jonb

<p>I've managed to accidentally change settings on pretty much every camera I own, including the ones with "pro" layout. On my D2X and D3, the number of times I accidentally knocked the focus lever out of AF-C are legion. On my D7000 and D7100, I've been reasonably successful with keeping the main settings under control, but the BKT button seems particularly ill placed for my largish hands, and it's easy to accidentally press it or the AF button when using my left hand to support the camera/lens.</p>

<p>All in all, I've found it best to check settings frequently to account for errors, be they of the mechanical sort or brain lock.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>They must be able to be viewed, <strong>zoomed</strong> and triggered remotely...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No Nikon DSLR supports remote zooming. I'm not sure what cameras do.</p>

<p>But ignoring that... how about using D2X bodies? They are going for <$700 and produce excellent 12-MP images as long as you keep the ISO fairly low.</p>

 

<p>Shun said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The D7100's AF is second to none among all Nikon DSLRs today; it is on par with the AF on the D800 and is clearly superior to that AF on even the D3, D3S, D700, and D300. The D7000's 39-point AF system, while still very good, is a step down from the 51-point Multi-CAM 3500 on all other cameras I mentioned in this paragraph.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This has been exactly my experience. This fall, I've been shooting field sports (football, soccer, field hockey) with a D3 and a D7100. There is no question that the D7100's AF system acquires focus more quickly and accurately and tracks moving objects better, especially objects that are moving directly toward or away from the camera. My biggest problem with the D7100 is that I get so many keepers that I can't handle them all. That is not hyperbole, it is fact. Last year I was shooting the D3 and a D7000, and the keeper ratio was distinctly in favor of the D3.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It sounds like an electronic fault. I would remove the battery for 30 minutes and then try again. If it still exhibits this problem, it's time for a trip to the service shop.</p>

 

<p>In the absence of such data, perhaps a reference shot with the sensor plane parallel to the subject would let you match the lines of the tilted-up shot along the parts of the building that are common between the two shots?</p>

 

<p>Since this problem isn't one that is widely (or ever?) reported, I don't think "Nikon must have a problem they are not disclosing." Your 18-200 lens may, however, have a problem since it appears from the information given to be the common element. Perhaps there is some intermittent electrical flaw in it that causes a voltage to be applied to a pin of the lens mount that then damages the camera's electronics. (I don't know if that's even possible.) But this is not something that seems to be common.</p>

<p>Assuming there is no other common element that hasn't been revealed, such as other accessories you attach to the camera on location, I'd send the 18-200 in to Nikon with a description of the problem and see what they can find.</p>

 

<p>Sam, that display is showing you which focus sensor in the camera was used to acquire focus information, not what part of the picture is in focus. Since you used the center point to acquire focus, that's what it shows.</p>

<p>The real value of that display is when you do not lock the focus point. When you allow the camera to choose the focus point, it's instructive to see what point it chose. But when you chose the focus point, that display isn't very useful except as a reminder of what you did.</p>

<p>I want a modern DX "pro" body -- like my D2X but with a modern sensor, a large, bright LCD, and a Multi-CAM 3500DX focusing system ala the D7100.</p>

<p>But since I can't have that, I guess I'll just take photos with the cameras I have. No doubt they'll suck because they aren't made with the ideal camera (well, <em>my</em> ideal camera), but what are you going to do?</p>

 

<p>It's not a big deal nor a feature I would often (ever?) use, but I've wondered in the past why it wasn't possible on bodies with a "quiet" mode to shoot in that mode continuously. In this case, though, I'm imagining a conversation between marketing and engineering in which the marketing guys are saying, "we need at least one more new feature if we're going to call this a new product." I guess if this mode never shows up on other bodies, we'll know that's all it was!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>With respect to the D610 getting the AF system from the D4/D800, I agree it would be nice but then it's price would be the same as that of the D800.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ilkka, I think that overstates the case quite a bit. Consider the D5200, which has the DX version of the Multi-CAM 4800 AF system used in the D600/610, vs the D7100, which has the DX version of the Multi-CAM 3500 used in the D800. The difference in list price between the D5200 and D7100 is $400. Considering the other differences between those two bodies, I can't help but think that the difference in price attributable to the AF system is pretty small -- much smaller, at any rate, than the price difference between the D600 and D800. While the FX versions may impact that price difference a bit, I don't see why there would be a large change.</p>

<p>That said, it seems clear to me that Nikon's approach is to determine a target price point, then design a camera that meets that price point using the best mix of current technologies. Since they aren't designing cameras specifically for me (wouldn't that be nice!), the mix they choose is not always the one I would have chosen. While I would like to have a low-cost FX camera to replace/supplement my aging D3, my main use is action shooting, so the AF is more important to me than it would be for someone who is primarily a landscape shooter, as in your example.</p>

