jonb

<p>As others have said, there isn't enough information provided to give a definitive answer. The first question is whether you are looking at a DX budget or an FX budget. I put it that way because there is a significant gap between the two. Not only are FX cameras generally more expensive, but also you will need a longer lens for FX once you go outside for soccer.</p> <p>If you are on a DX budget, the suggestion of the D7100 and 70-200/2.8 makes a great deal of sense. However, if you are willing to buy a lens only for basketball to start with, then supplement it with a lens for soccer in the spring, it may make more sense to start with a prime for basketball. I rather like the Sigma 50/1.4 lens, but the Nikon f/1.8 lenses are perfectly viable choices as well. Focal lengths of 35, 50 and 85 mm would allow you to shoot from behind the baseline at various positions.</p> <p>For soccer on a DX budget, the 70-200 f/4 is a good choice, as is a used 70-200/2.8. In either case, you may wish to pair it with a teleconverter. The AF-S 80-400 is a very attractive choice as well.</p> <p>If your budget is FX, I'd recommend the D750. While the older bodies (D3, D700) are quite good, their AF performance isn't up to the standard set by the newest generations of the Multi-CAM 3500 system used in the mentioned cameras, nor are their sensors as good as the current ones. Again, the 70-200/2.8 is a good choice for basketball, actually giving a somewhat better range of field of view for basketball on an FX camera than on a DX camera. And f/2.8 is viable on a modern FX body even in pretty dark gyms.</p> <p>Once you go outside for soccer with FX, though, you will definitely want a focal length greater then 200 mm. If you are planning to use a 70-200 for soccer, you will definitely want a teleconverter, probably a 1.7x or 2x, and I wouldn't suggest putting them on the 70-200/4, so the 70-200/2.8 would be the better choice. However, an even better option, if the budget permits, would be an AF-S 80-400 lens.</p> <p>There are many options, and that's just some generic advice. More details about the actual budget, the shooting conditions (ages of players and types of gym lighting), and the expectations for the final images (web posting, large poster prints, something in between) would help to refine the choices.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that their ultimate goal is to make money. I doubt anyone here has actual marketing data (sales numbers and projections, cost breakdowns, survey and customer-response data, etc) for Nikon's products. I certainly don't. Without that information, nobody can realistically assess whether Nikon's product development choices make sense or not.</p>

<p>I've reproduced this effect with both a D810 and a D3. Here is the D3 version using a 70-200 (I), with the camera being tilted further up in each succeeding photo. There is a distinct reflection. As the camera is tilted up further, that reflection fades, but as the camera continues to near the sun there is a reoccurrence of the same reflection, or a similar one. A lens hood solves the first instance but not the second. I was also able to get the effect, but weaker, with a 24-70/2.8 and a 16-35/4.</p> <p>It's quite possible that the D750 is more susceptible to this problem, but I don't have one to test side-by-side with other bodies.</p><div></div>

<p>I think either would be serviceable. Obviously, there may be circumstances where the f/2.8 of the 17-35 would be nice to have, but I suspect most of the time you will have enough light to work with the f/4 lens, and the DoF difference isn't as significant (to me, anyway) at those focal lengths as it might be at longer ones. The VR of the 16-35 can come in handy for panning shots, too, which I would probably want to take advantage of for snow sports and cycling. Along with the price difference, that would probably tilt me toward the 16-35.</p>

<p>There are two different things here: My present camera doesn't seem to work correctly; I want to go FX. You seem to be coupling the two in your mind, but they are different issues.</p> <p>Frankly, I think if you got a D7100 you would be tickled with its performance. The greater resolution (sans AA filter) and the better AF system (and one that's working right!) would make a really nice upgrade for you. So if the dominant issue is the poor performance of your D7000, this approach would be less expensive than an FX upgrade and wouldn't require new glass. (Of course, as already mentioned, getting the D7000 fixed would help as well.)</p> <p>If the dominant thought is to go FX, you probably already have most of the information you need. But one choice you didn't mention was getting a D800/D800E, as Elliot suggested. The prices of those have dropped quite a bit, and if you don't need the additional performance of a D810, the D800 is a great camera for the subjects you shoot. You still need glass, though, and the cost of an upgrade to FX is going to be substantial because of that. So do the math and compare the total cost of upgrading to FX with the cost of sticking with DX. See whether the FX choice is <em>really</em> worth the extra cost.</p>

<blockquote> <p>You can do that in LightRoom, but that is limited to full-hour adjustments, apparently for time zone correction. For adjustment of 30 seconds, you need a different tool.</p> </blockquote> <p>That's not correct. Go back to the linked thread and read the response from Mark Sirota. That is accurate information. (Plus, it's called "Lightroom," not "LightRoom," but now I'm just being pedantic.)</p>

<p>You can also do AE-L with the half-press of the shutter button if you configure the camera to do so. That's how I have my D7100, D3 and D810 set up, even though the latter two have an AE-L/AF-L button. I just find it a really easy way to operate. AF is decoupled from composition if I just release the AF-ON; metering is decoupled from composition if I just hold the shutter button halfway. Works for me, and I never have to remove my thumb or index finger from their accustomed positions during recompose/shoot.</p>

