elliot1

<p>Nice shots everyone!</p><div></div>

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

<p>Nice shots everyone!</p><div></div>

<p>Obviously this is not normal. How long ago did you make the purchase? Are you possibly still covered by eBay's warranty.</p>

<p>Dragged the shutter on this one</p><div></div>

<p>2nd shot...</p><div></div>

<p>A different kind of flying...</p><div></div>

<p>The most 'obvious' difference between FX and DX are the size/brightness of the viewfinder and high ISO performance. If either or both are important to you, FX is probably your best path to follow. You will be very happy with either format as both are excellent.</p>

<p>Keh is a very reliable source, has an excellent warranty and by chance is having a 20% off sale on used gear tomorrow (4-27-2015).</p>

<p>Also, what level of hockey is your son playing in? </p>

<p>One of the problems with shooting indoor hockey is that the type and age of lighting system in the venue can limit your shutter speed due to white balance color shifting from frame to frame and with older lighting systems color shifting can appear within the same frame (almost impossible to correct). Mercury vapor lights are often used at hockey arenas. Older lights require lower shutter speeds, newer allow for higher. Arenas hosting youth hockey are typically using lighting systems that allow for shutter speeds in the 1/250 to 1/400 range. Each venue is different and testing at each venue is required.</p> <p>An important factor that determines the 'best' lens for shooting hockey would be your shooting location. Are you shooting from the stands or by the ice through the glass? One of my favorite lenses to shoot hockey when I had my D800 was the 85mm f1.8. The focal length is perfect for shooting net play from the glass when you are perpendicular to the net (this focal length only works well for FX). When shooting from behind the net at the glass, a fast aperture wide angle lens is a great choice.</p> <p>Since the D800 allows for plenty of cropping, you can get great results with a wide assortment of fast aperture lenses and don't necessarily need a zoom lens. (Obviously print size is an important factor if cropping.)</p> <p>A limiting factor to ISO is your print size. For smaller prints, you can easily shoot above ISO 6400 with the D800 and get superb results. I have shot at many hockey arenas and have never found the need to shoot above ISO 3200. But of course, low ISO is generally preferred.</p> <p>And unlike many sports, lower shutter speeds can contribute to more interesting pictures, if you are shooting at the right angle. I often shot parts of hockey events intentionally at shutter speeds under 1/100 and got some of my favorite/most interesting action shots.</p> <p>If you are shooting from the stands, the 70-200mm VRII is your best choice. The VRI can get the job done very nicely as well but keep in mind that corner sharpness can be an issue with FX (not so much for hockey but for other shooting you may be doing with the lens).</p> <p>So what type of shots will you be taking, where are you going to be shooting from, what kind of lights are used at your local venu(es), and what size prints will you be making? The outdoor photography you mention, will it be done in daylight hours?</p>

<p>If you are going to be shooting in low light often enough, save like crazy and get the Nikon VRII.... it is worth the additional cost. Otherwise, the Nikon f4 version is probably the way to go.</p>

<p>Prime lenses will typically give you better IQ than zooms. The body is less important but there are numerous advantages to shooting FX. Since the price difference is not all that great between DX and FX, you may want to seriously consider switching.</p>

<p>I recently shot video at a wedding and had one file that was not readable by my computer but, like you, it would play back in the camera. I was finally able to recover it. Since yours will play back, you should be able to recover it, but it may take some work.</p> <p>If you have a recording device that can connect to you camera through the HDMI cable, you can play back the video from the camera and record it in HD to the external device. This may be the easiest way to recover the file.</p> <p><br /> How are you trying to download it to your computer, direct from the camera or with a card reader?</p> <p><br /> If you are trying to download it to a PC try downloading it on a MAC or if you are trying to download it to a MAC, try a PC.</p> <p><br /> Does the file show up when you put the memory card in your computer's card reader?</p> <p>Good luck!</p>

<p>Since you already have and use a D800 and are happy with it, another D800 makes the most sense.</p> <p> </p>

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

<p>A couple of flower shots...</p><div></div>

<p>If you shoot RAW and have software that does lens specific optical corrections (like DXO), the <em>'</em><em>optical compromises'</em> can be reduced quite a bit. I have that lens and the results are actually surprisingly quite good when processed with DXO. A lot will depend on the final print size and how critical you are.</p>

<p>Have you tried opening your files with Nikon's software?</p> <p>It does not appear that Picassa supports the D810 yet.</p>

<p>Sunrise...</p><div></div>

<p>As a M43 user, I find many of the negative comments here about m43 are just not accurate. The bottom line is that, as with ANY camera system, aside from having the right glass, knowing your camera intimately is paramount.</p>

<p>JPG quality seems to have quite a bit of improvement from generation to generation. But RAW files tell the real story. Remember just a short while ago with the fuss about the D750 Vs the D610/D600. In the end, the JPG images showed marked improvement but the RAW files where basically the same. I suspect the same will hold true between the D7200 and D7100.</p>

<p><em>"The lens has a few cosmetic dings and wear to the lettering"</em><br> <br> If the lens was only used for a few hours, this would not be the case. Return it.<br> <br> I had this lens and the VR did fail. I think it cost $150 to fix. I sold the lens after it was repaired but do remember that one of the symptoms was a jittery viewfinder. The thunks you describe are also not normal. Return it.</p>

<p>According to the DXOMark site, the D600 has a slight advantage, but frankly, after post processing (assuming you are shooting RAW), you probably would not be able to see much if any differences under most shooting conditions. What lenses do you have? Lenses and technique are probably more important than the body when it comes to IQ.</p>

<address>Thanks Sanford, Yes, it took a few tries (I think I shot 3 sequences in total). And even with the fast frame rate of the EM1, it still takes luck. The muzzle flash is so fast you can't really see it. But it is there none-the-less. And it does contribute to an interesting picture!</address>