m_tt_donuts

<p>I would try to elminate some possibilities it may be radio frequency related (or some other type of frequency). What caused it in some models (other brands to etc.) was the focusing or vibration reduction motor would release a tiny amount of RF/interference. The sensor and the camera's electronics pick up this interference (the more metal the camera body & lens the less susceptible) and normally it's not enough to be detected but at high ISO everything is amplified and the interference gets amplified as well and at especially high ISO starts to show up as banding. This happens because the interference is a sine wave with peaks & valleys. The sensor reading line by line if reading happens at the peak of the interference wave then the line is artifically boosted. Reading at the base the interference is less so the line comes out darker. Rinse and repeat and banding is created. </p>

<p>I would try seeing what happens if you shut off as much as you can... vibration reduction, autofocus, no flash (make sure it's off not just sleeping), see if you get banding. Then turn them on and see if it's different. You may even want to try a different lens one type of lens its motor (I don't know if Nikon) released interference that would cause banding while a different line did not. </p>

<p>Not saying the above will help but it's worth a try. There's a lot of things that can cause it.</p>

<p>I can't answer the above, but will say the D800 in live view (which is a great tool for manual focusing) is not as good on the D800 as the D600. The D800 takes a lower resolution image and upscales it when zooming in live view making it hard to know if you've achieved critical micro tuned focus. The D600 does not do that, you get full resolution sensor magnifications on the D600 in live view which is great if you depend on critical focus.</p>

<p>However, if using the viewfinder which is better between the two I'll let someone else answer.</p>

<p>1.) Good idea on the molded notches for the Arca/swiss clamps but it gives me another idea how about swappable hand grips. Big hands, small hands, don't like the fit swap it for one you like. "Get the one that feels right to you" would fit more people.</p>

<p>2.) I REALLY love the face detection in the viewfinder feature of the D800, I use it all the time. More models need it!</p>

<p>3.) Canon had #2 a long time ago no one really used it that I'm aware. You told the camera you wanted to use the feature, focused on the nearest thing you wanted in focus, the furthest, then it changed the focus to the hyperfocal between the two and adjusted the aperture to fit the bill. But, no one I'm aware actually used it except to see how it worked it was time consuming and situational to use and most after some practice get the idea of where the hyperfocal is and about what aperture to use anyway. </p>

<p>4.) Built-in ND Grads... I don't know the usefulness because I haven't had too many situations Active-D Lighting didn't take care of things. I find set to auto and shooting jpeg it does a fantastic job, and doesn't give me an HDR look. Besides that, both Nikon & Canon have HDR now (Nikons taking 2 images and Canon taking 3) and merging them. I find my Nikon does a superb job if I'm using a tripod and no moving subjects (better than active-d lighting) but for moving subjects I find Active-D lighting on Auto to do a really fantastic job... applying heavy when needed or light. </p>

<p>5.) The auto-assist light include an optional red cover that shoots a red pattern like my flashes instead of the bright light. But, sometimes the bright light is better so I'd like it removeable/replaceable. I'll take Nikons bright auto-assist light over Canons built-in flash strobing effect they use. </p>

<p>6.) Sort of a pipe dream, I love Nikons built-in flash I find it makes outdoor shots of the kids better using it for a catchlight/fill when I don't want to lug a true flash around. However, I wish I could flip it back so I can also use it indoors at night for bounce for just shots of my kids being cute. Using it straight ahead indoors gives that deer in the headlight look, and often I find I rather crank the ISO for those shots instead of getting my speedlight. </p>

<p>So this guy was right! How did Thom Hogan know. <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00b4gK">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00b4gK</a></p>

<p>Oh... re-reading your post it's possible your daughter didn't save it as a jpeg out of Sketchbook. </p>

<p>In Sketchbook choose <em>File->Save as</em> and there's a File Format box on that screen with the options .tiff, .jpg, .png, .bpm and .psd make sure .jpg is chosen. That should be all it takes from sketchbook. </p>

