billfoster

". I updated the firmware I tried it with another card"... I missed the full meaning of this nugget. So the camera can recognise and READ from another card, if it could update the firmware, I guess it must!. I gather it cannot WRITE to this other card either?

.

 

 

Exactly. It read from the card to update the firmware. And the card works because I can read it in the computer and write to it in the computer. It is just that the camera isn't recording when I take a picture. Wierdest thing I've seen.

My friend broke her D80 and had it repaired at the factory (dropped it down stairs). When she got it back, she moved and never used it as she didn't have a lens. It stayed in box for three years. I gave her one and unwrapped it this morning. The images she took (including one falling down the stairs) were still on the card. I took a picture and it worked and picture was recorded on the SD card.

 

She asked me a question so I stopped to explain it to her and reset some things on the camera. I changed the image quality to RAW and turned the ISO up to 1600. After 30 min, we took another picture. The shutter moved, the camera appeared to work perfectly but when the image review popped up, it was of the last picture. The picture we took was not recorded. I put the card in my computer to be sure. No image. Older images were all there. Tried taking more. Not recorded.

 

Here is what I did.

 

Card works in my D800.

I formatted the card in the D 80 and it appeared to format correctly. After formatting, I can put it in my computer and see the empty DCIM file.

 

I reset the iamge quality and ISO back to where they were (I know it should be meaningless)

 

I did a factory reset holding the two buttons down.

 

I took the battery out for ten seconds.

 

I updated the firmware

 

I tried it with another card.

 

It seems like it has to go back. Does anyone have any other ideas?

<p>I shoot mostly concerts in small clubs with terrible lighting using a D700 and the same two lenses you have. I think you will be fine. I had a pretty big learning curve, but I almost never use flash now. What I learned:<br>

1. RAW. I saw a comment that says you shoot RAW, I beleive. That is essential. Most of the place I shoot have changing light so setting a white balance is useless, but if you do indeed have stable lighting, than setting the WB under concert conditions with a grey card will probably help. However, I often find myself adjusting it in ACR all the same as the lgihts are not attractive and I can get a more pleasing shot by manipulating the temperature. For isntance, I shoot under yellow and blue lights quite often and I prefer not to have blue skin if I can avoid it .... it always depends on the shot, of course.<br>

2. Don't be afraid of high ISO. I try to avoid 6400 myself, but in a emergency, I've used it, using Noise Ninja in PP. I shoot at 5000 fairly routinely.<br>

3. Spot exposure works best for me, but I frequently get it wrong. You are probably better at this than me, but my number one problem is getting a really hot face or guitar (and banjos - good lord, they are a photographers nightmare, a big white sun in the middle of the picture). That is why RAW is essential. I mention this because I did shoot some African American drummers in NOLA and I had a bit of difficulty as they had bright yellow drums so the contrast between their faces and drums was fairly tough to deal with.<br>

4. I wouldn't worry about the tripod myself. I can use one most places I shoot, but find it limiting. It's too hard to recompose and follow moving subjects and it doesn't help with motion. as everyone above noted.<br>

5. The biggest problem for me is that I am constantly at f2.8, so when shooting a group, I have to pick a point of interest to be in focus. This can be quite difficult if the people are moving. Even a drummer who rocks his head back and forth while playing can make focus difficult as the plane is pretty small. But, stopping down to get more DOF isn't an option. I am sure you know all this, but it something that I find I have to constantly think about. I usually don't shoot too many shots with the whole group for that reason. I prefer close ups with good focus of one person.<br>

6. Shoot, shoot, shoot. Between closed eyes, focusing on a microphone instead of the lips, subject movement, hot spots, etc., I get about 20% keepers at best. I've learned to jsut shoot like crazy.<br>

Bill</p>

<p>I have traveled with mine to Harbin, China (-40) and Tomsk, Russia (Siberia -35 or so) and had no problems. I changed lenses outside, being careful to have my ski mask over my mouth and bagged the camera for fifteen minutes in and out. That's the big thing ... do not forget as if you get condensation on a lens and it freezes, it may be dark by the time you can shoot again.<br>

For me, the most important issue is what kind of gloves you have and how you will handle the camera. I frequently had to remove mine on my first trip in order to effect settings, which is why my hands were so cold that I dropped the damn thing. I literally could not feel that it was in my hand anymore.Don't mess around .... it can hit you fast at those temps. The second time, I took a pair of thin gloves that I wore under my big gloves. I could take my gloves off to change lenses and still have some protection.</p>

