miguel_martinez4

<p>Actually, the line drawn by Apple right now for an update is having a 64bit UEFI. The original Intel Macs, from 2006, are 32 bit Core Duos, and don't qualify. The next generation was 64 bit, but Apple still put a 32 bit UEFI on them. So essentially only Macs that are about 6 years or newer qualify for security updates.</p>

<p>Hello again everybody,<br> Eventually, I sent the 70-200/4 to Nikon UK. It took them 7+3 days [1] to examine the lens. According to whatever they've done, only the lens mount is faulty. The bayonet replacement plus labor cost £78 (about $120). I accepted their estimate and will hopefully get the lens sometime next week.<br> Thanks again everybody for your replies. Hopefully this thing will be as sharp as before. Since it wasn't painful really, I'll possibly send my D7k for a CLA.<br> [1] I actually walked there with the lens myself, so I was positive the lens was there. Still it took them ~3 working days to acknowledge receiving it.</p>

<p>Thanks for all your answers! Those $600 seem a bit steep for a bayonet fix, but if they re-align the lens and make sure everything is fine... uff, I don't know. The lens actually mounts and unmounts as before on the D700. I'm pretty sure it's tighter than it used to be on the D7k, and that one has always been a bit tight. </p> <p>Given that I live pretty close to Nikon UK, I'll call them and see if I can get an estimate and get rid of the shipping. I won't bother with the camera, though. That one seems to be in good shape. It will only bother me if the AF stops tracking my little toddler</p>

<p>Dear All,<br> I managed to drop my D700 with the 70-200 f/4 attached from about hip height to concrete this morning. I tried to put my foot in order to slow the fall down but even still the CF card door opened. I'm a bit paranoid that I may have caused serious, yet unseen, damage. So far, on the positive:</p> <ul> <li>AF works, with the infinity-3m limiter and without</li> <li>Zooming works</li> <li>The lens hood didn't break or crack, at all</li> <li>VR seems to work: 200mm @ 1/30s is perfectly feasible, even on a crop camera.</li> </ul> <p>However, there three points that worry me:</p> <ul> <li>the lens mount is oh so slightly bent near the serial number (see attachment). This worries me: there might be further damage inside</li> <li>slightly shaking it perpendicular to the optical axis makes some small noises (might be normal)</li> <li>the focusing ring seems a bit "sandy", but that could be paranoid</li> </ul> <p>The camera seems to operate fine, and takes cards without problems. Surprisingly, there doesn't seem to be damage in the metal part attached to the damaged part in the lens mount. The aperture tab, however, is different to my D7k: on the D7k the L-shaped tab is parallel/perpendicular to the optical axis. On the D700, however, this seems to be angled.<br> The clearest picture I've found on D700 mounts is this:<br> http://lh4.ggpht.com/-NkfkAdOP-zM/UiYAONPtQ4I/AAAAAAAADiQ/gHsbL_KS4J4/s1600-h/_DXE6560EK%25255B6%25255D.jpg</p> <p>If you have a D700, is your yellow pointed tab also angled? </p> <p>If you have any suggestions on how to act/check for stuff, they'll be very welcome. I fear my clumsiness will be rewarded to the nearby NPS centre in Vauxhall (London, UK). Does any of you have an estimate of what an alignment check and/or bayonet repair may cost?</p> <p>Regards,<br> Miguel</p><div></div>

<p>I was intrigued by the OP's original claim, plus some remarks about watches that drift considerably. I actually went and performed a short-scale experiment with:</p> <ol> <li>A D700 (Summer 2010)</li> <li>A D7k (March 2012)</li> <li>A Lotus Quartz wristwatch (October 1999). The manufacturer claimed +/- 1s/month. Very similar to the one depicted here:<a href="http://www.gsmspain.com/foros/attach/78/7872.jpg">7872.jpg</a></li> <li>Reference: a late 2013 13" rMBP synced to Apple's NTP servers in Europe (time.euro.apple.com). Linux resyncs at every boot or after a certain time has elapsed. I don't know how OS X does it.</li> </ol> <p>While I tried to be as accurate with the cameras as possible, I didn't set them at the same time. This proved difficult with the display turning off after a few seconds. It was even more difficult with the wristwatch. However, after set up, all 3 clocks were within 1s of the reference.</p> <p>1 month later: The D700 is almost 6 seconds behind the D7k, which is about 2 seconds ahead of the wristwatch. The wristwatch itself is delayed by about 0.5s over Apple's NTP server. I guess the D700 might delay due to the more frequent battery changes (more pictures, plus extended use of AF-S and VR in the 70-200/4). I knew my wristwatch was going to be accurate, as I've always synced it with official time servers and, throughout the year, kept accurately with F1 races until the broadcasting introduced the "digital delay".<br> I'd love to keep the experiment for an extra month, but we go back to GMT this Sunday, and don't really feel like having an extra hour in my wristwatch for almost 4 weeks. Maybe I'll do a Last Sunday of October to Last Sunday of March test...</p>

<p>We shoot both formats at home, with a D7k and a D700, and we do it "the wrong way". The D7k is almost always with the Nikkor 10-24, and we tend to have the 70-200/4 on the D700. When we travel, my wife & me carry a body each with the 50/1.8G and the speedlight on the bag, and it's pretty versatile. You can argue that buying the 16-35/4 VR would give us better wide-angle quality but we can find better uses for those £1000.</p> <p>We like the flexibility of having two bodies while travelling (the 50 doubles as 75, if we need extra reach the 70-200 goes to the D7k, you get the idea). In terms of performance, the FX ISO advantage is real, and the DoF is narrower if you want it to. I the extra DoF in wide angle DX shots quite helpful though, and the dynamic range of the D7k at ISO100 is nice as well. You may need to be careful with the different camera operation. For example, the AutoISO with a speedlight works differently in both cameras, and there are a few extra nuisances. Another point is that, in postprocessing, the LR sharpness values that both sensors may take are quite different.</p> <p>At home, after all is said and done, the D700 gets used more, especially since we got the 70-200/4. It's too long on the D7k when trying to take pictures of our toddler. Additionally, we feel its AF is much more reliable. The D7k still got quite a few thousand clicks last year though.</p>

<p>Like Curt, I regularly shoot a D7k and a D700. Since I very rarely print beyond A4, the resolution difference is one of the differences I notice the least. It's much more noticeable, for example, that at base ISO the shadows of the D7k are better, or that the D700 recovers and renders highlights better. The image quality of the D7k will decrease linearly with ISO increases, while the D700 holds better. All low read noise sensors behave like the D7k, while the D4 and Df should behave similarly to the D700 from all the graphs I've seen online.</p> <p>In operation, I find the D700 AF much more reliable, especially in non-ideal lighting, maybe because the photosites are twice as long and the AF plays with that tolerance. If you're using speedlights, you should be aware that autoISO works in a different fashion in both cameras. Having ISO 100 available in the D7k is actually helpful when syncing speedlights during daylight.</p> <p>Finally, both cameras seem to have a very different threshold on what amount of post-processing sharpening can be applied, but that may be me sucking with lightroom. With all these differences, I doubt resolution is the main one.</p>