<p>It can do fill flash. I still recommend an SB700. Fill flash with on camera flash is best outdoors in daylight (if your shutter speed allows it).</p>

<p>Getting the SB700 will improve your pictures more than any lens will if you bounce it off ceilings, walls, etc.</p>

<p>Just the fact it's Jpeg now means it's 8-bit. There's only a few formats that support 16-bit and they are TIFF, PSD, and a few others. When you export out of Lightroom it defaults that export to a 16-bit TIFF. In photoshop if I want to save it afterward, it won't even let me choose JPEG as an option unless I change the mode to 8-bit first.</p>

<p>So jpeg means it's 8-bit.</p>

<p>Has scam written all over it. I actually think it's someone who successfully phished someone's paypal account... when that person see's illegal charges it may come back onto you. There is nothing that seems legitimate about this.</p>

<p>I did do this once, some are legit but I don't think this is. For me there was a rare VHS tape I was looking for, after 8 months looking on ebay, amazon, craigslist it sprung up on Craigslist in a state on the other side of the country. $29 guy was selling a random collection of old VHS tapes it was one of them. I contacted him, we did it through paypal, went without a hitch. But, $29 isn't hundreds of dollars possibly over a thousand if things didn't go right. I resold that tape for $149 and got a whole collection of "The Golden Girls" VHS tapes to boot in his collection. What a treasure :)</p>

<p>I think your card is going. When you store a picture on a card, it writes the picture to the card and writes a little entry in a special place of the chip that's really small and just tells your camera/computer about that picture and where it is on the card itself. That prevents your camera having to search the entire card to find out how much space is left and how many pictures are on it. If it had to, you'd have to wait a few minutes for it to investigate the chip each time you turned on the camera. When you format the card, you're really only erasing the little section and not the image itself (that's why if you accidentally format the card you can easily get the images back as long as you don't use it).</p>

<p>When you turn on the camera (or wake it up) it reads that small section to determine how many pictures are on it, space, etc. and if it can't read it thinks the card isn't formatted. That part is critical to the storing of images, and I'm pretty certain is the beginning of the end for your CF. It's one of those things that starts to happen more, and more often and one day just won't work. You don't know if that day will be today, or next year, but get a new card. It's very unlikely your camera.</p>

<p>I think there's a some good shots, but they get lost in the bad. I see a clothes hanger growing out of the brides head in one image, then I see the bride sitting on the bed surrounded by trash which she probably feels that image degrading, then the bikes have trucks in the background parked on the sidewalk and if the image is supposed to be the bikes than only have the bikes don't include cars/trucks. A faster aperture may have helped. Including the bad makes people look for the bad. I think the album recoverable, many times the next image is great like the one the groom looks like he's sleeping and the bride looks as if she'd like to be anywhere else... but the next is the same but he's smiling with all his charm and she's loving the moment. Why was the bad picture included when the next was a winner.</p>

<p>I think you could use more experience. Use tighter apertures... many times I wondered why was what looks like F9 used so I can see trash or other distracting elements in the back when F3.2 would've been perfect to focus on just the bride and trash been blurred out. I personally shoot most weddings at F2.8 - F4 mostly unless the background works with the subject. This is going to be a rare comment for me. You may have the wrong camera. Your images look so much like my old camera it's amazing I struggled immensly taking pictures of people with it and it would always clip their faces or make their skin all one color/tone making editing so difficult and difficult getting good results. Slide one thing over 10% and the image was a disaster. I borrowed a newer model camera known for high dynamic range and was night and day, it collected so many subtle skin tones and variations compared to my old I could edit pictures to my hearts content, it was practically impossible to clip people's skin, and no more of that funny one color skin tone for near an entire face my old camera tended to do as I see in your images. Something to think about... but the bigger things are 1.) Don't include bad images and good of the same. 2.) Use a faster aperture to blur out the background/distracting elements 3.) Pay attention to the backgrounds... many times it's the background that makes the image and I felt it was the background that destroyed the image often in your case (like bride sitting around trash) 4.) It may be your camera that's doing the clipping of people's skin, and giving them that odd one color skin tone I'm seeing so often in those images.</p>

