miguel_martinez4

<p>Actually, the line drawn by Apple right now for an update is having a 64bit UEFI. The original Intel Macs, from 2006, are 32 bit Core Duos, and don't qualify. The next generation was 64 bit, but Apple still put a 32 bit UEFI on them. So essentially only Macs that are about 6 years or newer qualify for security updates.</p>

<p>Hello again everybody,<br>

Eventually, I sent the 70-200/4 to Nikon UK. It took them 7+3 days [1] to examine the lens. According to whatever they've done, only the lens mount is faulty. The bayonet replacement plus labor cost £78 (about $120). I accepted their estimate and will hopefully get the lens sometime next week.<br>

Thanks again everybody for your replies. Hopefully this thing will be as sharp as before. Since it wasn't painful really, I'll possibly send my D7k for a CLA.<br>

[1] I actually walked there with the lens myself, so I was positive the lens was there. Still it took them ~3 working days to acknowledge receiving it.</p>

<p>Thanks for all your answers! Those $600 seem a bit steep for a bayonet fix, but if they re-align the lens and make sure everything is fine... uff, I don't know. The lens actually mounts and unmounts as before on the D700. I'm pretty sure it's tighter than it used to be on the D7k, and that one has always been a bit tight. </p>

<p>Given that I live pretty close to Nikon UK, I'll call them and see if I can get an estimate and get rid of the shipping. I won't bother with the camera, though. That one seems to be in good shape. It will only bother me if the AF stops tracking my little toddler</p>

<p>Dear All,<br>

I managed to drop my D700 with the 70-200 f/4 attached from about hip height to concrete this morning. I tried to put my foot in order to slow the fall down but even still the CF card door opened. I'm a bit paranoid that I may have caused serious, yet unseen, damage. So far, on the positive:</p>

<ul>

<li>AF works, with the infinity-3m limiter and without</li>

<li>Zooming works</li>

<li>The lens hood didn't break or crack, at all</li>

<li>VR seems to work: 200mm @ 1/30s is perfectly feasible, even on a crop camera.</li>

</ul>

<p>However, there three points that worry me:</p>

<ul>

<li>the lens mount is oh so slightly bent near the serial number (see attachment). This worries me: there might be further damage inside</li>

<li>slightly shaking it perpendicular to the optical axis makes some small noises (might be normal)</li>

<li>the focusing ring seems a bit "sandy", but that could be paranoid</li>

</ul>

<p>The camera seems to operate fine, and takes cards without problems. Surprisingly, there doesn't seem to be damage in the metal part attached to the damaged part in the lens mount. The aperture tab, however, is different to my D7k: on the D7k the L-shaped tab is parallel/perpendicular to the optical axis. On the D700, however, this seems to be angled.<br>

The clearest picture I've found on D700 mounts is this:<br>

http://lh4.ggpht.com/-NkfkAdOP-zM/UiYAONPtQ4I/AAAAAAAADiQ/gHsbL_KS4J4/s1600-h/_DXE6560EK%25255B6%25255D.jpg</p>

 

<p>If you have a D700, is your yellow pointed tab also angled? </p>

<p>If you have any suggestions on how to act/check for stuff, they'll be very welcome. I fear my clumsiness will be rewarded to the nearby NPS centre in Vauxhall (London, UK). Does any of you have an estimate of what an alignment check and/or bayonet repair may cost?</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Miguel</p><div></div>

<p>I was intrigued by the OP's original claim, plus some remarks about watches that drift considerably. I actually went and performed a short-scale experiment with:</p>

<ol>

<li>A D700 (Summer 2010)</li>

<li>A D7k (March 2012)</li>

<li>A Lotus Quartz wristwatch (October 1999). The manufacturer claimed +/- 1s/month. Very similar to the one depicted here:<a href="http://www.gsmspain.com/foros/attach/78/7872.jpg">7872.jpg</a></li>

<li>Reference: a late 2013 13" rMBP synced to Apple's NTP servers in Europe (time.euro.apple.com). Linux resyncs at every boot or after a certain time has elapsed. I don't know how OS X does it.</li>

