuning (focus calibration)
has ended up at +1 which would be quite acceptable in a new lens, so
no worries there. I was more concerned about sharpness and definition.
I made a panel of a number of fine-detailed objects and made a number
of test shots. A jpg of one of these may be found at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7502179.jpg
This shot and the versions below were all made at 24mm, f/2.8 and a
distance of about 4' (1.2m). Focussing was autofocus.

Not being satisfied with the relatively coarse screen resolution for a
24MP image I also made an image for 100% printing of an A2 sized
image. Those game enough to take on 244MB file can find it at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7502179.tif

These images are straight off the camera via LR and the only
processing is correction of lens distortion. I would be grateful for
any comments on the quality of the image. Is it what one would expect
from that camera and lens combination?

For those interested the original raw file, it may be found at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_7502179.NEF

I must add, I was not responsible for emptying all those bottles.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 15:31:25 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

A few months ago I had a fall while carrying my camera. I came down
hard but the camera which I was carrying came down even harder on
concrete. It was a hell of an whack. I think the Manfrotto tripod shoe
on the bottom took the bulk of the impact. RichA will no doubt be
disappointed to learn that all those fancy carbon-fibre parts on the
body of the camera remained intact as did the magnesium metal frame.

All of the body of the camera has continued to function properly since
the fall but I have had doubts about Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 lens with
which it fas fitted at the time. I have had no worries about its
mechanical functioning but I was concerned that the impact may have
displaced or distorted key parts of the lens' internal mechanism.

I have just put the lens through a series of primitive tests to see
how well it is working optically. AF fine tuning (focus calibration)
has ended up at +1 which would be quite acceptable in a new lens, so
no worries there. I was more concerned about sharpness and definition.
I made a panel of a number of fine-detailed objects and made a number
of test shots. A jpg of one of these may be found at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7502179.jpg
This shot and the versions below were all made at 24mm, f/2.8 and a
distance of about 4' (1.2m). Focussing was autofocus.

Not being satisfied with the relatively coarse screen resolution for a
24MP image I also made an image for 100% printing of an A2 sized
image. Those game enough to take on 244MB file can find it at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7502179.tif

These images are straight off the camera via LR and the only
processing is correction of lens distortion. I would be grateful for
any comments on the quality of the image. Is it what one would expect
from that camera and lens combination?

For those interested the original raw file, it may be found at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_7502179.NEF

I must add, I was not responsible for emptying all those bottles.

A friend dropped his FF Nikon, and said it sounded like an eggshell
when it hit the ground. His crack was visible, but you might have one
that's not. He said the IQ was off after that, and I think he gave up
on the camera. Bodies were not available at the time.

I offered him $100. I figure I can fix anything, but he declined.

Anyway, you might want to send/take it in to get checked. We all know
how critical dimensions are in those things.

On 2016-07-13 03:31:25 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

A few months ago I had a fall while carrying my camera. I came down
hard but the camera which I was carrying came down even harder on
concrete. It was a hell of an whack. I think the Manfrotto tripod shoe
on the bottom took the bulk of the impact. RichA will no doubt be
disappointed to learn that all those fancy carbon-fibre parts on the
body of the camera remained intact as did the magnesium metal frame.

All of the body of the camera has continued to function properly since
the fall but I have had doubts about Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 lens with
which it fas fitted at the time. I have had no worries about its
mechanical functioning but I was concerned that the impact may have
displaced or distorted key parts of the lens' internal mechanism.

I have just put the lens through a series of primitive tests to see
how well it is working optically. AF fine tuning (focus calibration)
has ended up at +1 which would be quite acceptable in a new lens, so
no worries there. I was more concerned about sharpness and definition.
I made a panel of a number of fine-detailed objects and made a number
of test shots. A jpg of one of these may be found at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7502179.jpg
This shot and the versions below were all made at 24mm, f/2.8 and a
distance of about 4' (1.2m). Focussing was autofocus.

Not being satisfied with the relatively coarse screen resolution for a
24MP image I also made an image for 100% printing of an A2 sized
image. Those game enough to take on 244MB file can find it at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7502179.tif

These images are straight off the camera via LR and the only
processing is correction of lens distortion. I would be grateful for
any comments on the quality of the image. Is it what one would expect
from that camera and lens combination?

