mike_halliwell

<p>No, it's not.</p> <p>Take Andly L's advice and use the money to take the actual kit you <em><strong>do</strong></em> have, somewhere nice.</p>

<p>The Nikon WU-1 will work with a PC via DSLR Dashboard; Sadly the Official the Nikon app is pretty poor.</p> <p>My D5300 works wifi-wise with my Windows XP netbook and my Nexus 7 via the above app.</p> <p>The D7<strong>2</strong>00 will have the same options built-in unless Nikon are really, really stupid. </p> <p>The WU-1 series adapters were purely a stop-gap...I feel wi-fi enabled cards are too.</p>

<p>Hummm, by <strong>up/down</strong>, do you mean what is effectively radial motion?</p> <p>My 18-55mm MKI (non VR), is pretty loose that way.</p>

<p>Prices from a respected 2nd hand retailer* (as opposed to flea bay) are...<br> D90s are selling for ~ £250<br> D7000s are selling for ~ £420<br> (D7100s are selling for ~£725)<br> Maybe the UK is skewed, but that's alot more than $125 difference....try $270!!!<br> <br> *mpbphotographic..........they have multiples for sale and it's interesting to see what they think will sell at what price.</p>

<p>Lech, don't forget to try Live View AF. It takes the human element out of the equation..:-)</p> <p>Make sure to use a high contrast target such as sharp newsprint or maybe invest in a purpose made device.</p>

<p>Hummm, with USB 3.0 offering 625 MB/s you almost wonder whether i would be quicker to shoot straight to a portable USB 3.0 SSD drive and leave the card out of it!! Afterall, SATA 6 gets to 500MB/s already.</p> <p>Might be a bit of a handful with a cable hanging out the side attached to a small black box..:-)</p>

<p>A D5300 and yup, a USB 3.0 machine.</p> <p>A phrase from the Sandisk page.. <em><strong>Full performance requires UHS-ll host.</strong></em></p> <p>From the D5300 PDF book is says.. UHS-1 compliant... same as the even more recent D810 PDF</p> <p>Guess I've found the answer! The camera is now 'old' tech and is the bottleneck!</p>

<p>LATE EDIT. That should be 250 MB/S Write and 280MB/s Read Speed.</p>

<p>Having just been sent a link about the new Sandisk Extreme Pro UHS II cards with a claimed 280 MB/s write speed, what rate is the camera sending it?</p> <p>What is the limiting factor or bottleneck now?</p>

<p>If you can pony up to about £190, the Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4 OS HSM C, will beat everything....period.</p> <p>It makes my Nikon 16-85mm soft and slow.....everywhere. Time Nikon updated it to f4. VRIII. etc....</p>

<p>Dieter, Lebanese weather is as unpredictable as the UK...I've worked there for a bunch of years.</p> <p>What is your point, I don't understand?</p> <p>I could have phrased it as..</p> <blockquote> <p>In a country with the weather is as unpredictable as the UK's<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>does that help?</p>

<p>Just wondered why one might choose to use an expensive D4 (or a D3S) for time-lapse rather than a D800 or even a much, much cheaper D600/610?</p> <p>AFAIK a D610 is better in everyway for this kind of job...higher DR, higher bit depth and better High ISO.....and about 1/4 the price if nicked or drowned!</p>

<p>Try a shot using conventional AF and then a shot using zoomed LV AF, if the latter shot is soft too, it's <em>not</em> a fine tune issue.</p> <p>Maybe try this for 200, 300 and 400mm.</p>