<p>You may also want to give some thought to the logistics of this, where you will set your gloves if you take them off, where you can place the lens in your bag, etc.</p>

<p>Have fun ... it's beautiful country. Stay away from that damn hot pepper vodka.</p>

<p>I read somehwere that the continuous function is activated by pushing the center button of the Manual/Auto button and then turning a dial on the back.<br>

If so, that would be a huge relief because I change that damn m/f/c switch on my D700 about five times a night by accident. It's the only thing that really drove me crazy about the camera.</p>

<p>I had my D700 stolen recently (I put up another thread about this but didn't get much response) and need to replace it. I shoot a lot of travel photography and I am sure the D7K will match the D700 for this. However, I have recently been shooting a lot of local bands in small clubs where I need to go up to ISO 5000 to capture the natural light. Of course, there is some noise but it is acceptable to me and I don't disturb the performers/crowd with flash. I have been ecsttatic with the low light capability and it is no exaggeration to say that it has revolutionized the way I shoot.<br>

I understand that moving back to DX would entail some sacrifice (little bit less DOF/bokeh, less wide-angle capability without a new lens) but I am willing to make it in exchange for the incresed resolution (minor point but I do crop a LOT sometimes) and (especially) the $1000 price difference (my 24-70 f2.8 was stolen also. I still have the 70-200 f2.8 but I can use that on DX). The video is a nice addition also. So, my question is: is there a chance that this DX sensor can meet the low light capability of the D700? I am a little leary as I originally had a D300 and was very unsatisfied with the ISO performance but the D700 was wonderful. On the Chase Jarvis blog Shun mentioned, they say in the comments that it equals the D3 and is good for commercial use to ISO 3200 and some applications to ISO 6400. Is this mentioned anywhere else? Have any other reviewers had a chance to see noise levels yet?</p>

<p>I'll check it. Hard to prove with no evidence of a break in. And, I don't understand why a thief would take the camera out of the bag and leave the bag (along with two flashes and a 70-200 f2.8). Anything's possible, I guess .....</p>

<p>Hi Tim,<br>

It would have covered it in my home but not in New Orleans. I did check.</p>

<p>Thank you also, Sarah, I will do that.</p>

<p>Bill</p>

<p>Here is an example of the kind of work I like to do now. I tried to use a D-300 for this, but jsut wasn't happy with the noise level.</p><div></div>

<p>So, shortly (one day actually) after reading that horrible, horrible post about the poor fellow who had his D700 stolen out of his bag in London, the exact same thing happened to me in New Orleans. I lost a D700 with a 24-70 f2.8 on it. The worst thing, I really have NO idea how they got it. I went to get my car (every damn hotel in NOLA is valet parking) and had to wait about 20 min. I set the bag about three feet behind me against the wall (around 1030 AM). While waiting, I talked to a couple people (guests - don't think anyone was an accomplice and I started the conversations not them) but I kept a close eye on it, I thought. I put the bag in the trunk when my car arrived. I then went to the city park and ran five miles, ate lunch and came back without using the camera (I had thought about driving somewhere to shoot but changed my mind). I grabbed bag out of trunk and went to room. As I threw it on bed, I noticed it was half-unzipped and camera was gone. The only possibilities seem to be that (a) someone took it out of the hotel the night before. I don't think this coulb be the case as I hope I would have noticed the half open bag. Furthermore, the do not disturb sign was up and the hotel says no cleaning people came in. Nothing else was disturbed, including computer and iPad in a separate bag and the 70-200 and two flashes that were in the bag. that leaves, (b) someone took it out of my trunk without leaving a sign (I am sure car was locked and why wouldn't they take whole bag, it would look much less suspicious) or © they got it off the ground from behind me, which would explain why bag was half open, but I was watching close. If they did it, it was some serious ninja work. I am so very angry at myself for not purchasing insurance and not keeping an even closer eye on it. Especially, when I JUST read that it happened to someone else. However, the worst thing is not knowing how it happened. It's making me crazy.