For those interested the original raw file, it may be found at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_7502179.NEF

I must add, I was not responsible for emptying all those bottles.

OK! The JPEG was pretty good, the TIF was too unwieldly for DB, and the
EF result were very impressive. I just have to ask, how many copies of
Carmina Burana does an audiophile have to own?

Down to what is important, I think you dodged a bullet. That image
looks pretty good to my post cataract surgery eyeballs.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2016-07-13 04:14:00 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2016-07-13 03:31:25 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

A few months ago I had a fall while carrying my camera. I came down
hard but the camera which I was carrying came down even harder on
concrete. It was a hell of an whack. I think the Manfrotto tripod shoe
on the bottom took the bulk of the impact. RichA will no doubt be
disappointed to learn that all those fancy carbon-fibre parts on the
body of the camera remained intact as did the magnesium metal frame.

All of the body of the camera has continued to function properly since
the fall but I have had doubts about Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 lens with
which it fas fitted at the time. I have had no worries about its
mechanical functioning but I was concerned that the impact may have
displaced or distorted key parts of the lens' internal mechanism.

I have just put the lens through a series of primitive tests to see
how well it is working optically. AF fine tuning (focus calibration)
has ended up at +1 which would be quite acceptable in a new lens, so
no worries there. I was more concerned about sharpness and definition.
I made a panel of a number of fine-detailed objects and made a number
of test shots. A jpg of one of these may be found at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7502179.jpg
This shot and the versions below were all made at 24mm, f/2.8 and a
distance of about 4' (1.2m). Focussing was autofocus.

Not being satisfied with the relatively coarse screen resolution for a
24MP image I also made an image for 100% printing of an A2 sized
image. Those game enough to take on 244MB file can find it at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7502179.tif

These images are straight off the camera via LR and the only
processing is correction of lens distortion. I would be grateful for
any comments on the quality of the image. Is it what one would expect
from that camera and lens combination?

For those interested the original raw file, it may be found at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_7502179.NEF

I must add, I was not responsible for emptying all those bottles.

OK! The JPEG was pretty good, the TIF was too unwieldly for DB, and the
EF result were very impressive. I just have to ask, how many copies of
Carmina Burana does an audiophile have to own?

Down to what is important, I think you dodged a bullet. That image
looks pretty good to my post cataract surgery eyeballs.

Taking a closer, all around look, there seems to be some edge softness.
The center is perfect, but looking at the focus chart and some of the
seound equipment dial and CD lettering there is a slight OoF softness.
I don't know if that is typical of that camera/lens combo, but at f/2.8
I think that it is doing quite well. That said, it might not be a bad
idea to have the lens checked some time.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 21:14:00 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-07-13 03:31:25 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

A few months ago I had a fall while carrying my camera. I came down
hard but the camera which I was carrying came down even harder on
concrete. It was a hell of an whack. I think the Manfrotto tripod shoe
on the bottom took the bulk of the impact. RichA will no doubt be
disappointed to learn that all those fancy carbon-fibre parts on the
body of the camera remained intact as did the magnesium metal frame.

All of the body of the camera has continued to function properly since
the fall but I have had doubts about Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 lens with
which it fas fitted at the time. I have had no worries about its
mechanical functioning but I was concerned that the impact may have
displaced or distorted key parts of the lens' internal mechanism.

I have just put the lens through a series of primitive tests to see
how well it is working optically. AF fine tuning (focus calibration)
has ended up at +1 which would be quite acceptable in a new lens, so
no worries there. I was more concerned about sharpness and definition.
I made a panel of a number of fine-detailed objects and made a number
of test shots. A jpg of one of these may be found at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7502179.jpg
This shot and the versions below were all made at 24mm, f/2.8 and a
distance of about 4' (1.2m). Focussing was autofocus.

Not being satisfied with the relatively coarse screen resolution for a
24MP image I also made an image for 100% printing of an A2 sized
image. Those game enough to take on 244MB file can find it at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7502179.tif

These images are straight off the camera via LR and the only
processing is correction of lens distortion. I would be grateful for
any comments on the quality of the image. Is it what one would expect
from that camera and lens combination?

For those interested the original raw file, it may be found at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_7502179.NEF

I must add, I was not responsible for emptying all those bottles.