<p>x2 on the gels. You use a gel to change the color of your flash to match the sun. My flash came with an incandescent and flourescent gel... I frequently use the incandescent gel indoors to prevent the my flash is white and the incandescent light/background is orange. </p>

<p>I was in a pinch and wanted a blue gel on one flash, red on the other but wouldn't get them in time and I went to CVS and purchased a folder that had plastic color separators. I was able to cut the shape out for my flash and they've worked great so you may be able to find some plastic binder seperators near/close to the color you want.</p>

<p>I use Nikon, can't comment so much between the II and III except didn't see much the III offered besides AF improvements.</p>

<p>However, like others I would think hard about not getting IS in the 70-200 F2.8. I had Nikons equivalent non-IS version and switched to the one with. Here's some things to think about. 1st as the MP increase the need for stabilization increases as well. You say you don't need 36MP of the D800 today but I would think ahead on that. When the 5D Mark II came out at 21.1MP everyone scoffed who needs that much when Nikon and Canon had a gamut of ~12MP it's all anyone needs. 21MP is more storage, memory, computer, etc... now we fast forward today and 12MP is low, 21MP is the norm, and 36MP people scoff at. I suspect in 4-5 years you'll be using a 40MP+ Canon and a non-IS 70-200 F2.8 is going to be hard to cut on it. With that many MP you'll need to keep it at about 1/500th or faster at 200mm which is pretty hard to do... IS will keep things more attainable. Then if you use a TC...</p>

<p>The 70-200 F2.8 IS lens is so amazing on a FF and range so useful in so many situations I think it's most peoples money making lens of both manufacture(s). If there's one lens not to cheap out on, I would argue that is most likely the lens.</p>

<p>Those are some things to consider, but two things. I do mostly portraits and candids the 70-200 F2.8 VR is my workhorse lens I use on a D800. I would struggle not having stabilization and 36MP and trying to keep the shutter speed high and suspect you will to in a few years using a non-IS version on your 40MP+ Canon. Secondly I am someone from the dark side. Good luck</p>

<p>I think it comes down to shallower DOF. They do have bigger brighter viewfinders, but I didn't have problems with my crop factor's viewfinder. </p>

<p>To me shallower DOF is important as I shoot portraits, candids, kids, and food shots for my wifes business mostly. I found 2 issues with my crop factor. The first, was my 70-200 F2.8 had too much reach on it I like shots set to 200mm but my crop I just didn't have the room to do it very often. The 2nd, the tighter DOF is good for my wifes food shots I want to blur out the background as quickly as possible it can get busy fast and FF does that better. <br>

<br />I think FF important for anyone who photographs people and/or products (weddings, glamour, candids, portraits, products, kids, events) otherwise a crop factor fine, I prefer crop factors for sports and wildlife for the extra reach (particularly soccer and football). Although I say FF has shallower DOF I know the sensor size has nothing to do with it rather the action of having to change lenses to get a similar view or move closer is really the reason.</p>

<p>There's an accounting phrase, "Don't buy the same thing twice". You're sure the Mark III is pretty much what you need and yes you're hesitant because you can use 2 lenses at the same time easily with another II.</p>

<p>Here's where that phrase comes in above... get the Mark III. That phrase means if you get another Mark II what's going to happen is you'll convince yourself that the Mark III is what you needed in this scenario and that... you'll regret buying the Mark II you can't function anymore the Mark III is really what you needed and then buy the III as well. Now you've just wasted money as you "bought the same thing twice" when you'd been better off and saved yourself money getting the Mark III right from the start.</p>

<p>Get the Mark III, and trust me if you don't you'll be spending money later to get it so do it right from the start :) It's a great camera.</p>

