andrew_fedon

<p>Air India 777 landing into the sunset, with a murky sky behind.<br>

<img src="http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr327/eurocypria/DSC_0936.jpg" alt="" /><br>

D700, iso1600, 1/600, f/10, 300mm</p>

<p>D'you care to post the serial number of that..., just in case it turns up on ebay as a 'factory reconditioned' D3 ? LOL</p>

<p>PS, just how exactly did it become detached ? Things don't get detached by themselves unless someone really screws up badly.</p>

<p>@ Tom Mann, no I wasn't being sarcastic, I really meant it. For me its a matter of practicality. Take it off, open the bag , find the filters case, put it in, then decide you want it on, open the bag, find the filter etc etc, too time consuming, too much hassle. Rather leave it on, and have the protection also. Stops loss is only if the filter is rotated to the angle of polaization anyways, isn't it ? Besides, at the iso levels of the D700, it doesn't make any difference. Its not an ideal world and we have to make compromises. If I used a UV filter, then I would have to take that off also before all the hassle of fitting the polariser, because off the 24mm end of the lens. Of course I am talking off outdoor photography in bright daylight. For indoors or somthing else, I'll take it off.</p>

<p>I keep the b+w polarizer on my 24-85mm whether I need to polarise or not. The naked front element of a new Nikkor lens is somewhat too fragile and too exposed for my liking.</p>

<p><strong>@william nikkens,</strong> yes that is advertising. Its the name of the airline, Kingfisher Airlines. Many airlines splash their name on the underside in this eyecatching way, I think Emirates is another one. I forgot to note that it was taken at 24mm, so it was very low and very fast, just a couple of seconds before touchdown at Heathrow.</p>

Morning all..

<strong><img src="http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr327/eurocypria/DSC_0859.jpg" alt="" /></strong>

<strong>D700, iso 1600, 1/1000, f/5.6</strong>

<p>Thanks to everyone who commented on my last photo. Still working through my August backlog, this an Eva Air 767 landing into the sunset at Heathrow.<br>

<strong><img src="http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr327/eurocypria/DSC_0875.jpg" alt="" /></strong><br>

<strong>D700, iso 1600, 1/1000sec, f/22, at 240mm</strong></p>

<p>Well, whispering it exactly aint, more of a roar actually. Did some photos on the approach at Heathrow in August while in London, and this is the Virgin Atalantic A340 touching down into the setting sun, which was giving a lovely golden glow to everything.<br>

<strong><img src="http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr327/eurocypria/DSC_0605.jpg" alt="" /></strong><br>

<strong>D700, iso 800, 1/1000, f/6.3 at 300mm</strong></p>

<p>I wonder if anyone makes carbon-fibre attachments ? Light, tough, and won't scratch camera.</p>

<p>Thanks for posting picture. Indeed it looks like cheap cast material that can very easily break. Made in China ?</p>

<p>Interesting link Graham, I got distracted reading reviews on all the lenses. Well, there must some improvements over the earlier versions as it is twice the price of the earlier one, and they are both displayed ! Is this why Nikon have been selling the 24-120 as a kit lens, to get rid of their earlier version stocks, and replace it with the new one ?</p>

<p>Andrew, re the <strong>"FX D700 stealable" yellow bit inwards</strong>, LOL, I found myself doing the same recently with the new D700 I bought. You see, the D700 I had stolen along with the complete bag, I had an old strap on it, must have got back in he 70's or 80's, it was exactly like a car seat belt strapping. Anyone know if those are still available anywhere ?</p>

<p>Yes Wade, a picture of the actual broken part would be useful.</p>

<p>I also go for the as inconspicious as possible, especially in this day and age. Anything with 'Nikon', 'LowePro', 'Canon' on it and you're asking for trouble. Trust me, I speak from experience and know how easy it is to loose the bag once they've determined its contents.</p>

<p>its probably sticking aperture blades, which is easy to see if you stop the lens down and hold it up the light and flicking the lever by hand, you should see the blades closing instantly, without hestation. Slightest hesitation and means they are sticking. No, I would not recommend DIY jobs on any lens if you ever want to use that lens again !</p>