</ol>

<p>While I tried to be as accurate with the cameras as possible, I didn't set them at the same time. This proved difficult with the display turning off after a few seconds. It was even more difficult with the wristwatch. However, after set up, all 3 clocks were within 1s of the reference.</p>

<p>1 month later: The D700 is almost 6 seconds behind the D7k, which is about 2 seconds ahead of the wristwatch. The wristwatch itself is delayed by about 0.5s over Apple's NTP server. I guess the D700 might delay due to the more frequent battery changes (more pictures, plus extended use of AF-S and VR in the 70-200/4). I knew my wristwatch was going to be accurate, as I've always synced it with official time servers and, throughout the year, kept accurately with F1 races until the broadcasting introduced the "digital delay".<br>

I'd love to keep the experiment for an extra month, but we go back to GMT this Sunday, and don't really feel like having an extra hour in my wristwatch for almost 4 weeks. Maybe I'll do a Last Sunday of October to Last Sunday of March test...</p>

<p>We shoot both formats at home, with a D7k and a D700, and we do it "the wrong way". The D7k is almost always with the Nikkor 10-24, and we tend to have the 70-200/4 on the D700. When we travel, my wife & me carry a body each with the 50/1.8G and the speedlight on the bag, and it's pretty versatile. You can argue that buying the 16-35/4 VR would give us better wide-angle quality but we can find better uses for those £1000.</p>

<p>We like the flexibility of having two bodies while travelling (the 50 doubles as 75, if we need extra reach the 70-200 goes to the D7k, you get the idea). In terms of performance, the FX ISO advantage is real, and the DoF is narrower if you want it to. I the extra DoF in wide angle DX shots quite helpful though, and the dynamic range of the D7k at ISO100 is nice as well. You may need to be careful with the different camera operation. For example, the AutoISO with a speedlight works differently in both cameras, and there are a few extra nuisances. Another point is that, in postprocessing, the LR sharpness values that both sensors may take are quite different.</p>

<p>At home, after all is said and done, the D700 gets used more, especially since we got the 70-200/4. It's too long on the D7k when trying to take pictures of our toddler. Additionally, we feel its AF is much more reliable. The D7k still got quite a few thousand clicks last year though.</p>

<p>Like Curt, I regularly shoot a D7k and a D700. Since I very rarely print beyond A4, the resolution difference is one of the differences I notice the least. It's much more noticeable, for example, that at base ISO the shadows of the D7k are better, or that the D700 recovers and renders highlights better. The image quality of the D7k will decrease linearly with ISO increases, while the D700 holds better. All low read noise sensors behave like the D7k, while the D4 and Df should behave similarly to the D700 from all the graphs I've seen online.</p>

<p>In operation, I find the D700 AF much more reliable, especially in non-ideal lighting, maybe because the photosites are twice as long and the AF plays with that tolerance. If you're using speedlights, you should be aware that autoISO works in a different fashion in both cameras. Having ISO 100 available in the D7k is actually helpful when syncing speedlights during daylight.</p>

<p>Finally, both cameras seem to have a very different threshold on what amount of post-processing sharpening can be applied, but that may be me sucking with lightroom. With all these differences, I doubt resolution is the main one.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />A 10fps DX DSLR is exactly the $4000 DX camera I was talking about. If you want 10 fps, you need the construction quality of the D2, D3 and D4, not D300 and certainly not D7100. If you think that can be $3500 cheaper than the D4, you are merely dreaming. And I deliberately left out the 24MP part. Keep in mind that the $6700 Canon 1DX is only 18MP and the D4 is 16MP. If you want 24MP @ 10fps and the mechanical construction and AF to support such frame rate, it will cost a lot of money. If they could somehow speed up a D7100 to 10 fps, its mirror and shutter will fall apart pretty quickly with that kind of abuse.<br>

