jonb

<p>If you can, I would send both the camera body and the lens in to the repair shop. Since the lens works on other cameras, and since the camera works with other lenses, it's not clear which unit is at fault. Plus, the technician may not be able to reproduce the problem with only one of the units. Having both the camera and the lens will ensure that the problem is easily demonstrated, and that will allow the technician to troubleshoot it.</p>

 

<p>I thinks it's a little simplistic to equate additional mm at the wide end with mm at the long end, as though the engineers could just slide the zoom range down without difficulty. As an engineering problem, I think the difference between, say, 10-24 mm and 12-28 mm is a lot bigger than "just 2 mm."</p>

<p>As a DX lens, it gives roughly the same fields of view as an FX user would get from Nikon's 18-35 FX lens. OK, this goes a little longer, which is fine. So, I don't really see the range as particularly odd.</p>

<p>I'll see your bunny and raise you Bambi.</p><div></div>

<p>If you are comfortable using speedlights, it is possible (but not exactly inexpensive) to set up things such that you can control flash power remotely from the camera. You would need:</p>

<ul>

<li>Reasonably modern Nikon speedlights (SB-800 or SB-900 units, or the lower-power units SB-600, SB-700, SB-400).</li>

<li>PocketWizard radio units Mini-TT1 (camera) and Flex-TT5 (one for each flash)</li>

<li>PocketWizard AC3 zome controller</li>

</ul>

<p>Frankly, that solution makes the most sense only if your lighting setup needs to be portable. For fixed studio work, I'd be more included to use something like the Alien Bees solution.</p>

<p>If you are comfortable making the power adjustments at the lights, almost any flash that is manually adjustable can be used, then triggered by an inexpensive radio or optical trigger.</p>

<p>The differences between the D5200 and D3200 in low-light performance are pretty much negligible. I wouldn't base my buying decision on that. But there are other differences. The D5200 has a better autofocus system and more controlability. Whether those things are important to you I can't tell, but they would be important to me.</p>

<p>As far as low-light interior shooting goes, I really feel an f/1.8 lens would be of great value to you. All else being equal, that lets you shoot in light that's less than half as strong as the f/2.8 lens allows. So if that is a primary determinant, you might consider something like getting either body with the 18-55 kit lens (which isn't a great lens but neither is it horrible) and the 35 f/1.8 for interior available-light use. But here in the US right now there is a $100 off on the D5200 with 18-105. That bundle plus the 35/1.8 will total about $1200, within your budget unless you need >$100 of accessories.</p>

 

<p>Full moon, evening of Aug 20.</p><div></div>

<p>This has happened to me a few times. Wiggling the cap around while twisting it back and forth and pulling on it has always gotten it loose for me with no apparent damage to either the TC or the cap.</p>

<p>Eventually, I got a marker pen and marked the area of the little dot on the cap for easier visibility.</p>

 

<p>Was hoping for a meteor photo, but that camera failed. Used the backup to get these star trails.</p><div></div>

<p>1) When the shutter fails. And there's no telling when that will be.</p>

<p>2) You can probably buy a used D200 for less than the repair cost, although the used one may be nearly "used up" as well.</p>

 

<p>It sounds like what you are planning is "portrait" shooting. For that, lighting and positioning are much more important than camera settings. See <a href="/learn/portraits/">this photo.net tutorial</a> for good basic information.</p>

<p>Actually, RJ, I have to go with Nikon on this one. When I'm using the intervalometer, I want to be able to set it to take a shot every N seconds and not have to figure the shutter speed into the calculation. I want to be able to set the shutter speed to get the exposure and/or motion effect I'm looking for without worrying about how that would affect the interval (up to the length of the interval, of course.)</p>

 

<p>That's because the shutter speed is actually 32 seconds when you set the camera to 30 seconds. (You can easily test that with a stopwatch.) Similarly, when you set it to 15 seconds it's actually 16 seconds. Why this is, I'm not sure. I speculate it is so the difference between 8 seconds and "15" seconds is actually a full stop, and then another full stop to "30". But why not just show the actual values of 16 and 32? I don't know.</p>

<p>This is not unique to the D7000. It's true of every Nikon DSLR I've tested (D3, D7000, D7100, D2X, D70). It's probably also true of the sub-second values (that is, 1/30 is probably actually 1/32), but I lack the equipment (and interest) to test it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I was sure caught off guard of how fast smart phones with built in photo sensors could get so good for everyday, non professional, photography use. My adult children use iPhones and some of their imagery is amazing simply because they have the phones with them all the time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do your adult children also have children? Do those children play sports or engage in other active pursuits? If so, I bet their parents are getting mighty frustrated trying to take photos of those activities with their iPhones. iPhones are great; I have one and take pictures with it. But they have limitations like anything else.<br>

