alastair_anderson

<p>I've just got back from a trip to South Africa and after noticing too many missed focus shots I've finally got around to doing some tests and have discovered that my D800 also has the left focus issue. I've tested 3 lenses and I see that they are all back focusing (centre focus point) by 10cm or so as well. I'm not going to do any fine focussing. I'm simply going to take the camera back. Unfotunately the Oxford Street branch of Jacobs in London where I bought it has closed down. Hope this isn't a problem.</p>

<p>It does seem to me that too many D800s are flawed in this way.</p>

<p>In the Hluhluwe game reserve this malachite kingfisher was right next to the car. I don't often see them because they are so small - an exquisite little jewel. I was so excited that I didn't pay enough attention to exposure.</p><div></div>

<p>I'm delighted with my D800. I love it but I'm finding it challenging. For what it's worth my highly subjective impression is quite the opposite of Ilkka's. I have definitely noticed more over exposed images with the D800 than I did with the D3. Perhaps I haven't used the new camera enough but I have to agree with the OP; I'm finding the matrix metering less useful than the equivalent Canon EOS "partial" metering. A significant percentage of my shots are lighter than I'd like them to be.</p>

<p>Hi Rodeo Joe,<br>

I'm assuming it's the new version. I wasn't aware of the difference. I've seen older ones with silver shift knobs; mine is black. I notice that my particular lens does flare a little under the right (wrong) circumstances, but I'm very happy with it nonetheless. And it certainly fits on the new camera. Allegedly lenses in a specified range of serial numbers are not compatible with the D800. Mines seems to have a much lower number!</p>

<p>Thanks, everyone - found them. As you say 'engraved in black on a black surface'. I do have documentation somewhere but not all of it immediately available. I bought all my lenses new except the most recent which is the pc 35 f2.8 to replace the one that was stolen. By the way this lens is superb on the D800 if you don't need speed. At f8 it is remarkably sharp.</p>

<p>I'm wanting to insure some equipment. Anyone know where the serial numbers on AFD lenses are located? I can't see anything anywhere.</p>

<p>London graffiti</p><div></div>

<p>Generally I will want the lowest ISO that will allow a fast enough shutter speed for me to shoot at my chosen aperture. So unless I'm doing sports which usually indicates shutter priority, or unless I have enough time to use an off camera meter and will then choose manual, I shoot aperture priority and the obvious way to go then is auto ISO. So what should the maximum ISO be and what should the minimum shutter speed be? Well maximum ISO may as well be 6400 (I should point out that I'm using a D800, so I have a minimum of 100 and a max. of 6400). 6400 because, although I would rarely want to go this high, I may as well have the full available range - I do sometimes shoot in very low light. But the problem is the minimum shutter speed. I guess it depends on the situation but I'm struggling with this because I have been able to get acceptably sharp pictures at very slow speeds using the VRII 70-200. I used to go with one or two stops quicker than reciprocal of focal length but zoom and VR make it more complicated.</p>

<p>JDM, I'm one of the cheapskates. I love my Leicas but it's the cost that has forced me to digitise. Recently a friend of mine asked me to photograph his new twins. I didn't have a digital camera. I got some good shots but a roll of colour film cost me £7 and then I had to pay £8 to have it developed and scanned to a disk. I didn't even get prints for that! Anyway I'm too impatient for film. On the same roll as the twins pictures I took some shots of my new garden. I hadn't used it for a while so forgot that the f3.4 super-angulon doesn't meter on the M6/MP. I was using the in camera meter so ended up with four or five heavily overexposed pictures. A blisteringly fast way to burn money!</p>

<p>Lex, you need to hang on to those digits, 'you don't know what you've got 'till it's gone'!</p>

<p>Eric, while I concur with the consensus which is that the op does indeed need the 24-70 - people who know a lot more about the exigencies of working as a pro wedding photographer than I do agree about this, nevertheless using off camera flash doesn't preclude the need for fast lenses. Shooting wide open is not only about light levels. Shallow dof can produce wonderful pictures.</p>