OK! The JPEG was pretty good, the TIF was too unwieldly for DB, and the
EF result were very impressive. I just have to ask, how many copies of
Carmina Burana does an audiophile have to own?

I find three is more than enough.

Down to what is important, I think you dodged a bullet. That image
looks pretty good to my post cataract surgery eyeballs.

That's a relief. I secretly set you as my pass/fail criterion. :-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 21:32:06 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-07-13 04:14:00 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2016-07-13 03:31:25 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

A few months ago I had a fall while carrying my camera. I came down
hard but the camera which I was carrying came down even harder on
concrete. It was a hell of an whack. I think the Manfrotto tripod shoe
on the bottom took the bulk of the impact. RichA will no doubt be
disappointed to learn that all those fancy carbon-fibre parts on the
body of the camera remained intact as did the magnesium metal frame.

All of the body of the camera has continued to function properly since
the fall but I have had doubts about Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 lens with
which it fas fitted at the time. I have had no worries about its
mechanical functioning but I was concerned that the impact may have
displaced or distorted key parts of the lens' internal mechanism.

I have just put the lens through a series of primitive tests to see
how well it is working optically. AF fine tuning (focus calibration)
has ended up at +1 which would be quite acceptable in a new lens, so
no worries there. I was more concerned about sharpness and definition.
I made a panel of a number of fine-detailed objects and made a number
of test shots. A jpg of one of these may be found at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7502179.jpg
This shot and the versions below were all made at 24mm, f/2.8 and a
distance of about 4' (1.2m). Focussing was autofocus.

Not being satisfied with the relatively coarse screen resolution for a
24MP image I also made an image for 100% printing of an A2 sized
image. Those game enough to take on 244MB file can find it at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7502179.tif

These images are straight off the camera via LR and the only
processing is correction of lens distortion. I would be grateful for
any comments on the quality of the image. Is it what one would expect
from that camera and lens combination?

For those interested the original raw file, it may be found at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_7502179.NEF

I must add, I was not responsible for emptying all those bottles.

OK! The JPEG was pretty good, the TIF was too unwieldly for DB, and the
EF result were very impressive. I just have to ask, how many copies of
Carmina Burana does an audiophile have to own?

Down to what is important, I think you dodged a bullet. That image
looks pretty good to my post cataract surgery eyeballs.

Taking a closer, all around look, there seems to be some edge softness.
The center is perfect, but looking at the focus chart and some of the
seound equipment dial and CD lettering there is a slight OoF softness.
I don't know if that is typical of that camera/lens combo, but at f/2.8
I think that it is doing quite well. That said, it might not be a bad
idea to have the lens checked some time.

OK. As long as it is not a matter of obvious immediacy.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 13/07/2016 20:36, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 21:14:00 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-07-13 03:31:25 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

A few months ago I had a fall while carrying my camera. I came down
hard but the camera which I was carrying came down even harder on
concrete. It was a hell of an whack. I think the Manfrotto tripod shoe
on the bottom took the bulk of the impact. RichA will no doubt be
disappointed to learn that all those fancy carbon-fibre parts on the
body of the camera remained intact as did the magnesium metal frame.

All of the body of the camera has continued to function properly since
the fall but I have had doubts about Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 lens with
which it fas fitted at the time. I have had no worries about its
mechanical functioning but I was concerned that the impact may have
displaced or distorted key parts of the lens' internal mechanism.

I have just put the lens through a series of primitive tests to see
how well it is working optically. AF fine tuning (focus calibration)
has ended up at +1 which would be quite acceptable in a new lens, so
no worries there. I was more concerned about sharpness and definition.
I made a panel of a number of fine-detailed objects and made a number
of test shots. A jpg of one of these may be found at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7502179.jpg
This shot and the versions below were all made at 24mm, f/2.8 and a
distance of about 4' (1.2m). Focussing was autofocus.

Not being satisfied with the relatively coarse screen resolution for a
24MP image I also made an image for 100% printing of an A2 sized
image. Those game enough to take on 244MB file can find it at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7502179.tif

These images are straight off the camera via LR and the only
processing is correction of lens distortion. I would be grateful for
any comments on the quality of the image. Is it what one would expect
from that camera and lens combination?

For those interested the original raw file, it may be found at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_7502179.NEF

I must add, I was not responsible for emptying all those bottles.

