elliot1

<p>I just checked and according to the DXO site, the DF is fully supported for RAW files.</p>

<p>Since you appear to be new to digital imaging, may I suggest you give DXO software a try. It can be used fully automatically or manually and gives great results. It offers lens specific corrections (with regard to sharpness and distortion) and offers exceptional noise reduction for your high ISO shots. They offer a free 30 day trial (full version) and can the download can be found at DXO.com</p>

<p>A more experienced wakeboarder</p><div></div>

<p>My son making a 'splash'!</p><div></div>

<p>Melbourne, FL</p><div></div>

<p>For low light photography, using only the center AF points that are cross type will give you the most accurate and most consistent AF.</p> <p>You may want to leave 51 points active but only use the center 3 columns which are the only ones that are cross type (15 AF points). When you have only 11 points displayed, only 3 of the displayed AF points (the 3 in the center) are the cross type.</p>

<p>#2</p><div></div>

<p>Cable wakeboarding...</p><div></div>

<p>If he plans on using a tripod, the camera (P&S or DSLR) will not matter as much. Print size, on the other hand, may be more of a determining factor of what type of camera to get IF poster size prints are a possibility.</p>

<p>Nikon brand extension tubes may be expensive but 3rd party off the big auction site are not, and can convert any lens into a reasonably good macro lens. The results are actually surprisingly good. And the good news is that you don't need AF for macro work.</p> <p>What lens or lenses do you have now?</p>

<p>I had and liked the 70-300mm VR and recommend it, but would much prefer the 28-300mm VR if travelling really light equipment wise was your prime concern.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that the improvement in Color Depth and Dynamic range are most apparent at base ISO and diminish as the ISO increases and pretty much even out as you go above ISO 400. Even at base ISO, it would be difficult to see any differences in typically sized prints.</p>

<p>Attachment here</p><div></div>

<p>For most images, 12mp is all you need if you are shooting with the right focal length so you don't need to crop. Features and build quality wise, both the D700 and D3 are still excellent even by today's standards. IQ wise, the D3/D700s will render IQ almost as good as many of Nikon's current bodies, especially if you are using the right glass. When it comes to high iso performance, The D3/D700 still offer an advantage over Nikon's latest DX bodies (by about a stop) and are at only a slight disadvantage over Nikon's latest FX bodies. Even the D810 has only modest improvements over the D810 in high ISO performance.</p> <p>To clarify, I am not saying the D3/D700 are as good as the newest bodies like the D810, just that under most shooting situations except for the most extreme, it would be difficult to see differences if you are shooting RAW and processing with advanced software (like DXO, for example). But if you are making a 6' poster or pixel peeping, yes you will find differences. But for most 'typical' prints, you will not be able to see the differences</p> <p>Software advances, especially in NR such as DXO prime, are really a game changer. While I rarely need to shoot at high ISO because I have fast glass, I get excellent results because I shoot RAW and process with DXO.</p> <p>you can view the various comparisons from DXO here:</p> <p>http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D3-versus-Nikon-D810-versus-Nikon-D7200___438_963_1020</p> <p>And while there are differences in the numbers, it would be difficult to see these difference in typically sized prints.</p> <p>FWIW, I had the D800 for about a year and although I was satisfied with it, I found it just wasn't that much better IQ wise and preferred the ergonomics and features of the D3. I sold it and kept and still have my D3.</p>

<p>If you don't feel you need the 'improvements' that the D810 has over the D800, get the D800,save the money, or use the savings on an additional lens or accessory you may need. Both are excellent.</p>

<p>What is your budget?</p>

<p>I have one and use it often. The lens provides high quality images in every regard. Considering its size and weights, it is an excellent choice for wide angle photography. And because of the sensor size and resolution, there is plenty of cropping ability for typical sized smaller prints.</p> <p>There was a firmware update a while back which you want to be sure to do.</p> <p>Video quality is also very, very good (both audio and video) and you can set the front function button to allow instant access to the video option - it is hard to get to the video functions otherwise.</p>

<p>Rather than third party batteries, consider used genuine Nikon batteries. They are pretty reasonably priced.</p>

<p>Do you have an extra battery or two? If you don't you should.</p> <p>There is no way of knowing how long a battery will last. I still have my D3 and the 3 batteries I use are older than yours. And in spite of the battery meter's life indication, I am still able to take thousands of pictures on a charge. But I always have backups with me just in case.<br> <br /> Use what you have until it/they will no longer hold or a charge or allow you to take a reasonable number of images.</p>

<p>#2</p><div></div>

<p>Sanford, where did all that ice come from and what was it being used for?</p><div></div>

<p>The D7000 has 9 cross type AF points which are the most accurate. If you only use those, you should not have any AF difficulties with the D7000, at least that was my experience with it for the 1 year that I owned one. But I am aware that there are some D7000s that perform less than optimally in the AF dept.</p> <p>If you have a D7000 and are using only the 9 cross type AF points and are experiencing AF issues, you should send the body to Nikon for service.</p> <p>The D7100 is currently available refurbished for only $700 and considering what you get, it is an absolute bargain.</p>

<p>The image quality is more than acceptable for general use and if you are making typically sized prints at 8 x 10 or smaller. For those with a more critical eye, shooting RAW and processing your images with software that has lens specific corrections such as Photoshop or DXO, the results can actually be quite good all things considered.</p> <p>According to the testing on the DXO Mark site, the IQ should be comparable between the two. I have the Nikon lens and am quite happy with it. </p>

<p>#3</p><div></div>

<p>#2</p><div></div>