<p>In any case, here is my dilemma. I shoot travel pictures, which you can see here, and, recently, a lot of shots of local musicians in small clubs. That's my current passion. I will post one example in a moment. With the D700, I was able to get acceptable results at ISO 5000 with no flash. Perhaps not publication worthy, but certainly adequate for my uses. I want to replace my camera ASAP (there is a big music festival this weekend in Bristol, TN), but I am willing to wait some time if I am going to get something better. Nikon Rumors has what appears to be fairly valid info about a new D-7000 that will be announced tonight. I know it's speculation, but what I want to know is this: is there any chance that the high ISO performance of a 16MP DX sensor can approach that of an FX like the D700? I know that the D700 will certainly be replaced one day, but I loved it as a camera and I am not willing to go six months without a camera. However, if there is a chance that this new model can approach it (at $1000 less - this loss was a pretty big financial low so that would be nice), than I would be willing to wait till October.

<p>Also, if I do replace the D700, I have to replace the 24-70 also. I don't want to spend that much, but I don't want to compromise too much as I loved that lens. Are there any cheaper lenses that are adequate?

<p>Also, if anyone has any suggestions about where to purchase insurance for my new rig, I'd love to hear it.

<p>thanks everyone!

 

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

<p>I've found this to be a pretty serious problem. I've been careful, but I change lenses a lot and I get a lot of particles on it. It doesn't seem to me that the in camera sensor cleaning does anything at all. I don't know, maybe it would be a lot worse without it. But, i have taken a picture and looked at all the spots, run the cleaning and checked again and wasn't able to detect anything. I clean it manually, but I'm not so good at that either.</p>

<p>FWIW, I had the same problem with my D-300. I try to be careful about changing the lenses, but the sensor just gets filthy after a couple months.</p>

<p>Agreed Michael ..... the ability to shoot at such higher ISO has completely transformed my photography. For me, it is the biggest revolution since the switch to digital itself.</p>

<p>No one here seems to have gotten at what would be my main consideration. I LOVE my D-700. Great, tough camera that I've beaten the hell out of. But, I got it two years ago. For a decade, it seemed like a I wanted to replace my camera every year or eighteen months, but cameras, like computers, really seem to have arrived at a point where they are "good enough" and that point is a bit, just a bit, past the D-700. I find the resolution limits me just a small bit (either in concert shoots or when I want more zoom than I have as I only have a 200mm) and the dynamic range could be better. Video is not necessary, but, I'd rather have it than not have it. Sometime in the next year, I imagine there will be something at more or less the same price that has video, better range and a bit more resolution. Will you be happy when that happens? I wouldn't be and I wouldn't let one single trip affect my decsion.</p>

<p>Have fun though! I lived in both places and they are both wonderful! Hit up the fish stands near the Galata Bridge and get into Fatih for some good photography in Istanbul.</p>

<p>I don't have much new to add but I agree completely. I shoot a lot of local bands in small, smokey bars and I get shots that were impossible without my D700. Also, I often carry it at night walking around a strange city (I can't carry a tripod when I'm eating dinner and going out, etc) and have gotten a lot of night time shots I could never have gotten before.</p>

<p>I don't want to hijack the OP's thread, but I do have an additional question. I tend to alternate between using ISO 100 and using my flash (Nikon SB-600) in TTL mode, which overwhelms the original lighting, and shooting at high ISO (3200-5000) with no flash, which, as noted, gives a good mood but can still be a bit blurry or have shadow problems. Can anyone point me to a good tutorial or discussion on using the flash to just "ping" a bit of light on the subject without overwhelming it?</p>

<p>I have a D-700 with a f2.8 70-200 and f2.8 24-70 and I have to say that I seriously underestimated the weight (the lenses more than the body) and the "intimidation" factor. The latter stifles my photography a bit as when I am in India or China and I put that lens to my eye, cars crash into poles looking at me. Really. People spot it from 500 meters away.<br>

I also carry a G-10. Sure, the IQ and the bokeh isn't as good, but in favorable conditions (sunny days mostly) it equals my other rig and I get great pictures because it is always with me. I get a lot of pictures because I run five miles a day wherever I am and I carry the g-10 with me while I run. In fact, I just came back from New Orleans and the best pictures I took were of the "Brad Pitt" houses and I took those while jogging in the Lower Ninth. In fact, in five days, I only took the big rig out once, for a trip down to Venice and the bayou. That seems a fairly typical ratio for me these days. That said, because I didn't take the big rig out at night, I have no useable night shots from that trip.</p>

 

<p>Sometimes when I travel, I carry my G-10 in my pocket and walk around whatever city I am in at night. I don't carry a tripod because I am going to walk around for three or four hours and eat dinner and have beer and who wants to carry a tripod through all that? This though .... this I could carry.</p>

<p>It is what it is and for the right situation (shooting with a compact camera and traveling light), it seems like it could work.</p>

