Advice Needed: D50 just back from Nikon service (Canada)

Kyle D

Hi Everyone,

I'm in need of some advice. I just got my beloved D50 back from it's first trip in to Nikon service. I had sent it in for the following reasons:

- adjust the autofocus to correct for slight back-focusing
- fix the af assist light, worked sporadically
- check the light meter, occasional underexposure
- check for the possibility of hot/stuck pixels
- clean the sensor
- clean the body
- general check of everything/service

Well, I was told when I dropped it off at Henry's ( I have a 3 year extended warranty with them), so that they could send it to Nikon for me, that it would probably be 4-8 weeks before I had it back. Well, 2.5 weeks later I had it back in my hot little hands. I was completely ecstatic at the turn around time. That was until I decided to go out and do some shooting today, and that's when I found out that although Nikon did indeed clean the sensor and got rid of all the tiny little dust spots which is simply awesome. They sent the camera back to me with what looks to be two hairs/fibres of some type on the sensor or could be some type of thick oil. They are visible when you look with a naked eye at the sensor. I'll try and post images showing what it looks like when in use later tonight.

So, I'd like to know how I should proceed. Should I try to get them off with a rocket blower or should I just take it back in to Henry's, complain and have them send it back to Nikon? Any other ideas?

Also, just so you know, I'm not comfortable hitting/cleaning my own sensor with a swab and have never tried using the rocket blower but I assume it's pretty easy.

Kyle D

Don't worry about this, I used the rocket blower and it worked like a charm.

Art Scott

Sensor cleaning is only hard the first time....remember your not cleaning the sensor but a filtre over the sensor...........three words to remember: Copper Hill Method......easy peasy!!!!!!!!:D:D:D:D:D:D

Scott_Quier

Like Art says ... cleaning the sensor is easy stuff and, in my opinion, does not warrent a trip the service center.

But, aside from the little issue with a fiber in your shots, did the service center do everything else you asked for? Just curious.

Kyle D

Scott_Quier wrote:

Like Art says ... cleaning the sensor is easy stuff and, in my opinion, does not warrent a trip the service center.

But, aside from the little issue with a fiber in your shots, did the service center do everything else you asked for? Just curious.

I'm not sure, I haven't fully tested the camera out yet. I got very upset when I was out shooting yesterday over the fibres/hairs and packed it in only after a few shots.

I also wasn't too impressed with how Henry's reported to me what was done. All they told me in person and on the work order sheet was "Cleaned and Adjusted". I was expecting something a little more detailed, like along the lines of when you take your car into a dealership to have some work done.

Scott_Quier

Kyle D wrote:

I'm not sure, I haven't fully tested the camera out yet. I got very upset when I was out shooting yesterday over the fibres/hairs and packed it in only after a few shots.

I also wasn't too impressed with how Henry's reported to me what was done. All they told me in person and on the work order sheet was "Cleaned and Adjusted". I was expecting something a little more detailed, like along the lines of when you take your car into a dealership to have some work done.

FWIW - That's about all the detail one gets from the Canon Service Centers here in the states.

micio

Uh, what a conundrum. That's like leaving your car with the mechanic and getting it back with a new problem.

Kyle D

micio wrote:

Uh, what a conundrum. That's like leaving your car with the mechanic and getting it back with a new problem.

Exactly, but luckily someone had given me a rocket blower for Christmas a couple of years ago and I had never used it. So I dug it out and blew the fibres off of the sensor and all is now well.

Except for the fact that there appears to be a tiny little mark near the bottom corner of the mirror now. Should I be worried about that?

ziggy53

Kyle D wrote:

Exactly, but luckily someone had given me a rocket blower for Christmas a couple of years ago and I had never used it. So I dug it out and blew the fibres off of the sensor and all is now well.

Except for the fact that there appears to be a tiny little mark near the bottom corner of the mirror now. Should I be worried about that?

The fibers could have come from anywhere and at any time. I'm glad you dealt with them and now you know how easily you can solve those problems for yourself.

I would not recommend attempting to clean the mirror. A "tiny little mark near the bottom corner of the mirror" should have no impact on either image quality or the viewfinder image. The only time I would be concerned is when there is some goo central to the mirror, where it can affect AF and/or metering (in an extreme case). The mirror has a relatively delicate coating and can be damaged by improper cleaning, resulting in a fairly costly repair.

geralds34

Did Henry's or Nikon charge you for the service?

Kyle D

ziggy53 wrote:

The fibers could have come from anywhere and at any time. I'm glad you dealt with them and now you know how easily you can solve those problems for yourself.

I would not recommend attempting to clean the mirror. A "tiny little mark near the bottom corner of the mirror" should have no impact on either image quality or the viewfinder image. The only time I would be concerned is when there is some goo central to the mirror, where it can affect AF and/or metering (in an extreme case). The mirror has a relatively delicate coating and can be damaged by improper cleaning, resulting in a fairly costly repair.

Thanks for the info about the mirror.

Kyle D

geralds34 wrote:

Did Henry's or Nikon charge you for the service?