<br />In my view, part of the problem with the Nikon 1 system is that it hasn't really been marketed in a way that distinguishes it from the competition, be it cell-phone cameras or other mirrorless or P&S cameras. (At least in the US. I'm not familiar with how it's done elsewhere.) If I were the Nikon USA marketing guy, I'd have commercials made that showed soccer moms trying to get shots of their little darlings with their iPhone and a P&S, followed by showing them doing it with a Nikon 1 camera and a 30-110 lens.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Considering there's an 18-105 and an 18-200, I don't get the point of an 18-140 (other than the metal mount).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 18-200 is more than twice the price of the 18-105. The 18-140 sits in the middle, price-wise.</p>

<p>Hector, the SB-N7 doesn't swivel, and the SB-300 looks like the exact same flash except for the hot shoe.</p>

<p>Well, not <em>exactly</em> the same flash. The SB-N7 comes with the SW-N7 diffuser panel, and the flash includes small divots on the sides of the flash head use to mount or stow the panel. The SB-300 doesn't have that. I wonder why not?</p>

<p>B&H shows expected availability of August 15.</p>

<p>That's also the date they show for lenses in Sigma mount, so I guess Sigma also doesn't care about Sigma customers. Either that or the reason for the staggered availability schedule has nothing to do with which customers they care about. Me, I'm guessing what they really care about is <em>sales</em>.</p>

 

<p>It sounds to me like you are accidentally hitting the "preview" button just below the lens mount. By default, this will cause the flash to emit a "modeling light" series of high-speed flashes, sounding like a buzz. Try doing that deliberately and see if it is the effect you are experiencing.</p>

<p>You can disable the modeling flash via custom menu setting e4.</p>

 

<p>The original AF-S 70-200 is a little weak in the corners on an FX body, which I would think would be particularly noticeable on the D800. (I'm still using a 12-MP D3, and it's even detectable on that.) Of course, you say you seldom open up beyond f/5.6, so you wouldn't be experiencing the worst of that.</p>

<p>You say that you "rarely" shoot wider then f/5.6. Are you OK with <em>never</em> shooting wider than f/5.6 at the longer focal lengths? Because that would be the case if you traded your 70-200 for an 80-400. If you are OK with that, I think the 80-400 makes a lot of sense.</p>

<p>It comes down to whether the wider apertures are more useful for your (presumably non-bird) use than the 200-400 range is for birding. Only you can make that judgement.</p>

<p>I've found that the low-light ISO numbers roughly track my experience of what I have found acceptable for the bodies I've shot regularly. That said, the difference between the D800E and D3s values is about 1/8 stop, which is a negligible difference.</p>

 

<p>It should be noted that Nikon DOES have WiFi accessories that talk to a computer, such as the WT-4A and WT-5A. But they aren't compatible with lower-end Nikon DSLRs. Apparently, Nikon feels that for that kind of application you should be willing to step up to a more expensive body, a $1000 accessory and a $180 software package. I find a $50 Eye-Fi card a lot more economical, although it's not compatible with my CF-card bodies.</p>

 

<p>Ian, does your D7000 have the latest firmware? See this:<br>

http://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/17099</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>shooting JPEG (which isn't actually an answer to about anything)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess I'll have to give back all of the money I've made shooting JPEGs with my D3 and D7000.</p>

<p>There certainly are action applications where shooting JPEGs makes perfect sense. There also are action applications that don't require multi-second continuous bursts of raw images. (Frankly, those probably comprise the majority of action applications.) For those, the D7100 makes a lot of sense, especially given its price.</p>

<p>I'll have one before fall football unless Nikon drops something better before then that isn't substantially pricier.</p>

 

<p>Why not shoot RAW+JPEG on the D800? Then you will have the raw files available in the future, when you have access to a computer that can process them. Meanwhile, you'll have the JPEGs for use until then.</p>

 

<p>Lannie, the article focuses on the D800, but in most cases the lenses have been tested on multiple types of body. DxO has come up with a metric they call "perceptual megapixels" (P-Mpix) which is an attempt to specify how the sharpness of a lens compares to the resolution of the sensor it's being used on. For example, on the D800 the AF-S 85 f/1.4G has a rating of 22 P-Mpix, meaning that the sensor out-resolves the lens by 14 MPix. On the D700, that lens has a rating of 12 P-Mpix, meaning that the lens out-resolves the sensor, or resolves to the same degree. On the D7000, it's 11 P-Mpix, so the sensor out-resolves the lens by 5 Mpix. Thus, measuring the lenses on different bodies does make at least some sense.</p>

<p>Whether you think those ratings have much value is a question. They are an attempt to reduce the sharpness measurements of a lens to a simple number. That may be an oversimplification or a useful guide; it's your call.</p>