john.mathieson

You should know that in most Mexican airports, tripods are forbidden as carryon - this started a couple of years ago - have been forced to check mine almost every time coming back from Mexico..... and at US airports, the "weapon" clause can be invoked any time the agent feels like it..... it is easier to appeal your income taxes than a security decision!

<p>Ahh yes of course - I was just goofing around shooting indoors against a dark wall. I will try that in proper light at 1/250.</p>

<p>Duh!</p>

<p>Hmm - just checked through my settings - Active D Lighting is on Normal. I will give it a try with that turned off. I am not sure how that would affect the quality of images - I gather it underexposes the image a bit, and then brightens up the dark areas - is that correct?<br>

Don't most people shoot with it on?<br>

J</p>

<p>I used ISO 3200 because this is often what I would use in an indoor gym - data is<br>

A 1/15 F 2.8 ISO 3200 45mm WB A (or PREDd-0 - no difference) 0,0 sRGB VI N 121ND300 DSC_7828 .JPG Normal L 4288x2848</p>

<p>Audacity IS a cool little program - I just tested my D300 - batteries freshly charged- with the extra battery pack using an ENEL4a (big fat) battery (the battery alone costs more than a half decent P&S camera)- only got a peak of 5.5 FPS. Advertised is 8 FPS. Using jpeg normal.<br>

Hmmm.<br>

I do appreciate the fact that just pointing a camera and blasting at high frame rates is not exactly fine photographic technique - but at the same time, short bursts at high frame rates can be very useful. If I am going to shell out $5 k for a camera, I would think it should meet advertised specs.<br>

What if you bought a dozen beer, and then found when you opened it, 3 3/4 beers were missing?<br>

I am about to order pizza for dinner. I hope when I open the box there aren't 3 pieces missing !!!!!<br>

Anybody with more measurements on a D3S?</p>

<p>Thanks, Michael - I will try that.<br>

Thanks, Lex - of course, some of my best shots are single anticipated frames. That is particularly so in sports I know the best. In soccer for example, I most often take single exposures, but I spend more time watching soccer than I do almost anything else (including working, it seems). For volleyball, though, I have found it VERY hard to get a hand contacting a ball in a spike - (not that that is the only shot I want to get).<br>

The more sports I shoot, the more I realize you can't anticipate everything, and I force myself to keep the camera in front of my face AFTER the anticipated action is over - and that is when you get some really amazing shots, when unexpected things happen - which you miss entirely if you have brought the camera down to admire your work in the LCD screen. (Keep it pointed at the action, stupid is something I have said to myself WAY too many times. In these circumstances, rapid sequence shots often give you nice surprises.<br>

Curiously, if you take say 3 or 4 second bursts a few times, you notice it does vary even within a single burst at the same exposure factors by 1 or 2 FPS. And, not always getting slower. Not sure why. Getting slower as the battery peak charge diminishes would make sense, but it sometimes is a bit faster in the 2nd or 3rd second. ??<br>

Thanks - but has anyone actually measured their D3S yet?<br>

J</p>

<p>The reason I ask is because neither my D300 nor my D700 get the advertised frame rates - even with the big battery.<br /> I like to shoot indoor sports, and there is a big difference between 5 and 7 and 9 FPS in things like a volleyball spike. I am very interested in the increased light sensitivity, but would like to hear from someone who has one and verified it does actually do 9 FPS.<br /> (the way I measured these other cameras was simple - just took a few bursts, and looked at the time on the images, and saw how many were captured per second).<br /> Many thanks.<br /> John</p>

<p>Wilson - exceptional shots. Really nice isolation - are you using something big, wide open?<br>

Really fine work.<br>

John</p>

<p>Good answers here - I have bought 10+ lenses and 4 bodies plus tons of other things online - it is absolutely true that if you find something advertised for much less than B&H or Adorama, forget it - it is a scam - EXCEPT - for the madness that the recent economic wildness has made of currency exchange. The ONLY exception to the B&H / Adorama rule I have seen has come when the Canadian dollar plummeted - then, Canadian stores were the cheapest anywhere - since they kept the prices still, while the stock lasted and the CN dollar was low. At one point, a lens that was $1800 US was selling for almost $300 less in Canada. (Henry's, thecamerastore.com, etc).<br>