<p>I should've mentioned I'm using Lightroom 4.2 as my other software. Looks great in lightroom, Picassa, and Windows picture viewer in slide-show mode (which is managed). I export it to Photoshop for editing from lightroom (or I can open the file direct doesn't matter) and boom it looks over-saturated in Photoshop compared to my other programs. Edit it keeping the over-saturated look, save, go back into Lightroom or any of the other programs and it looks fine. </p>

<p>I read your response, and I'm sorry I don't know if you were trying to say anything. In short I said I'm hosing photoshop to make it work and I know its wrong and your response is that I'm hosing photoshop to make it work and that's not a solution. Any advice as to what or where to look? </p>

<p>What I don't understand is, Photoshop is a color managed app. My Spyder calibration file is the default profile for windows and set as the default profile in my video card. My other programs and windows are using it. The proof my Photoshop is not, is when I say Assign Profile and choose my monitor calibration file the screen changes colors and becomes accurate to my monitor which tells me... Photoshop wasn't using my monitor calibration file to begin with. Like if Photoshop was using sRGB and I tell it to convert to sRGB I won't see any change since I'm converting to the same thing (I already tested). If Photoshop was using my calibration file, and I then assign it to my calibration file it shouldn't change if it was using it to begin with right? But the colors and such do change, which tells me it isn't using my monitors calibration file like it should forcing me to have to assign it. Anyone know where to look or why? Thanks</p>

<p>I have a Spyder 3 express/basic calibrator, Photoshop CS3, and Windows 7. The reason I got it, was whenever I opened a file up in Photoshop, got it looking great and saved it, opening that file in any other program looked different. I determined Photoshop the culprit, similar to applying 20 points of saturation to the view, but doesn't carry over to the saves every other program AND computer my photoshop file looks dull. Images that are nice and vibrant in other programs and computers, opening in my photoshop looks oversaturated. </p>

<p>I purchased Spyder 3, calibrated, and the calibration works. It's easy to see that but Photoshop is doing the same thing it's the only program that seems to ignore my monitors calibration. I read hours of pages and posts talking about color, working spaces, profiles, (they were rude to the poster) and they say "Photoshop uses the profile of your monitor in windows there's nothing for you to do" yet I find it evident Photoshop is the only one not using it and from those sites I'm doing everything right... by doing nothing. Nothing isn't working for me. </p>

<p>I found a way, but the posts I came across said what I'm doing is what idiots do to compensate for failures in other places. If I set the working space to sRGB and then under Assign Profile... choose SpyderExpress 3 low and behold Photoshop no longer saturates the view it looks like everything else. Although that works, everything I read says I'm doing it wrong. Do you have any thoughts? Does using Assign Profile make sense? </p>

<p>Thanks </p>

<p>I'm inclined to think it's the stabilization or element doing the stabilization with shutter speeds over say 1/400th or 1/450th.</p>

<p>I know Nikon advertises their VR sampling frequency is 1000 Hz. Canon will not state theirs. I assume if Canon was better than 1000 Hz they'd be quick to bring it to light to put Nikon in its place, or mention if it's 1000 Hz as well. The only reason I can see they won't release it is if it was less than Nikons so we should assume such.</p>

<p>Stabilization can detect/adjust for movement at best equal to half the frequency, which is 1/500th in Nikons case. Over 1/500th, Nikons VR should be turned off otherwise the system is running a correction that's not in sync with the shutter speed. The results, your system looks to be a bit off/blurry. Your image was taken at 1/500th and if my theory is correct that it's above Canons sampling rate you're in the category your stabilizing out of sync with your shutter.</p>

<p>The next clue, is the bokeh & background. On some lenses it's rather noticeable the bokeh/background moves slightly different than what's in focus with stabilization on. That seems to be evident here, what's called "busy bokeh".</p>

<p>My theory is, the issue occurs with shutter speeds over say... 1/400th or 1/450th with IS on (or maybe just 1/500th) and it's your system stabilization compensating out of sync with the shutter. Some shutter speeds may be better than others, but shut it off over 1/450th shutter speed. You can read about this info I stated here <a href="http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm">http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm</a> ... if you weren't using IS I think you have something wrong with the IS in that lens, maybe it can't shut off or isn't communicating right and the lens needs repair but that image just seems to have the things about it when stabilization goes bad.</p>

