pge

<p>This roll was getting a bit old so I let my 10 year old daughter (at the time) shoot it with a water pistol. We then did a family portrait using it.</p><div></div>

<p>I find that seemless gives you more options, even a single colour can look very different depending on how you light it. I have also been able to pick up several rolls quite cheaply on craigs list. Photographers often buy a colour for a particular project and then sell the roll for next to nothing so they don't have to store it.</p>

<p>I cut a piece off a roll once because it was dirty with foot prints. I folded a paper airplane out of it 9 feet in length and then threw if off the 3rd floor deck of my house. It travelled quite a ways. So you see, seemless has other uses outside of photography. Try to do that with a muslin.</p>

<p>Andrew, I don't disagree with you that the D800 is a better camera, but that doesn't diminish the D300 at all. My point is that many factors go into great photos, and starting with a better camera is only a small advantage. Its not always the biggest sword that wins the fight.</p>

<p>Just because a better camera exists does not make the D300 "insufficient". That is marketing coolaid.</p>

<p>Who's photos have the edge, the photographer with a D800 and virtually no post processing skills or the photographer with a D300 and substantial post processing skills?</p>

<p>I thought it was a good article. I liked this quote.<br>

"<em>An image with great content, shot with a shitty camera, will always beat an image of your cat sleeping on the carpet shot with a medium format digital back and priceless German glass.</em>"</p>

<p>Mike, people have been taking great photos of moving objects for years. It just takes less skill now.</p>

<p>Robert, it’s easy to point out better cameras. Some might suggest that your D3 is pretty old. But if you can't produce great photos with a D300 a better camera is not going to solve your problem. Plus, a camera is more than a sensor. The D300 is a better camera in several ways than a D610 even though obviously there is no comparison between sensors. Your comparison further fails because the D300 is a $400 camera today and the D610 is not.</p>

<p>For the record, I have also owned the sensor that comes in the D3, and yes it's pretty amazing. I preferred it in many ways to my present 36mp's.</p>

<p>My backup/vacation camera is a D300 and I agree it is a fine machine that can handle iso's up to 1600 nicely with some attention in post processing. 12mp is plenty for me. </p>

<p>This is the best price in Toronto from a reputable authorized dealer >> $989.00 <a href="http://www.adencamera.com/product-overviewer.asp?ProdID=4288&Category=6">LINK</a></p>

 

<p>I'm glad it worked out.</p>

<p>Andrew is likely on to something here. Check your AF-C priority selection and AF-S priority selection which are Custom Setting Menu a1 and a2 on the D800, sorry I do not have a D600. Make sure they are both set to Release.</p>

<p>Are you changing your Release Mode Dial to CH rather than S? Are you holding down the shutter rather than releasing it while in CH?</p>

<p>Joe, of course you summed up insurance well, however not very realistically. Given your little course on insurance, it would never make sense to buy it, but of course it does in some situations. Yes insurance companies will "win" in the long run, otherwise they wouldn't exist. And yes, if you buy hundreds of policies of insurance you would have been better off self-insuring as you suggest. But that is not how most of us buy insurance. You buy insurance to reduce your risk in individual situations. I would never NOT have home insurance, not because it is a winning bet (which it is not) but because I can afford the insurance premium, but losing my house would be devastating. Therefore I am not so sure your statement is helpful. The OP has to decide if it is worth it for him to reduce his risk in this one situation. All that said, I never buy this type of insurance, and as Joe suggests, I self-insure.</p>

<p>I also never buy extended warranties. I find them expensive and questionable. However less than a year ago I had a D700 stolen and my insurance company replaced it with a D800. I live in Toronto and we have 3 well established and reliable local camera vendors. At the time one was offering a free Mack warranty with the purchase of the camera. The price was the same for the D800 at all three vendors. I bought the camera from the vendor that offered the warranty and I didn't even do much research to see if Mack was any good. I thought it was better than not having it and it was free so why not. So far I haven't needed a warranty but if I do at least I can try to take advantage this extended Mack warranty. </p>

<p>Given that you already have a 50mm lens, a 60mm macro lens will only be useful to you as a macro lens. Perhaps the 105mm macro lens would work for your present project but would also be useful to you in other areas of your photography.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have no problem spending the money for either 2.8 lens but I ask why spend the extra if one doesn't have to.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fair question. I would just add two points. One stop is not small, it means that the 4.0 lens only lets in half as much light as the 2.8 lens for the camera to work with at maximum aperture. The second point is that cameras focuses at maximum aperture so your camera will focus better and in less light with the 2.8 than with the 4.0</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you want to put a new camera against the D300(s) i guess the D7100 would come closest</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But I think the point of the comparison was to put $400 cameras against each other.</p>

 

<p>I am a member of another forum which is frequented by mostly fashion photographers. Someone recently posted the question, which one should I buy (D300 vs. D3200), being that they are about the same price? I spend much more time reading photo.net than I do this other forum so I am more familiar with the advice generally given here. I would personally prefer the D300 but said in my reply that I suspected that most would choose the much newer D3200. I believe the majority advice would have been for the D3200 had the question been posted here. The term "older technology" comes to mind. To my surprise the advice from the large majority was to purchase the older D300 rather than the consumer D3200.</p>

<p>This got me thinking.<br>

<br /> Either I am wrong and he would have received the same advice here or photo.net members tend to have different needs in a camera than members of that other forum and therefore would give different advice in this situation.</p>

<p>What would you have advised? Would your advice change knowing that the camera was to be used mostly for fashion (he said in the post portraits, weddings and newborns but it is a fashion forum)?</p>

<p>I could not find the forum rules on photo.net and do not know if it is ok to post links to other forums. If someone tells me that it is ok I will post the link.</p>

 

 

<p>Perhaps I put my point to strongly. However IS is very useful in many different situations and I would not be without it on a long lens, in fact anything 105mm or over. Yes there are situations where it is not useful, BIF being a good example where your subject is moving so much that camera shake is not the issue that must be overcome. However all too often there is not enough light to go around and IS is a godsend, or at least that is what I find.</p>

<p>Hand holding a 300mm lens, not even counting the crop factor, is essentially impossible. However IS made it possible again. IMO, the 200mm to 300mm range of this lens must be thought of as tripod or monopod only. If I were you I would save up for a lens with IS.</p>

<p>I think you will melt those strobes in no time. I am with Matt on this one, not necessarily the brand, but that quality.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is certainly no way they can make it better.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I really hate to comment further on this post... beating a dead horse. But...</p>

<p>Shun, with your D800e that is true. But in this particular case they (Nikon) are offering to "make it better" than it was before. For me, I would not turn down this free offer.</p>

<p>But Bahram, the OP asked "Should I send my camera in anyway?"</p>

<p>My opinion was yes because of resale. I'm not sure what discussion about taking photos would have answered his question. I was just supplying a perspective that might have been useful in his decision making. Obviously the decision is his.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why?<br>

First of all, Nikon never says that any replacement shutter is improved.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some things can just be assumed. Given that this is Nikon's second shot at this shutter, I don't think this is a total stretch.</p>

<p>I was just making the point that if your classified ad stated that your D600 included the new, and presumably improved, shutter your ad may be more attractive than others. At any rate you would at least be satisfying those who suspect that you may just be trying to off-load your problem D600 onto them. I am not trying to be controversial, I am just raising the point.</p>

<p>Derek, when it comes time to sell your camera it will likely be worth more on the used market if you have Nikon give you this new and improved shutter.</p>