At the moment, I have given up keeping track of this - but it is something to watch for. No financial guru has been even close predicting the value of the major currencies over the past year, so if you find a bargain for this reason, go for it.<br>

A note about B&H - I had expected a place like this would be intent on getting a mass volume of customers through, and spending as little time on each customer as possible, due to their low profit margin. Well, that just isn't true. I have even gone to NYC and visited their main store - they are AMAZING. Patient, informative and no "buy it now" attitude at all - this is just a fantastic store. It's a good thing I live a long way away from NYC (west coast) otherwise I would be in there all the time, and spend way too much.<br>

I can't say the same for Amazon - would personally stick with B&H or Adorama. <br>

I do like to try to support my local stores - we have 2 good specialty stores in my town - when they are reasonably close on price. But, sometimes they are way over, and I buy online.<br>

As for shipping, if you are crossing any borders UPS is no good - they charge too much for brokerage. FedEx is much better. UPS is also slower, and less accurate.</p>

<p>I have used both the 1.8 and 1.4, and also have the 24-70 and 17-24, plus others in the 2.8 range.<br>

It is hard to answer the question without knowing how much the price difference means. The 1.8 is one of the best of the plastic less expensive lenses I have ever used. It is a very good lens, and very good value for money. However, the 1.4 is a different category of construction, and I can picture it being around a long time. I use it for indoor sports where the small amount of extra aperture actually makes a major difference, allowing non-blurred action photos w/o flash.<br>

As for bokeh, I think it is probably silly to say that one lens is "best". Bokeh changes so much depending upon lighting and background and framing. The 1.4 does have bokeh that more often pleases my eye than the 1,8 but I have seem some really nice 1.8 shots. The 1.4 85 isn't always better than other lenses, either. Sometimes especially on a background of dark green trees I have found the 70-200 gives stunning background, and the 85 1.4 bokeh has looked too intrusive. But, it varies a lot.<br>

If you buy either, you will get your money's worth. Both will re-sell for nearly the same years later - but the 1.4 will last longer. And be more heartbreaking if you accidentally scratch it.<br>

Ken Rockwell has a number of demos on bokeh difference - which often do not match my experiences, but are interesting to look at.</p>

<p>This may not be what you want to hear, but it is true - the COST of something is how much you pay for something minus what you sell it for - so, you can buy a low price lens, but its resale value will be significantly less than its new value.<br>

On the other hand, I have bought and sold a number of lenses over the years, and been amazed at the fact that you can pretty much get most or all of your money back if you are selling a Nikon or Canon brand lens. When I was younger, and didn't have much money, I bought an inexpensive Nikon zoom - and then later, when I had more money, and wanted a better lens - I sold it for what I paid for it. I have now done that about 6 or 7 times.<br>

So, although a Tamron or other lens can be good, my experience has been that usually it is a better deal to buy a name brand lens.<br>

Also - what you probably don't want to hear (I know I don't like hearing it) but whichever body you buy - it is disposable. So don't think your $1300 is any kind of investment - as it would be with a lens - it has a similar lifespan to a laptop - or even less.<br>

So, sink you $$ into lenses.</p>

<p>hmmm - well, I am sure I am not the only one here with thousands of really lousy shots on an expensive DSLR, which are REALLY hard to make on a P&S. Frankly, some of my favourite shots are on my P&S, which are sometimes maddeningly better than many DSLR shots.<br>

That being said, you CAN'T shoot sports on a P&S and some other things, mentioned above. But, for what you CAN do with them, they are annoyinglly good sometimes, and if you REALLY want to screw up a picture, you need all the tools on a DSLR.<br>

:)</p>

<p>Good advice above. A few bits of advice I got that I found helpful -<br>

1. Along the lines of "if it seems too good to be true, it probably is" - "if you find it somewhere a lot cheaper than B&H and Adorama charge, don't buy it - there is a problem" -<br>

the only exception to this has been in the last couple of months with daft currency swings. Old stock in Canada has become the cheapest in the world. My local store, which is usually 5-20% higher than online, but has good service, is now amongst the cheapest in the world - just because the Canadian currency became irrationally devalued. D700 body as low as $2300 US - which is VERY low - but is $2995 CN - the CN and US $ were almost equal a while back, but despite the fact the Canadian economy is not too bad, and our banks are the safest in the world (they didn't take part in overlending) - our dollar crashed to as low as $0.77. Therefore, the stock on the shelves is at a real discount to buyers with US $. (check out Henry's and thecamerastore.com - they are very good shops - but when the old stock runs out, prices will jump).</p>