<p>They also seem to use some filters/actions in Photoshop, like Exposure 4 from Alienskin to create that old/washed look or I've bought some actions from Paint The Moon that do similar. The question "What settings would give these results on an average day" the answer would be none. Those images really look like the results I get using paint the moon photoshop actions, possibly Exposure 4 as well.</p>

<p>I would take a picture of a model and do the lighting the best you can. Then, download the free actions from paint the moon (<a href="http://paintthemoon.net/blog/tag/free-actions/">http://paintthemoon.net/blog/tag/free-actions/</a>) and run them on the photo(s) to see if they produce that look (I think they will). Then take it from there, buy some actions, Exposure 4, other actions on the web, etc.</p>

<p>I will warn those types of images look great on the web but some have asked me for prints and they look horrible! On the web, you know that was the look you were going for and not that your monitor screwed up. However, on prints you don't have that same reference/base and those images look like your ink was running out or having printer problems. Usually, the actions that produce that look will actually say for "web images" and for good reason. </p>

<p>I would stick to one with a bigger sensor, and manual mode is typically best done with a dslr. Any dslr that has an aps-C sized sensor should do the trick. The Sony NEX has an APS-C sized sensor, but I think using it in manual mode (since it doesn't have dials) is going to be tough to chew.</p>

<p>The camera brand is going to offer little difference in the image quality but bring differences to feel. You'll use something and enjoy it more if it feels nice more than one that doesn't. If deciding between Canon/Nikon (what I'm most familiar with) pay attention to the dials in terms of feel. Canon the dial(s) are vertical and Nikon horizontal. Lower-end models have 1 dial, I recommend trying out the higher end models they have 2 seperate dials for aperture & shutter you may prefer one over the other.</p>

<p>For lens I recommend a 50mm prime, a new one (not older version). They're very sharp, inexpensive, great for portraits. There's one caveat, if you like Canon above I'd get the Sigma 50mm. The Sigma's 50mm has rounded blades, meaning the blur in the background will be a more pleasant round instead of looking like stop signs. If you like Nikon above you're good, the newest Nikon 50mm's have rounded blades.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>About the built-in flash, this is what I'm talking about. This video is a Canon user, giving a tip about using a flash (exactly the same way I use my D800 built-in flash) to improve portraits but I don't have to lug a hot-shoe to do it. <a href="

fast forward to 2:15.</p>

<p>I do that style all the time with family & kids, typically I photograph children outside playing/running so umbrella's and other eq don't work so well. I can see some have taken my comments as if I'm saying use on-camera flash for weddings, studio portrait work... Yikes!!! But.. limited range as a commander? I don't know how much range we're talking about I've not used it outdoors when sunny as a commander but otherwise haven't come across a range problem yet in 6 years indoors. Accidentally popping it up... the two camera's I have (D200 and D800) the release isn't near any buttons or fingers, if your finger is hitting it it's because you're looking for it. The release has to be pressed in to almost be flush with the camera body before it springs, and on those cameras there isn't a way to lay the camera down on a flat surface in a way to trigger it. So I don't know how it is a problem accidentally popping, I would like to know though I haven't accidentally popped one up going almost 2 years. </p>

<p>Anyway I love the built-in flash and I use it all the time for fill/catch lights for outdoor portraits in the exact manner as the video above and playing children. Indoors, I love using it as commander.</p>

<p>To add to Dan Wolfgang, I also favor Nikons custom white balance. With Nikon, you hold the WB button down while taking a picture of something white or pointing it at the light source and done! Couldn't be easier. Canon, you take a picture of something white (or the light source). Go through the menu's and choose custom WB, then select the image you took, then preview your images, then delete the image. Oddly, so many Canon users struggle immensly with how easy it is on Nikons. I saw so many reviews of the D800 the user videod themselves spending 5-10 minutes trying to figure out how to set the custom white balance to the image they just took (the way Canon does it)... not knowing how much easier it is. But that's how I knew it was a Canon user trying out a Nikon, they usually gave up and said setting the WB on Nikons is just too difficult. *sigh* Nikon has had the hold the WB button down while taking a picture of something white (or point it to the light) with no need for menu's to set it for about 10 years. </p>