<p>Like you, though, I'm satisfied that the products I do have (D3, D7100) will let me get shots. When an FX body comes along that better meets my needs and is at a price that makes sense for me, I'll get it. In the mean time, I suspect the people who get a D610 will find it quite capable.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The earlier model Nikon 1 series - the J1 and V1 - offer manual exposure control but using it demands navigating the menu.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lex, I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to, but with the V1, once you are in manual exposure mode (which is selected via the menu, as is ISO), adjustment of aperture and shutter speed are done using rear-panel controls, not the menu. So manual exposure is quite efficient on the V1.</p>

 

<p>I've used a Nikon 1 V1 on bicycle trips, where it gets a fair degree of bouncing around. I've carried it in a couple of different small bags on a waist belt. (Currently I'm using a Think Tank Mirrorless Mover 10.)</p>

<p>So far, I've had no problems.</p>

 

<p>(Bad pun alert!) A powerful image.</p><div></div>

<p>A pretty Vermont pond with patriotic display.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Camping in Vermont last week. Sunrise lighting the valley fog from in front of my lean-to in Coolidge State Park.</p><div></div>

<p>Field hockey this week.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I don't have an 18-200, but the lenses I've used on my D7100 have all produced equal or better results than on every other body I own.</p>

<p>It may be worth trying to adjust AF fine tune for that lens on the D7100.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But its construction, while very good, is not quite at the same level as the D300, which, in tern, is not quite as strong as the D3 and D4.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sure that's literally true, but have there been numerous reports of not-so-rugged bodies falling apart? We are talking about a difference in degree of ruggedness between rugged products. I've used both professional-grade bodies (D2X, D3) and consumer-grade (D70, D7000, D7100) bodies. Both kinds have needed trips to Nikon for repair. I've carried a D7000, and now a D7100, around countless playing fields with the camera/lens dangling by a strap as I run around the field and through the sideline crowd. Neither camera has failed because of it. The idea that you <em>have</em> to have a "pro" body to shoot sports is just not accurate.</p>

<p>Bottom line: If you drop your camera, it's likely to need repair. That's true whether it's professional grade or consumer grade.</p>

<p>Frankly, I'd be a lot more concerned about the fragility of a zoom lens that extends, like the 80-400, than I would be about any body Nikon makes.</p>

<p>The 80-400 is an FX lens, so I'm not sure the lack of the kind of DX body you want would be responsible for that many lost sales. As you suggest, pro sports photographers tend to be shooting with f/2.8 glass.</p>

<p>It's not my place to tell anyone else how to shoot. If you feel you need 10+ fps to shoot football, so be it. I can only say that's not been my experience. In fact, I usually run my D3 at 6 fps for football (with a 400 f/2.8). I also carry a D7100 (replacing a D7000) with a 70-200 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/4 and don't feel limited by its speed or buffer. Of course, I don't run off multiple-second bursts of frames, either. What would be the point? Even at 10 fps, if you are relying on multiple frames to catch the action at its peak, you'll miss as often as you hit.</p>

<p>Honestly, if you want a really fast frame rate, shoot video. You can get 30 or 60 fps with that.</p>

 

<p>And one more.</p><div></div>

<p>More football.</p><div></div>

<p>High school football season has started!</p><div></div>

<p>Nigel, you said you fell in love with the 70-200/2.8. What was it that you loved about it? If you can pin that down, you may have the answer to your question. If what you loved is something that isn't offered by the 70-200/4 or 70-300, such as the f/2.8 capability or the built-like-a-battleship feel of the pro lens, then get the f/2.8. But if was the optical improvement over the 70-300 and the extra stop is enough for you, get the 70-200/4. Only you can decide what it was about the 70-200 that got you thinking in this direction.</p>

<p>Naomi, before discussing equipment, I just want to be sure what you are asking for. Forgive me if this seems inappropriate, but in that image, do you intend the foreground flowers and distant mountain to be "unsharp" (out of focus)? Because if that is the lack of sharpness you are referring to, it has to do with the settings used to take the picture (the f/5.6 aperture in particular), not any deficiency of the camera or lens. Perhaps you already know that, but I wanted to be sure before advising you to run out and spend a lot of money.</p>

<p>It's instructive to look at the DxO test results for these two lenses on the D800. After all, even if you don't have a D800 now, chances are that if you get one of these lenses you'll have it for a while, by which time you may well have a camera with D800-level resolution.</p>

<p>In particular, the field maps for sharpness are interesting. Unfortunately, DxO didn't test the Sigma lens at 400mm, but wide open, the Nikkor beats the Sigma handily even when the Nikkor is at 400mm and the Sigma is at 300mm. (And don't forget, wide open is f/5.6 on the Nikkor and f/6.3 on the Sigma.) And given the poor edge sharpness of the Sigma at 500mm, I rather suspect the Nikkor blows it away at 400mm.</p>

<p>None of which means the Sigma is not a good lens. It is, especially considering the price. But the Nikkor is at the leading edge of the state of the art, and its performance and its price show that.</p>

<p>DxO shouldn't have been quite as fulsome in praising a lens that exhibits its best performance in what is probably going to be its least used focal-length range. They do point out that the performance favors the Nikkor at the longer end, but you have to read the review closely to pick up on that... or review the measurements for yourself.</p>