<p>Someone trusted a weather forecast with $6000 of kit left outside with no protection what-so-ever? In a country with weather as unpredictable as the UK? Plain daft. <br /> <br /> Even 'light showers' with bundles of badly taped wires, exposed 12v batteries and upward pointed lenses is just casual to the point of careless.<br /> <br /> The $6000 doesn't even cover the D3S or the lenses! Double daft. Either more money than sense (+1 Bruce!) or he has a very understanding boss!<br /> <br /> I doubt Accidental Damage insurance would cover this sort of sillyness....contributory negligence springs to mind.<br /> <br /> There's a nice yellow, waterproof, indestructible wheeled Pelicase, but nothing's inside it! Doh!<br /> <br /> I'm glad it survived, but really?? Complete disassembly of 2 FX cameras and 2 lenses, full cleaning etc etc by a Nikon tech isn't going to come cheap. Could have got a nice couple of waterproof cases* for that $$$. <br /> <br /> If you've got water on the mirror, you've got a wet sensor too, so I can't believe the 'footage' is any good either, unless you want that spotty, atmospheric look in every frame....:-)<br /> <br /> * How that would work with a 14-24mm zoom is another question.</p>

<p>Undeniably, the D7000 is a better camera in nearly every way.</p> <p>The question is purely financial and what's to be done with the rest of the budget. There will be change from the $750 budget. Considering the OP is AF lens free, it's a question of lens requirements for what they want to shoot. That's a personal choice only they can decide.</p>

<p>Here in the UK, D7000's are going for about £370 or $600 and D90's about £200 or $320, so making the difference more useful for lens purchase.</p> <p>$750 - $600 is only $150 left........whereas $750 - $320 is $430.</p> <p>For most uses, the D7000 would be better, but <strong><em>only</em> </strong>if the glass you're looking through is up to it!</p> <p>However, if you can see a future budget as-well, buy the D7000 now and buy more glass on the next 'spend'.</p>

<p>+1 Richard M. The extra $$$ isn't worth it for the D7000. Go and get some glass with the change. </p>

<p>I know it's DX, so the mirror/shutter will be a little smaller, but they managed to get 7fps out of a single EnEl3e for the D300<strong>S</strong>.</p>

<p>Well, DxO doesn't support the D810 <strong><em>yet</em></strong>..............but it's only been available for about 10 days!</p> <p>It usually takes a couple of weeks to make all the correction modules once they've got their hands on a production model, not some prototype.</p> <p>Limit it to own-brand software...? Not even Nikon would be <strong><em>that</em></strong> stupid....:-)</p>

<p>The only thing I've really noticed when sharpening images from my AA-free D5300 compared to my D300 is that most of my old favourite DxO presets are pretty pointless 'cos the linear or radial dimension is measured in pixels....and the D5300 has a <em>shedload</em> more.....ie the distances are now so much smaller because of the much smaller pixel pitch.</p> <p>However, just as people complained that the D800 made their lenses worse, the D5300 shows up my occasional poor panning technique that was never apparent on my D300. Same lens, same shutter settings. Maybe the sheer bulk of the d300 + MB-D10 damped out my errors more??</p>

<blockquote> <p>I question if Nikon has the cash to found the project now</p> </blockquote> <p>This may be true, but business/common sense says it <strong><em>must</em> </strong>have a prototype <em><strong>IF</strong></em> Canon suddenly produce a 7D MK11...unless there is active complicity between the big two.</p> <p>Many of the hacking attempts at the lower Nikon DX bodies have revealed that they can <em>all</em> 'do' pretty much the same things but that various features are disabled from the flagship versions....kinda like building a nice powerful V8 engine and offering a V6 and a V4 version just by removing the spark plugs. No different R&D just software crippling.<br> <br> It obviously makes sense to do it that way, processor chip manufacturers do the same with locked cores. but it does lead you to think making Frankincameras is actually easier than it would seem.<br> <br> Frame rates are a similar case. The D700 can do 5 fps in base mode and 8 with a $300 grip. They could have made it do 8 right out the box but made an active business decision not to. Sure the battery wouldn't have lasted as long, but that's a user option. It already has Single, CL and CH...and CH is supposed to just go flat-out whatever. I don't remember the warning that came with the MB-D10, 'Using the camera @ 8fps will reduce it's expected lifespan'...maybe it was in really small print?<br> <br> Buffer issues still confuse me. I don't get the way it's been implemented; as I see it, the shot it taken, the data stream from the sensor is processed and goes to the buffer before being written to the card. Any processor intensive job slows down the frame rate. You can't get to top speed with Hi ISO NR set or ADL set. Why can't you buffer the sensor data and then process it and write it to card? Why bottleneck the camera's job of taking pictures??</p>