<p>Nikon has improved the custom WB option as well (I use a D800). On the older camera's you chose the bank (D-1 to D-4) but there wasn't a way to tell which was for what. Now, you can use the old way by selecting D-1 through D-4 without menus or go through the menu system BUT using menus includes the picture taken to set it. That picture remains through formats, card changes, etc. Basically now, choosing it through the menu I see D-1 was the image of a lamp at the hotel, D-2 is snow, D-3 was in the shadow of that house, D-4 a piece of paper taken in flourescent light and I can see none of them is what I want so I'm going to overwrite D-1 with a new one as I still want D-2 through D-4. Previously, you just guessed or possibly overwrote one you didn't mean to.</p>

<p>I prefer the Nikon flash system, it works in stops, not ratios like Canon. Nikons flashes communicate both ways (camera talks to flash, flash talks to Camera) Canon is one way. The big one though is simply Nikons flashes work in stops which is something all photographers understand. </p>

<p>I love that Nikon has built-in flashes on their upper models. Anyone who says they're useless or get in the way doesn't know what they're talking about IMHO. To improve outdoor portraits, adding a catch light to the eyes is key. The built-in flash is more than capable of doing it, I usually set it to -3 EV. Otherwise, I found myself getting lazy and not attaching the hot shoe flash (for those family & friend shots) when I knew it would improve the image. It can also trigger hot-shoe flashes.</p>

<p>I like that Nikon full frames can use the DX lenses as well. I have the 18-200 DX lens I use all the time on my Nikon D800 when I want a do it all lens.</p>

 

<p>I welcome lightness, I believe most do as well. Looking at comparisons/reviews between cameras such as D800 vs. 5D Mark III they have wins/loses in many categories. Lighter camera's are considered the winner.</p>

<p>I'm looking at a comparison between the D800 and 5D Mark III right now and it says the D800 being 900g (10% lighter) wins over the Mark III's 950g. I prefer lighter, I will never forget walking around Antarctica with my F5 around my neck for 4-5 hours at a time twice a day and how much pain I endured... wishing for something lighter and that was almost 15 years ago. I find it odd the most lingering memory of that trip was the pain & suffering my neck endured carrying such a heavy camera. First thing I bought when I got back was a belt system holder... wasn't doing that again :) </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have an sb600, 800 and 910 that fires randomly with the camera just hanging on my side. From what I've read on some forums it seems like a hot shoe replacement is necessary. Anyone here ever had this issue with any other nikons having this problem and what was the outcome?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I had the misfiring flash situation on my D200, didn't realize it was also on the D7000. Didn't matter SB800 or SB600 the flash would go off randomly anywhere from 1-5 times every minute or so. Drove me and others crazy, you know... having the camera by your side with the hot-shoe flash inadvertently aimed at someone and then it would fire 3 times in quick succession in their face without my control. Then they'd say what the hell, and then it would fire 2 more times. Had one woman storm off bitching up a storm cause it blasted her when she had a headache/sensitivity to light and thought I'd done it on purpose.</p>

<p>I hated pretty much everything about my D200, wasn't going to pay to have that issue resolved. Was just icing on the cake for hating it. Got a D800, doesn't do it.</p>

<p>I hate to be the bearer of bad news, you have to suck it up with a smile on your face and do what they ask. Some things are a hit, when you don't have any time to post-processing and a bit embarrased to show the client what you did and get ready for a redo or explain you need the time to post process and they think it's the greatest work they've ever seen. Othertimes, as is here, you think you did a fine job but the client isn't happy. You just go back with a smile on your face, discuss with the client their expectations, and tell them you'd be happy to reshoot. Since your wife works for this organization especially :) </p>