<p>I do use both formats, but I've also spent time, and travel, using only one format or the other. For most people, either format will handle the vast majority of the needs. There are specific cases where one format has an advantage, but unless those cases are critical to your shooting, you can use either format to good effect.</p> <p>For me, having the high-ISO capabilities of FX is useful since I shoot a lot of night high-school football and games in poorly lit gyms. If I didn't have that particular need, I think I could be satisfied with a DX-only bag. Conversely, I like the pixel density of my D7100 paired with my 400 f/2.8 lens, but if I had to shoot FX-only with "just" the D810, I'm sure I could. How well this relates to your needs, I can't say.</p>

<p>The display is much improved on the latest Nikon cameras (D7100, D810) with their brighter, higher-contrast RGBW LCDs. But the Hoodman loupe is a really good solution for the older models.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Once more nothing for D700!</p> </blockquote> <p>What were you expecting? This update is for lens-distortion data, which is not something the D700 supports.</p>

<p>Whether the 24-120 plays well with the D810 will depend to some degree on what you're using it for. I'm actually still using its predecessor AF-S 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 lens. That lens has a poor reputation, but I must have gotten the only decent sample of it Nikon ever made -- in Thailand, no less! (I'm kidding, of course. I'm sure most of them were fine.) It's even a little weaker in edge sharpness than the 24-120 f/4, but that doesn't bother me because I use it 1) for event/people photography, where the edges of the composition are generally out of focus by design and the 5:1 zoom range comes in very handy, and 2) for some landscape, where it's stopped down enough to where it's decently sharp across the frame and the distortion isn't important to me.</p> <p>When I want better optics or fast aperture, I put the 24-70 on the camera, but my 24-120 works just fine for most of the uses I have in that focal-length range. So far, I've shot one event with the D810 and 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 and was quite pleased with its performance. The f/4 model is even better.</p>

<p>Updates have been released for a number of cameras to support the upcoming lens-distortion (L) firmware 2.000. These are the D90, D7000, D7100, D600, D610 and D4S.</p>

<p>I would inspect the contacts at the bottom of the cylinders that hold the batteries. They'll be hard to see, way down in there, but I'd try taking a look. If one or more looks damaged, that's probably the problem. In any case, it looks like service is needed.</p>

<p>Bruce, if image quality is the prime thing to you, you wasted money buying a D7100. As you have discovered, the differences between Nikon cameras of the same generation have much to do with things other than the sensor. I had a D7000 and changed to a D7100. The IQ is no better -- at low ISOs, it may even be very slightly worse. But the better AF system was huge for me as a sports shooter.</p> <p>Although if you are serious about that IQ thing, you should really be targeting the greater DR and color depth of an FX camera like a D600/610.</p>

<p>I discovered the same kind of problem in some of my D810 images. It certainly appears that some of the camera profiles have problems. I'd stick to the Adobe Standard profile (or just make your own) for now.</p>

<p>I agree with those who would favor the 16-85 over the 18-70, all else being equal. (It has VR as well as better optics.) But the 18-70 is no slouch, and I'm still using mine. I took a trip to Northern Europe and Iceland a couple of months ago, and the 18-70 was my main lens for my D7100. (I had a Nikon 1 camera as well.) It served me very well. These days, with automatic distortion correction in PP tools (Lightroom, in my case), the rather severe distortion of the 18-70 isn't the issue it once was, for me. Just frame a little loose and you'll be fine. Given your intended use, I think it's a good value for your money.</p>

<p>Nobody outside of Nikon knows the actual <em>why</em> of that design decision. But it's interesting that while the D800 and D4 were limited to 999, the D810 and D4S will go 9999. So maybe the D5400 will, too!</p> <p>That said, I don't think I've ever seen a 40-second time lapse that was 40 seconds worth of interesting. (Yes, I know you can edit it.)</p>

<p>Something of mine visible in the image? How about myself, at multiple locations?</p> <div></div>

<p>There are a couple of reasons why one might prefer to shoot 4k. One, of course, is if you are doing a 4k production. That might be because it's destined for large-screen (movie theater) presentation or you hope to have it shown on the emerging ultra-high-definition (UHD) TVs.</p> <p>Another reason is to future-proof clips. Suppose you had shot some great stock footage a few years go in standard definition. You wouldn't want to use that now in a HD project; you'd have to reshoot it. By shooting in 4k now, you ensure that the material can be used now and in the future.</p> <p>Finally, it gives you more options in post processing. If you are working on a 1080p production and you want to do a pan or zoom in post processing of a 1080p clip, you'll be showing only part of the full frame. The NLE will have to upres the 1080p frames of the clip, leading to some loss of quality. If the clip is 4k, you can crop into the frame quite a bit more before it becomes incapable of supporting a quality 1080p result.</p>

<p>This is actually a Nikon kit, not just B&H: <a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Digital-SLR-Cameras/D810-Filmmakers-kit.page">http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Digital-SLR-Cameras/D810-Filmmakers-kit.page</a></p>