<p>Considering how much bigger the FX D600 <strong><em>isn't</em></strong> compared to the DX D7100...are we now saying that DX was only ever a temporary stop gap before full-frame sensors became affordable?</p> <p>Anyone actually know how much more a FX sensor costs to make compared to a DX sensor?</p> <p>DX is in no way more pocketable than FX but some of the lenses are undeniable smaller, and in Nikon's case of poorer spec too.</p> <p>141 x 113 x 82 and 760gm for the D600</p> <p>136 x 106 x 76 and 675gm for the D7100</p> <p>Although @ 125 x 98 x 76 and 480gm for the D5300, I expect the D7<em><strong>2</strong></em>00 to be lighter, but not much smaller.</p> <p>Considering the only real difference* is about 5gm of extra silicon chip, 25 gm of mirror/pentaprism and 5 gm of shutter, the difference is only ever going to get smaller. The screen > flange distance can't get any smaller.</p> <p>In many cases the battery is the biggest single component (difference) and the smaller, lighter consumer units such as the EnEl14 for 400 shots are indeed tiny compared to a 2000 shot EnEl4.</p> <p>*Estimates, but you get the idea!</p> <p> </p>

<p>Shun, maybe I didn't make the last sentence clear enough. </p> <blockquote> <p>The camera could indeed be set for RAW to card and small JPEG sent to lorry. If someone in the future (ie NOT on the day!)<em><strong> wants a 20 x 30 (or bigger) print,</strong></em> the RAW could be used.</p> </blockquote> <p>The ability to make 20" x 30" (or bigger) prints (but NOT on the day) is a vital part of the business. The client may go home with a 10 x 8 'snapshot' of Emily jumping a 3ft fence on Fluffy III and decide a nice BIG poster would do for a birthday present.....</p> <blockquote> <p>8.5x11 print only need 8.5 megapixels<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>I'm going to want a few more than 8.5 megapixels for that BeBu!<br /><br> <br> So @ 300dpi a 20 x 16 needs 32 mp and a 20 x 30 needs 6000 x 9000 54 mp. 300dpi for that size is probably unnecessary, so for 200dpi, its 4000 x 6000 or 24 mp. So no, a D800 isn't such great overkill.....and indeed a D700 is pretty short of even 24mp.</p> <p>The question was to the downsizing mechanism to FINE JPEG <em><strong>SMALL</strong></em> and it's effect on noise suppression. Would it 'fake' the loss in quality by using a JPEG as opposed to RAW with regard to loss of dynamic range, noise etc. when using a JPEG.</p> <p>Everyone knows the losses involved in IQ when using a JPEG compared to the RAW. Are some, or all of those mitigated by downsampling?</p>

<p>It might well be OK on one of the other pre-set crops, such as x1.2 or 5:4, if it isn't on FX itself.</p> <p><strong> </strong></p>

<p>Excellent info everyone...thanks! I'll explain.</p> <p>A colleague of mine has a print-on-site business where people can buy a mounted 10 x 8, about 20 mins after being photographed jumping in a cross-country event and we were wondering whether the D810's 5:4 Format SMALL FINE (or even MEDIUM) JPEG 'creation' (aka downsampling) in camera is effective at noise reduction....? So that ISO 3200 looks like ISO 1600 etc. It would help mitigate against the loss in quality using a JPEG rather than a nicely processed RAW.</p> <p>If so, then the much smaller files can be data streamed, whereas the full RAWs are way, way too big. The image cards are usually couriered back to the lorry by a chap on a trials bike, but on a big course it can take some time.....and of course the RAWS are quite big for the on-site computers to handle too!</p> <p>The camera could indeed be set for RAW to card and small JPEG sent to lorry. If someone in the future (ie NOT on the day!) wants a 20 x 30 (or bigger) print, the RAW could be used.</p> <p> </p>