OK! The JPEG was pretty good, the TIF was too unwieldly for DB, and the
EF result were very impressive. I just have to ask, how many copies of
Carmina Burana does an audiophile have to own?

I find three is more than enough.

Down to what is important, I think you dodged a bullet. That image
looks pretty good to my post cataract surgery eyeballs.

That's a relief. I secretly set you as my pass/fail criterion. :-)

The whiskey bottles seem to be empty, but the whisky bottle is still in
the tube.
I do not know if this observation has any relevance to the topic.

On 7/13/2016 4:37 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 21:32:06 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-07-13 04:14:00 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2016-07-13 03:31:25 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

A few months ago I had a fall while carrying my camera. I came down
hard but the camera which I was carrying came down even harder on
concrete. It was a hell of an whack. I think the Manfrotto tripod shoe
on the bottom took the bulk of the impact. RichA will no doubt be
disappointed to learn that all those fancy carbon-fibre parts on the
body of the camera remained intact as did the magnesium metal frame.

All of the body of the camera has continued to function properly since
the fall but I have had doubts about Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 lens with
which it fas fitted at the time. I have had no worries about its
mechanical functioning but I was concerned that the impact may have
displaced or distorted key parts of the lens' internal mechanism.

I have just put the lens through a series of primitive tests to see
how well it is working optically. AF fine tuning (focus calibration)
has ended up at +1 which would be quite acceptable in a new lens, so
no worries there. I was more concerned about sharpness and definition.
I made a panel of a number of fine-detailed objects and made a number
of test shots. A jpg of one of these may be found at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7502179.jpg
This shot and the versions below were all made at 24mm, f/2.8 and a
distance of about 4' (1.2m). Focussing was autofocus.

Not being satisfied with the relatively coarse screen resolution for a
24MP image I also made an image for 100% printing of an A2 sized
image. Those game enough to take on 244MB file can find it at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7502179.tif

These images are straight off the camera via LR and the only
processing is correction of lens distortion. I would be grateful for
any comments on the quality of the image. Is it what one would expect
from that camera and lens combination?

For those interested the original raw file, it may be found at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_7502179.NEF

I must add, I was not responsible for emptying all those bottles.

OK! The JPEG was pretty good, the TIF was too unwieldly for DB, and the
EF result were very impressive. I just have to ask, how many copies of
Carmina Burana does an audiophile have to own?

Down to what is important, I think you dodged a bullet. That image
looks pretty good to my post cataract surgery eyeballs.

Taking a closer, all around look, there seems to be some edge softness.
The center is perfect, but looking at the focus chart and some of the
seound equipment dial and CD lettering there is a slight OoF softness.
I don't know if that is typical of that camera/lens combo, but at f/2.8
I think that it is doing quite well. That said, it might not be a bad
idea to have the lens checked some time.

OK. As long as it is not a matter of obvious immediacy.


Bill W and the Duck have given you some good advice. The 750 is built to
tight specs, but fairly sturdy. OTOH it would not take much to screw up
your lens. If anything was dislodged, the lens will not heal itself. As
a believer in Murphy, I am convinced that any problem will manifest
itself just when you decide you need it. It it was my lens, Ii would
have it check now. The longer you wait, the less inclined you will be to
tend to it.

--
PeterN

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 21:01:45 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 15:31:25 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

A few months ago I had a fall while carrying my camera. I came down
hard but the camera which I was carrying came down even harder on
concrete. It was a hell of an whack. I think the Manfrotto tripod shoe
on the bottom took the bulk of the impact. RichA will no doubt be
disappointed to learn that all those fancy carbon-fibre parts on the
body of the camera remained intact as did the magnesium metal frame.

All of the body of the camera has continued to function properly since
the fall but I have had doubts about Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 lens with
which it fas fitted at the time. I have had no worries about its
mechanical functioning but I was concerned that the impact may have
displaced or distorted key parts of the lens' internal mechanism.

I have just put the lens through a series of primitive tests to see
how well it is working optically. AF fine tuning (focus calibration)
has ended up at +1 which would be quite acceptable in a new lens, so
no worries there. I was more concerned about sharpness and definition.
I made a panel of a number of fine-detailed objects and made a number
of test shots. A jpg of one of these may be found at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7502179.jpg
This shot and the versions below were all made at 24mm, f/2.8 and a
distance of about 4' (1.2m). Focussing was autofocus.