<p>2. check out resellerratings.com - very interesting - Tops Trade is not actually listed (which in itself is a bit worrisome, although some good ebay retailers are not listed here)- but the listings here seem to me to be reflective of real people's experience. Worth checking when considering a new store</p>

<p>3. eBay breaks the rules above - the phenomenon of vendors wishing to protect hundreds or thousands of good ratings is a powerful one, made even stronger lately with PayPal now covering the total purchase price for most purchases. I have bought a few things like memory cards at very low prices with no problems, as long as the feedback is good, or as long as PayPal covers the whole purchase price. The only kicker here is make sure you complain in time - I think 60 days - if you wait 1 day longer, the PayPal insurance is no good. I personally would NOT buy things here that you might need service on. A memory card dies, fine. But a lens or a body - another thing.<br>

Cheers</p>

<p>I had a D200 - now have a D300 and D700 - the D300 is used for longer shooting - soccer etc (even trying some surf shots this week with an 80-400) - it was a big step up from the D200 and well worth it for low light shooting - but the D700 is better - use it for indoor gyms with poor light for basketball and volleyball with a 70-200 - the D300 was just able to shoot without flash in dimly lit gyms - with some grain - but the D700 handles poorly lit gyms well, can go back to 1/500th sec and no grain to speak of.<br>

That is a fairly narrow and specific use of the D700 - for the much larger range of more normal photography, it is superb - landscapes, etc. Some beautiful sunrise / sunset landscapes etc.<br>

The focus system is very good, although I still use the small centre focus for soccer - as it will often focus on foreground players instead of the centre ones. I like the feel of both the D300 and D700 - the weight doesn't bother me - I actually find the D80 size ones too small for my hands.<br>

All this being said, the digital bodies are NOT long term investments. They will be outdated rapidly like laptops, and they will fail after a while - so either get an extended warranty, or accept that they are more or less disposable. The lenses - lifetime. The bodies - disposable. Sad, but true in my experience. My D100 and D200 both died just out of warranty.<br>

So, will you like the D700? Absolutely, a wonderful camera - capable of far more than I can handle.</p>

Thanks for all the suggestions - I had let it sit without power - no help. I will reinstall the firmware, and if that doesn't help, I will take it to a dealer to send to Nikon - I didn't know estimates were free.

 

I did try different lenses - no better. Not the lens. I also have a D300 and the same lenses are fine on it.

 

I did NOT purchase any kind of extended warranty - might have been a good idea. But, I think camera bodies have basically become disposable, with a lifespan like a laptop or less. To be a good consumer I guess I should just buy the D700, then the D800, D900 ..............

At least my lenses are worth what I paid for them.

Suddenly my D200 started behaving very badly - hugely underexposed images, exposure factors way off. Also, it

would not autofocus properly. Seems to me like a major software problem.

 

I have stopped using it - thinking that it is dead - and not worth spending any money repairing - but thought I

would ask here to see what others think. I wonder if there is some kind of firmware update I could at least try.

Thanks

John

let me try that again -<div></div>

I have had some success using a custom WB w/o flash, and putting an orange gel in the SB800 - not bad results - this was with a D200, ISO 1600 and 85 1.4 - with the flash set to -1 1/3 or -1 2/3, with a diffuser. With the stopped down flash, the effect was just to get a bit of a highlight without noticeable shadows. (I can now use my 70-200 2.8 since I bought a D300).<div></div>

Shootout winner<div></div>

This one catches the winning shot - faked to make the keeper go right - shot to the left - won the Provincial Championship - pretty dramatic<div></div>

Wahoo! I finally figured out how to post a photo - (what a retard!!) Thanks, Wilson. Here are shots from a shootout - for these ones, I used the phenomenon that if you have a big lens, nobody will question you when you walk into places others can't go. I walked right into the middle of the field, right beside the refs - used a 70-200 with a 1.4 converter.

In this one, I got the keeper making a save -<div></div>

OK - a couple of soccer shots -<div></div>

b&w

One more try

Dang. Any tips on sizing the uploads correctly - ? Thanks, guys.

John