<p>You know, I am certain Lannie has hung around these boards enough to have heard the maximum pixel/noise discussion 1000 times. Let's not play photo purist and talk about how no one needs more than 12 MP. How 'bout we think outside the box a bit about what is theoretically possible and/or useful? It's easy to say, "I don't need 40 MP" but I recall holding a Seagate 64 Megabyte hard drive in my hand and saying to my friend, "Who would ever buy this? What can you possibly do with that much space?" At the time, it was a legitimate question.</p>

<p>In fact, the Internet provides an instructive example. Go back and look at all predictions of how networks would never be fast enough for streaming video. The reason it became possible so quickly was because the advances came not in network speed, but in compression technology. Suppose someone comes up with a superconducting material at room temperature (which would, of course, revolutionize much more than photography) so that sensor noise is not an issue. Perhaps another was might be found to reduce it? Perhaps in-camera algorithms will be able to completely cancel it out? Are you all saying (assuming that hard drive space and computer processor speed keep up) that you wouldn't love a 100 MP camera with no noise at ISO 128,000? Think how you could crop!</p>

<p>In fact, that is what fascinates me. Suppose we get to a point where one can take a picture of the NYC skyline and crop down to one window of the whole skyline? Could photography become more a matter of cropping and composing on the computer? You just shoot and capture everything and there is enough resolution to do what you need later. Or, Craig's idea is fascinating. Instead of concentrating on resolution, what could changes in dynamic range bring into the picture? Imagine a camera that captured the same range as your eye (which, btw, actually doesn't capture that well. It just moves around a lot and your brain puts it together). What effects could this have on professional photography? Imagine a camera that could just be pointed at a scene and it captured EVERYTHING. All the shadow, all the highlights, all the resolution? Would it still be art or just a recording? I could envision a day when cameras become so powerful that it endangers the profession. It seems far-fetched, but no one who has lived through the last thirty years should imagine that we can predict anything about the future. Remember, everyone saw jet-packs .... no one saw the Internet.</p>

<p>I have a G-10 and a D-700. For shooting, say a castle on a hill in bright sunlight, the G-10 is phenomenal and sometimes even outperforms the D-700. for instance, I have gotten some nice shots by cropping that big 14.7 MP image from the G-10.</p>

<p>That said, is can't compare to the D-700 in a lot of situations:</p>

<p>- shooting in the dark. The high ISO ratings of full-frame cameras are unbelievable. I don't use anything over 400 on the G-10 and even 400 is a bit noisy. With the D-700 on ISO 5000, I have handheld cityscapes at night.<br>

- Inside at parties, in churches, etc. For the same reasons, the increased ISO will allow you to get shots inside that are impossible with the G-10.<br>

- Depth of field. The reduced sensor size means it is much harder to get a blurry background or nice bokeh. This is important with portraits.<br>

- For the same reason, it is hard to get a small enough aperture for some shots. For instance, if you want to slow the motion of a water fall in bright sunlight, it's difficult. To slow it enough to show motion blur from people moving in a bright light is also very difficult.<br>

- Of course, the interchangeable lenses (you might want more reach than the G-10 will offer) and the ability to mount filters and the fast auto-focus, etc. are all important also. For instance, it can be difficult to tell where the G-10 is focused and focusing can be slow. Again, if you are shooting landscapes with it, you won't notice, but try to shot your kids playing soccer are you find a HUGE difference.</p>

<p>Good luck. Let us know how it goes.</p>

<p>First, good luck on your wedding! Second, a word of caution not for you but for your brother. I did the same thing for some of my best friends. I told them I would photograph their wedding years ago, so when they did, I flew to Italy with my fiancee - who officiated - and shot it. It was a wonderful experience but I am not sure I would do it again. First, it was a lot more stressful than I imagined. It was all completely self-induced; the couple were wonderful. However, I feel like i should have been better prepared and could have done a much better job. Second, as someone above noted, I feel like I missed a really important event in my friend's lives. I was so busy working that I saw nothing and really don't remember very much.<br>

So, just something to keep in mind. Since you are going to do this, i would stress that you really go over things in advance. Sit down with them and a few beers and really plan out some shots. Talk about composition (full body or half, face filling frame or back off a bit), what group shots you want, as much detail as you can. If they have a good idea what to do going in, it will really relieve the stress on them.</p>

 