No they didn't, it was covered under warranty. I also bought Henry's 3 year extended warranty because the salesperson told me that it would cover sensor cleaning and that if I sent it in for cleaning twice that alone would pay for the cost of the warranty. My being the stupid and naive person that I was at the time, not knowing anything about photography or really extended warranties, I believed him. Low and behold, when I do decide to send it in for service and cleaning I was then told that the extended warranty does not cover cleaning. I explained the situation of what happened and what the salesperson had told me. The person I was dealing with at Henry's said she'd ask for the cleaning but I may be charged for it. I wasn't charged for it, but I doubt they'd clean it again for free.

The entire salesperson lying to me about the extended warranty has made me want to see if I can get a refund from it because I wouldn't have bought it if I knew that sensor cleaning wasn't covered. I highly doubt they'll give me a refund though. Just so you know, my camera's two year warranty expires at the beginning of March 2009.

micio

This has been informative... I bought a refurb'd d60 from Adorama for $300, feeling that the body was somewhat disposable at that price... but if it was a $1000 body I'd feel a lot differently.

When do you typically get these bodies serviced, if ever?

capitoljayhawk

Hey --

What do you mean that it was "back-focusing"? This is probably standard terminology. I just hadn't heard it before.

Kyle D wrote:

Hi Everyone,

I'm in need of some advice. I just got my beloved D50 back from it's first trip in to Nikon service. I had sent it in for the following reasons:

- adjust the autofocus to correct for slight back-focusing
- fix the af assist light, worked sporadically
- check the light meter, occasional underexposure
- check for the possibility of hot/stuck pixels
- clean the sensor
- clean the body
- general check of everything/service

Well, I was told when I dropped it off at Henry's ( I have a 3 year extended warranty with them), so that they could send it to Nikon for me, that it would probably be 4-8 weeks before I had it back. Well, 2.5 weeks later I had it back in my hot little hands. I was completely ecstatic at the turn around time. That was until I decided to go out and do some shooting today, and that's when I found out that although Nikon did indeed clean the sensor and got rid of all the tiny little dust spots which is simply awesome. They sent the camera back to me with what looks to be two hairs/fibres of some type on the sensor or could be some type of thick oil. They are visible when you look with a naked eye at the sensor. I'll try and post images showing what it looks like when in use later tonight.

So, I'd like to know how I should proceed. Should I try to get them off with a rocket blower or should I just take it back in to Henry's, complain and have them send it back to Nikon? Any other ideas?

Also, just so you know, I'm not comfortable hitting/cleaning my own sensor with a swab and have never tried using the rocket blower but I assume it's pretty easy.

ziggy53

capitoljayhawk wrote:

Hey --

What do you mean that it was "back-focusing"? This is probably standard terminology. I just hadn't heard it before.

You can normally expect an autofocus lens on a properly calibrated autofocus body to consistently focus an image properly on the image plane. If the AF tends to focus in front of the intended subject the lens is said to "front focus". If the AF tends to focus in back of the intended subject the lens is said to "back-focus".

As cameras gain more and more resolution and pixel density, focus problems are increasingly more apparent, but so are the effects of poor focus technique.

A number of people test focus accuracy using a "focus test chart". Be aware that many focus test charts will cause you to think there is a focus problem when they are used incorrectly or if the chart is poorly designed.

My current pick of downloadable test charts is at:

http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/focus-chart

Be sure to read the procedure for proper testing and I tend to test my lenses at a distance of at least twice minimum focus. Trying to test at the rated MFD can lead to unpredictable results. Testing at less than MFD is just plain nonsense, but some folks try it anyway.

capitoljayhawk

Fascinating. Thanks. My D70 pretty regularly grabs the wrong plane -- normally something that's off in the background. Quite annoying.

ziggy53 wrote:

You can normally expect an autofocus lens on a properly calibrated autofocus body to consistently focus an image properly on the image plane. If the AF tends to focus in front of the intended subject the lens is said to "front focus". If the AF tends to focus in back of the intended subject the lens is said to "back-focus".

As cameras gain more and more resolution and pixel density, focus problems are increasingly more apparent, but so are the effects of poor focus technique.

A number of people test focus accuracy using a "focus test chart". Be aware that many focus test charts will cause you to think there is a focus problem when they are used incorrectly or if the chart is poorly designed.

My current pick of downloadable test charts is at:

http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/focus-chart

Be sure to read the procedure for proper testing and I tend to test my lenses at a distance of at least twice minimum focus. Trying to test at the rated MFD can lead to unpredictable results. Testing at less than MFD is just plain nonsense, but some folks try it anyway.

ziggy53

capitoljayhawk wrote:

Fascinating. Thanks. My D70 pretty regularly grabs the wrong plane -- normally something that's off in the background. Quite annoying.

It is often advantageous to use a single AF point (the AF point appropriate for the subject) for best focus results. A low contrast subject in front of a high contrast background will often confuse AF sensors so there is a need for accuracy in selecting the subject with the appropriate AF point. Low light levels compound the problem as AF sensors are more sensitive at higher light levels.

Lenses which have a larger maximum aperture often help by pumping more light into the camera as well as the larger aperture providing a narrower DOF making focus selection potentially more precise.

A flash with an AF assist light will also help in low light situations.