<p>From the last roll before I traded in my MP</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Britanny, I'm not a professional photographer; however I have shot a couple of weddings for friends. I have the 14-24, 85 1.4 and recently I also bought the 70-200. I've also got a 60 macro but otherwise have a big gap between 24 and 70. So I've been following this thread with interest. I can certainly see the merit of having the zoom; I'd love to have one. Personally though I'm leaning towards the 35 1.4. If I didn't have the 60 I'd probably get a 50 1.4 rather than the 35. I think you'd get better shots with the fast primes. Ideally you need an assistant to look after the second body and supplementary lenses, then lens changing is easy.</p>

<p>Bug or feature? I wouldn't necessarily think of this as a bug. I'm only glad my particular camera is not abnormal. However I feel that it's worth mentioning that if it is a feature then the User's Manual is inadequate to say the least, if not downright misleading.</p>

<p>Is my camera misbehaving?<br>

a2: AF-S Priority Selection is set to 'Focus'<br>

a4: AF Activation is set to 'AF-ON only'</p>

<p>With these settings I would expect the shutter not to release unless the in-focus indicator is displayed. In fact the shutter will release when the image is out of focus. </p>

<p>I note that with a2 set to 'Focus' and a4 set to 'Shutter/AF-ON' the camera behaves as expected, i.e. the shutter will only release with the in-focus indicator displayed.</p>

<p>Note that I have upgraded the firmware.<br>

A: 1.00<br>

B: 1.01<br>

L: 1.004</p>

<p>Would the problem not be solved if you disengage focus activation from the shutter button? I only use the AF-ON button.</p>

<p>Thanks for your responses. I am looking at jpegs, unadjusted. I didn't realise that the mouse needs to hover over the image.</p>

<p>Can anyone suggest reasons why the focus point is not always revealed when the 'show focus point' option is selected? </p>

<p>From the programme help I see: 'Use <strong>Show Focus Point</strong> only on images that have not been enhanced. Using the <strong>Show Focus Point</strong> feature after the image has been rotated, straightened, cropped, or after applying the <strong>Fisheye Lens </strong>or <strong>Distortion Correction</strong> steps may result in the focus area being displayed incorrectly.' and also: 'The focus area will not be displayed if the image was created using a COOLPIX-series camera, a non-CPU lens, or a manual focus lens.'</p>

<p>I'm using AF D or AFS lenses and but still don't always see the focus point.</p>

<p>Forgive me, I haven't loaded images to this forum for a while</p><div></div>

<p>Sorry, thought I'd reduced that image. Here's the 100% crop:</p>

 

<p>Here's the image</p><div></div>

<p>I've got pin sharp results hand holding a D800 with a 70-200 at 1/15th of a second. And the focal length was closer to 200 than it was to 70!</p>

<p>Hate to say it, but I just traded in a .85 MP in order to purchase a Nikon. I personally much prefer the MP to the M7. (However I've never owned the latter.) But all the features that I like about the MP can be found in an M3. I prefer the MP because it is less dependent on batteries! In fact, in my opinion, the build quality of the M3 is better. By the way, although the meter in the modern cameras is obviously very useful, I get best results with a spot meter. So I still have my M3 and a complete range of lenses and my wonderful Pentax spotmeter. I'd love to have an M9 but sadly can't afford one.</p>

<p>6 reasons for me to be interested in the new 24-85:<br />1. FX<br />2. Light<br />3. Compact<br />4. Relatively inexpensive.<br />5. VR<br />6. It fills a gap in my lens range.<br />However, I don't think I'll buy it because:<br />1. I'm biased against variable aperture zooms. Eventually I'd want something faster.<br />2.Although I don't have anything between 24mm and 60mm I'm really looking for a 35mm right now and perhaps a 50 at a later date. In the long run I'll be happier with the IQ of a prime.<br />3.I can't really afford it but I will get more use out of the AFS 35 1.4 and it's only 115 grams heavier.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>No, I'm a big Leica fan. I've been considering buying an M9 ever since it was released. The idea of a full frame digital M camera is particularly appealing to me as until recently I had over 30 lenses for it from 21mm to 500mm. I do enjoy rangefinders. But it's not just the prices. Leica's strength is the glass and mechanical perfection of the cameras and they don't make them like they used to. I believe that Canon and Nikon are way ahead in the digital age. So it is with regret that I am gradually trading my Leitz/Leica gear for Nikon equipment. If I want black and white I still have Hasselblads and Rollies.</p>