Not being satisfied with the relatively coarse screen resolution for a
24MP image I also made an image for 100% printing of an A2 sized
image. Those game enough to take on 244MB file can find it at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7502179.tif

These images are straight off the camera via LR and the only
processing is correction of lens distortion. I would be grateful for
any comments on the quality of the image. Is it what one would expect
from that camera and lens combination?

For those interested the original raw file, it may be found at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_7502179.NEF

I must add, I was not responsible for emptying all those bottles.

A friend dropped his FF Nikon, and said it sounded like an eggshell
when it hit the ground. His crack was visible, but you might have one
that's not. He said the IQ was off after that, and I think he gave up
on the camera. Bodies were not available at the time.

I offered him $100. I figure I can fix anything, but he declined.

Anyway, you might want to send/take it in to get checked. We all know
how critical dimensions are in those things.

After reading allresponses I decided to send the lens in for testing.
I have just received an account by email which among other things
says:

"Dismanted lens. Supplied and fitted new front cam barrel and
rollers. These were stretched causing optics to mis-align.
Reassembled, recalibrated lens and checked."

I was right: it wasn't working properly although there was nothing
obvious I could put my finger on. The bottles are still set up in my
room and I will be interested to compare results whan the lens
returns.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 08:22:30 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/13/2016 4:37 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 21:32:06 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-07-13 04:14:00 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2016-07-13 03:31:25 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

A few months ago I had a fall while carrying my camera. I came down
hard but the camera which I was carrying came down even harder on
concrete. It was a hell of an whack. I think the Manfrotto tripod shoe
on the bottom took the bulk of the impact. RichA will no doubt be
disappointed to learn that all those fancy carbon-fibre parts on the
body of the camera remained intact as did the magnesium metal frame.

All of the body of the camera has continued to function properly since
the fall but I have had doubts about Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 lens with
which it fas fitted at the time. I have had no worries about its
mechanical functioning but I was concerned that the impact may have
displaced or distorted key parts of the lens' internal mechanism.

I have just put the lens through a series of primitive tests to see
how well it is working optically. AF fine tuning (focus calibration)
has ended up at +1 which would be quite acceptable in a new lens, so
no worries there. I was more concerned about sharpness and definition.
I made a panel of a number of fine-detailed objects and made a number
of test shots. A jpg of one of these may be found at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7502179.jpg
This shot and the versions below were all made at 24mm, f/2.8 and a
distance of about 4' (1.2m). Focussing was autofocus.

Not being satisfied with the relatively coarse screen resolution for a
24MP image I also made an image for 100% printing of an A2 sized
image. Those game enough to take on 244MB file can find it at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...R--7502179.tif

These images are straight off the camera via LR and the only
processing is correction of lens distortion. I would be grateful for
any comments on the quality of the image. Is it what one would expect
from that camera and lens combination?

For those interested the original raw file, it may be found at
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_7502179.NEF

I must add, I was not responsible for emptying all those bottles.

OK! The JPEG was pretty good, the TIF was too unwieldly for DB, and the
EF result were very impressive. I just have to ask, how many copies of
Carmina Burana does an audiophile have to own?

Down to what is important, I think you dodged a bullet. That image
looks pretty good to my post cataract surgery eyeballs.

Taking a closer, all around look, there seems to be some edge softness.
The center is perfect, but looking at the focus chart and some of the
seound equipment dial and CD lettering there is a slight OoF softness.
I don't know if that is typical of that camera/lens combo, but at f/2.8
I think that it is doing quite well. That said, it might not be a bad
idea to have the lens checked some time.

OK. As long as it is not a matter of obvious immediacy.


Bill W and the Duck have given you some good advice. The 750 is built to
tight specs, but fairly sturdy. OTOH it would not take much to screw up
your lens. If anything was dislodged, the lens will not heal itself. As
a believer in Murphy, I am convinced that any problem will manifest
itself just when you decide you need it. It it was my lens, Ii would
have it check now. The longer you wait, the less inclined you will be to
tend to it.

Good advice. I have sent the lens off for checking. It was weighed in
the balance and was indeed found wanting (or something).
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens