peter_kervarec

<p>Ive had a D800 for over 12 months and used it professionally and its the most erratic focusing camera I have ever owned. I am getting rid of it because I cannot get a SHARP image with it, tripod or not.<br>

I back up what these other owners are saying its very frustrating and I am starting to get angry about it and am losing faith in Nikon , a company that shone in film and early digital days.<br>

I have hordes of Nikon stuff and have been their No 1 supporter until I bought firstly a D7000 which I thought was the worst Nikon camera ever until I bought the D800.<br>

Mine has been away to Nikon Australia in both Melbourne and Sydney and both times it was "fixed" - no, actually its just as bad or even worse which backs up what another poster has said.<br>

My last shoot after repair was on a good solid tripod using the 24mm PC lens ( for its amazing sharpness) with perspective knobs set at zero zero. Manual focus on model at 5 metres distance, aperture F5.6 = zone of focus of 2 metres to infinity. Not a one sharp image.<br>

I have the 24-70 and 70-200 and still the same, hand held or tripod. High shutter speeds or low.<br>

Taking it back and am thinking of going to go Canon unless Canon have issues too? Or is there another brand/system worth considering ?<br>

I had all the great film cameras eg FA FM2 FE 2 with 50mm Std lens and macro lenses - sharp as a razor, it was the last thing to worry about. <br>

I have a D700 which has been an exemplary workhorse - that is the camera that Nikon should have stuck with - maybe introducing video and double slots.<br>

They have tried to get too clever and its failed.</p>

<p>Thank you all, it certainly does seem that is the way to decipher the battery serial no's. Applying that then, as a matter of interest, the battery I received with the D800 in May was actually manufactured in November 2011 while the D7000 battery was manufactured in February 2011.<br>

Once again thank you all for your great input !</p>

<p>Thanks Shun, what I forgot to write is that I want to sell the D7000, that battery being at least a year older than the D800.<br>

If I apply your date formula to my batteries, it dates the D800 battery as being the older one ie Feb 2011 and the D700 as November 2011</p>

<p>Hi there I have a Nikon D7000 and a Nikon D800 and on a recent shoot I mixed the batteries up and now dont know which is which. (Should have marked them ! )<br>

One of the batteries has Sony E-D written next to the PSE symbol. The other has Nikon written next to the symbol. <br>

I suspect the "Sony" branded battery is the D7000 battery.<br>

Both cameras were purchased through an authorised Nikon reseller.<br>

Both batteries no's have the prefix 2011 and the D7000 was purchased at start of 2011 while the D800 was purchased 2 months ago in May 2012.<br>

Thanks in advance,<br>

Peter</p>

<p> </p>

<p>David , can we see some of your " hand held" work ? The ones you took with the Hasselblad which you said is rock steady ?<br>

I am interested to see some.<br>

In my experience. hand held images would be way less sharp than those on a tripod.<br>

I suppose with Yosemite at your back door, you dont have to walk far to get a great shot hence you wanting a heavy camera. Right ?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Austin<br>

I worked in a lab for 20 years and agree with Charles. This damage is consistent with heavy pressure and dragging such as people walking on the film on the floor or film being pushed along a desk or lightbox and even caught in a machine and dragged for a short distance.<br>

While there is a lot of random damage there is also some damage that looks consistent. If I were to give an opinion on this, I would say it was damaged before you received the film.</p>

<p>Sorry i missed the last posters,<br>

Rodeo Joe, Shun and Peter thank you for your contributions and I will take on board all advice,<br>

regards<br>

Peter</p>

<p>Hi there everyone<br>

thanks for your responses.<br>

Jim I have 2 different chargers and used them,<br>

Jerry I dont take that many images to warrant taking more than one extra. I can easily get up to 400 images normally off one,<br>

Tom I think and hope your answer is correct,<br>

Frank Robert and Hans thanks for that info,<br>

Mike currently summer here temps around 20-35C but on wedding day about 24C,<br>

Rodeo Joe I am not as adventurous as you ! ,<br>

Peter, no I charge as required, if I have 3/4 battery before a wedding, I charge it regardless.<br>

Thanks again, I will buy some newies and see what happens.</p>

<p>Hi All<br>

I have had a Nikon D700 for at least three years I think. Same original Nikon battery and never any issues with the battery until yesterday after using many dozens of times.<br>

Previously I could photograph a full wedding and come home with just a quarter bar gone eg 3/4 battery left. Yesterday I had to replace the battery 2/3rds through the wedding with my fully charged genuine Nikon spare. At the end of the wedding, it too only had a 1/4 charge left - another hour and I would have been in trouble.<br>

Nothings changed, I havent turned anything off or on and the battery meter says the batteries are still as new.<br>

Has anybody experienced this or have any suggestions ?<br>

Thanx in advance</p>

 

<p>I believe the nature of human beings is the key issue behind all of this. In a way, it's trickery because any viewer usually casts a discerning eye over any product looking for a flaw or imperfection.<br>

Our very nature is our own worst enemy as we all should know from experience that nothing is perfect.<br>

This behaviour has built a platform of standards which are seemingly getting higher, in not only modelling, but with any type of product presentation.<br>

Technology is also a driving force behind this, the better the technology eg software and digital cameras, then the higher the expectations from the industry and the consumer.<br>

This platform will only get higher and higher, commensurate with advertising and market forces.</p>

 

<p>Why not try a 2nd hand older Metz 45 with full Auto on the FM2 and using a Wein Safe Synch on the D80. Should cost around $100-$150 for both. You wont get TTL on the D80 but will get a great result using Metz Auto "A" setting, which I used for years very successfully on an FM2 and FE 2. Its a powerful flash for the money and in some cases you can turn the flash down or up if you realise its a tricky light situation. Often this gives a better result than TTL if you experiment.</p>

<p>To Brian Shaw could it be that there are so many "wedding photographers" in the market, some with oodles of money for equipment, and little knowledge, that they dont choose pro labs anymore, rather Walmart Kmart type processing?</p>

<p>Seems like a disproportionate response to a simple software problem that could be simply related to your computer.<br>

Did you want to do a lot of damage to Nikon or get the problem resolved ? I think the former has happened now, and posts like this probably cost companies multi thousands of dollars in bad publicity when really , we do not know the full story on both sides.<br>

Every pancake has two sides.</p>

<p>Hi Martyn try reducing (not increasing ) the amount of memory available to photoshop. Edit>Preferences> Performance. Start at 50% or slightly less and see what happens. The more you increase, the less resources that are available to the computer in general and it will run out of puff very quickly. Also those main disks arent big enough to act as decent scratch disks with that small amount of available space. Peter.</p>

<p>IMHO Battery life was one of the most marked differences between D200 and later models. If you are doing night shots the D200 will not be any where as economical as the D700 with the D700 maybe 2.5 times better battery life? Just a guess. The D7000 is later technology again so I am presuming it would be an improvement over the D700.</p>

<p>Ron consider this, if you have hundreds of images then the cost of outsourcing the scans will buy you a good quality scanner. Be prepared as it is a major job and you will need to back everything up as well in case there is a computer failure and you have to redo ........OMG</p>

<p>Hi Chris, dont throw anything out yet. You have the benefit of all the digital convenience whereas I went through my slides about ten years ago and discarded a lot of them only to realise years later that scanners were much cheaper, software a lot smarter and therefore some slides could be turned into winners and those slides that didnt quite make it at the time could now be recropped, cloned etc and become very useful images. Even parts of images can be used. So be hesitant.</p>

<p>Ernest, thank you very much for that information, I can understand why the photographer had reservations but I am so glad that it was taken. It would be impossible to quantify the effect this image has had on mankind or even the amount of lives it may have saved. One thing is for sure and that is a clear message comes to me from this. The expressions of the two on the left of the image ( the shooter and onlooker ) have captured the essence of war, that essence being that men become something else and that death seems a pure formality and lives are governed by expedience.<br>

Thanks again Ernest</p>

<p>This is the photo I spoke of.</p><div></div>

<p>I would really like to add to this mix because this is interesting. Death and dying evokes an emotion within me, especially when I see a photograph portraying this. However what evokes a different and way more powerful emotion in me is impending death especially death inflicted upon human beings by other human beings.<br /> The most powerful image I have ever seen is this image of an execution during the Vietnam War from Time Life. The shooter is a South Vietnamese officer and the arbitrary execution is of an alleged Viet Cong sympathiser. This visual resides in my brain like no other image that I have seen ( other than a few of my own ). It actually physically "touches" something in my stomach when i look at it.</p>

<p>I should have said that photographs of death and dying have also become much more acceptable to me.</p>

<p>This is an interesting topic but I thinh that death and dying is part of the fabric of life. In Australia it is unethical to show the faces of dead Aboriginal people without a public warning. This warning precedes all documentaries and photography of Aboriginal people as these people find it offensive to see one of their own who has since passed on. That is their culture and I respect that.<br>

I have a picture that I took of a dead bird that I found by the roadside and wanted to give it a dignified burial. I find that as I get older, death becomes much more acceptable to me.</p><div></div>

 

<p><em>A good quality lens hood will suffice, even excel and will give more protection than a filter can. </em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Hoods do not stop wind driven sand or rain, splashed water, or saltwater spray from crashing waves. Nor can they completely prevent head on impacts.<br>

Of course you are right Daniel but commonsense must be used as well. I was referring to a lens hood and impacts such as dropping or hitting, the others are obvious if you are in blowing sand or salt spray etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>If I am paying thousands of dollars for super sharp lenses , I am certainly not putting images through glass that I would get from consumer grade lenses. But then I love sharp so I may be over the top !</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Tell me please which side was shot through a filter.<br>

Both look like they were taken with a poor quality lens.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>A good quality lens hood will suffice, even excel and will give more protection than a filter can. The lens hood will absorb much more shock than a filter . Long narrow objects will also be prevented from hitting the front element by the hood. If I am paying thousands of dollars for super sharp lenses , I am certainly not putting images through glass that I would get from consumer grade lenses. But then I love sharp so I may be over the top !</p>

<p>Elle , thank you for putting your thoughts down. Unfortunately with the advent of digital cameras and the technology available, anybody thinks that they can do a wedding successfully and thats not true as we know. Your letter could be a template for established photographers worldwide. People want to pay much less ( for what is a huge responsibility ) and are having friends and relatives with a "good camera" photograph their wedding. There is seemingly no answer and I have also noticed here in Australia that there is virtually double the amount of photographers in each annual phone directory but the population may have only increased by 1 or 2 %.<br>

One of the main issues that is a very hard to get across to clients is the time, effort and research required for post production work. People only focus on what they see on the day, a photographer taking photos. Everybody is taking photos everywhere so it cheapens us as professional photographers. Not that long ago, say ten years, I remember being out and about and hardly seeing anyone with a camera. Now walk around anywhere where there are people and notice the amount of photographs being taken, amazing.<br>

Its very hard to be forced into giving up something that you obviously love and are passionate about.<br>

Good Luck<br>

Peter</p>