<p>At least get the repair done so the second hand value of your lens doesn't drop, and you still have loads of cash left over. At some stage in the far and distant future, (in a galaxy far far away...) you may want to sell it.</p>

<p>Still at the zoo today and taking the low light shots inside. This is a Tamarin monkey, tiny little things about the size of you palm. It was dark, and I could only get him when he flitted in and out of the overhead light.<br>

<img src="http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr327/eurocypria/DSC_0261.jpg" alt="" /><br>

D700, iso6400, 270mm on the sigma 70-300, 1/200, f/9</p>

<p>Ditto everything Jose just said above. FX for me is the only 'true' medium being as it replaced the 35mm film format. Dx would not exist if technologically and economically they could have produced the FX sensor in the first place. Shun, in the 'most is more popular' theorum, then P&S is even more popular than DX. Then again, why has this turned into a DX Vs FX discussion ?</p>

<p>Why are people so anxious to write off the D700 so soon ? There's always something new over the horizon.. Get the D700 with the 24-70 now. Going from the D80 to the D700 its like going from a bicycle to a Rolls Royce. EVEN IF... there's a replacement, you probably won't need all the extra stuff above and beyond a 'normal' D700, and the 24-70 lens. Will you really need video ?... Will you need really 24MP, in which case don't expect it to be cheap. I'd recon on twice the price of the current D700. Do your self a favour and get the D700 + lens now, before you lose that also.</p>

<p>Ahh, but Andrew (I feel like I'm talking to myself), we are disscusing a Nikon D700 + 24-120mm scam with Nikon compadres here. We are not talking about any old scam.</p>

<p>Shun, maybe you're right, but they are actually completed listings, so no one can bid on them. When I first saw the first one I suspected stolen goods, but after seeing all four 'completed', I realised what they are probably doing. Set up new sellers account with ebay, paypal etc, put up four (non-existant) high price cameras using 'stock' photos, at ridiculously low 'buy-it-now' prices that are guaranteed to sell immediately, collect four lots of 500'ish pounds same day and dissapear without a trace, and buyers never get the cameras. Until, you set up the same scam under a different name. The one 'negative' feedback seems to be from a potential buyer or someone who seems to have parted with money, and realised something is wrong.</p>

<p>Like Elliot, I had the original 24-120 and found no issues with it. Now if its the same as the newer version optically, I don't know. However, when it was stolen recently, instead of buying another 24-120, I took note of all the negative comments here, and bought instead the 24-85mm f/2.8, which was roughly the same price.</p>

<p>I was browsing ebayUK and opened up a 'factory refurbished' D700, plus 24-120mm, that seemed really ridiculously low priced at 'buy-it-now' 500 pounds UK, plus 5 pounds delivery (yeah right !). I asked out of curiosity "whats the serial number ?" and got no reply. I checked later and found it had sold, and in the 'completed items' the same seller had FOUR identical D700s + lens sold with-in a few minutes of each other, all same 'stock' photo of item three at 500 pounds and one at 150 pounds UK ! (check it out , items: 110590300650, 110590312274, 110590318080, 110590336776). I instantly thought "SCAM !", has to be. Who would be selling a D700+24-120mm at 'buy it now' for 150 pounds ????or even 500 ??<br>

I think the people that sent their money to this seller will be waiting for a long time to see the D700, what do you think ?</p>

<p>AF-S (single) or AF-C (continous), what is AF-A ???. Are you sure your central focusing point is actually set in the center or is it maybe set to elsewhere and you don't realise it ?</p>

<p>Just today, I was watching the second of the Jurassic Park trilogy, "The Lost World" , where the Jeff Goldblum and Vince Vaughn characters first find Jullianne Moore on the dinosaur island as she is taking photos of the dinosaurs. Jullianne looks at the camera hanging around Vince Vaughns' neck and says: "is that a NIGH...CON ?" , before taking the camera and proceeding to take photos. 'Nigh-kon' must have paid a small fortune for advertisment they got out of this movie. Here is a still with Julliane Moore holding her 'Nigh-con', an F5 or F6 ?<br>

<img src="http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr327/eurocypria/PDVD_021.jpg" alt="" /> </p>