<p>I have been had a couple of bad experiences with batteries dying right when a great shot presented itself, usually after a full day of shooting walking around Istanbul or Cairo or some such, admittedly usually because I forgot to bring an extra battery or recharge or something. In any case, because of that, I have always been very careful and I turn the camera off after every single shot and I don't use the LCD to review and delete (I mean, I look at the shot of course, but I don't go through them and delete bad ones or look to see what I have).</p>

<p>What has always fascinated me about art is that we respond to art because of limitations. If your camera captured EXACTLY what your eye saw, exactly as you saw it, I think most people would not be very interested. What we do is take that limitation, a limited point of view, a limited dynamic range, available light, etc., and use that to make ART, to make something different than we saw. We like balck and white because we understand the limitations, that when you take the color away, the viewer has to focus on something else. We admire Monet because of how much atmosphere he cam create without detail. we admire the White Stripes because of how much they can convey with only (most of the time) two instruments.</p>

<p>What I am saying is that I try not to be concerned about my limitations because there will always be something limiting you. Instead, I just try to use my limitations to my advantage.</p>

<p>That said, I moved from the D300 to the D700 and it is REVOLUTIONARY. rather than worry about a faster prime, if you are really interested on low light, there is nothing else like it.</p>

<p>I had the same question. I previously had a D-300 and while the 24-300 wasn't the best image quality avaialble, it was good enough for most things, light and easy to carry. After schlepping my 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 all over India, I would love a lighter alternative sometime but I thought most superzooms were useless with the FX format. I see someone above recommends a Tamron 28-300. Does anyone else have experience with this lens? Are there any other superzooms that work well on the D-700?</p>

<p>I had this lens on my lost D300 and I LOVED it. For what it is, a great single lens for walking around taking pictures of anything you see, it's tough to beat. I have the D700 now and I wish so much there was a comparable lens I could use on it. I have the 17-55 and the 70-200, but try lugging those two cannons (no pun intended) around India for 8 hours when it's 104 outside. It's not the sharpest but for my uses, it was fantastic.</p>

<p>Well, I thought about waiting for the follow-up and probably should have, but I "lost" (ie, stupidly left it in an airport while boarding) my D300 and waited six months to replace it and I was just going crazy without one. I realize it may not be the best decsion, but there is always something new coming along and I don't regret it. It is a great camera.</p>

<p>As far as being unsatisfied, I am really happy with the IQ. But, think hard about the weight. It's not a trivial thing. The camera is big, but the glass is huge. I decided that I really cared about getting the best I could and hopefully using the lenses for a decade or more so I didn't skimp, but I seriously underestimated how much trouble they are too lug around and how much trouble changing lenses frequently can be. Some things to think about:</p>

<p>1. A super-zoom, such as a 4.5 18-200 (which is a 27-350 on DX) is just so versatile. You have to use a tripod more and can't get the same DOF, but for walking around in a dusty city, it's hard to beat. When I was just exploring, not looking for serious work, I could carry the D300 and one lens and not even take a bag.</p>

<p>2. Changing lenses with that 70-200 is cumbersome and difficult. I worry about dust getting in the sensor (although it hasn't been a problem so far) as it takes me about 30 seconds to change a lens. I could do it in 5 or so on the D300. The mechanism is the same, but the logistics of taking the lenses in and out of the bags and trying to hold them is different. I also worry about someone snatching something while I am fiddling.</p>

<p>3. It is REALLY noticable. The D300 with a super zoom has more reach (although you may have camera shake issues that stop you from using it) so you can sometimes get a street shot from further away and is somewhat smaller. When I put the D700 with that 70-200 up to my eye, it's like a movie when a stranger walks in a bar and everything comes to a halt. people NOTICE. That said, when I shot a concert the other night, people assumed I was a pro and just moved right out of my way and let me to the front.</p>

 

<p>My first impression was the size. I have the 24-70 nad he 70-200 to go with it and - altough they are great lenses - they are huge. I'm in good shape and very accustomed to sometimes walking around a city with my camera for 10-12 hours on a day off from work, but carrying that combo around India (the only place I have done it so far) wore me out. Additionally, I really miss the comfort of being able to just carry a 18-200 4.5 fr ordinary travel shots. I thought I would really miss the reach - the 200 being 200 instead of 350 - but I haven't found it to be a problem and the width is wonderful. The DOF takes some getting used to. I had to relearn how to shoot close up. But, the high ISO is unbelievable. As many have noted, I don't carry a flash most times and the picture quality is fantastic.</p>