I wouldn't expect Nikon to be able to sell very many such $4000 DX bodies to break even.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Personally, I don't buy the D7100 shutter argument. As good as the actual shutter is for the D7100, it may not be good enough for 10 fps and a 150.000 shots rating. Fine. We can use the 9fps, 300k shots shutter & mirror of the D3 (11fps without AF!). We actually recover costs from the D3 development. And going to a D4 is still an upgrade (10fps). The D300 did 8fps at 150.000. Back in 2007. Surely upping this by 12.5% isn't too hard today.</p>

<p>Regarding the body, I don't see why a full-size body is needed. Would it be nice for quite a few people? Yes, but we can keep that as a D4 feature. Full frame, full body. However, one nice feature for a D400 to keep upgraders happy could be a bigger, FX-sized viewfinder. Energy conservation means losing a bit of brightness, though. Body commonality with the D800 would keep costs low (for both cameras!).</p>

<p>I do agree that 24 MP@10 fps is a big issue due to the required a lot of data processing, and most likely the reason for the resolution caps in the top Nikon & Canon. 16 MP @ 10fps is, if we stick with the D7000 sensor. Regardless, 24 MP @ 8 fps seems perfectly feasible, and lines up well with the shutter speed suggested above.</p>

<p>This leaves us with D3's shutter, D800 body, D7100 sensor, also known as the Frankenikokn. This is perilously threading into fan-fiction, so I'll stop right here and head to bed.</p>

<p>I've personally never seen one of the DX macros outside a shop, Andrew. Incidentally, I'm now in a DX-FX shared environment, and I was interested in replacing the 35/1.8 DX for something that:</p>

<ol>

<li>Would work properly in FX</li>

<li>Would have less CA's than the DX lenses (and thus accurately focus *also* under incandescent light)</li>

<li>Focus faster (the 35 is too slow for my toddler, whereas the 50/1.8G is fine)</li>

</ol>

<p>The lens is, however, too expensive as announced. Or at least it will be once the price is anounced in GBP. From the MTF, I'd guess the lens will be less sharp than the DX version on a D7000, plus will suffer from strong curvature. Sadly, the corners of the Sigma are lackluster on a D7000, and the 28/1.8G (which would be a nice alternative) is also unsharp in the D7000 borders and suffers from a strong field curvature. <br>

OT: What's on a D7k that makes the corners of the 28/1.8G, 35/1.4G and Sigma 35 A so bad? The OLPF? But it works great in telephotos? Also, given the similar sampling to the D800, has anyone seen mid-frame weakness in those lenses on a D800?</p>

 

<p>I'll chime in late. I now believe that Canikon have mismanaged APS-C since its introduction, mostly due to a strong emphasis on backwards compativility. At least Canon had the foresight to introduce the EF-S mount to extract more performance out of the lenses, and offered an early upgrade path to APS-H and 35mm.<br>

<br />Nikon, on the other hand, was DX only from 1999 until 2007. All the love the DX format has received in terms of lenses is represented by the 10.5mm fisheye, the 12-24 f/4 (plus the 10-24 later on), the 35mm f1.8 and the 17-55/2.8. Well, we also have two macro lenses nobody understands, nine 18-xx and three 55-xxx. I get the teles, but I can't fathom why we'd need such a large amount of 18-xx. Even the lauded 16-85 is a slow 3.5-5.6. One would imagine that, in that period of time, maybe Nikon would have wanted to release more high end lenses.</p>

<p>Shun's argument that Nikon sees all the professionals at FX also neglects the fact that yes, maybe FX will see all the pro lenses from now on, but DX isn't getting even prosumer lenses. No f/4 zooms or f/2 wide angle primes. No takes on a 55-150/2.8. Just... well, 18-140 f/3.5-5.6 says it all. And if Nikon wants to shut 3rd party from selling superzooms, they may as well want to shut them from f/2.8 zooms (Tokina 11-16 anyone?). One could counter back saying those lenses may not sell well, but that's easily rebutted by looking at how many 40mm and 85mm macro have been sold. Besides, I'd be willing to bet more D3200 have been sold that the full number of Nikon FX cameras. No one argues Nikon should stop making these cameras.</p>

<p>And finally, maybe the reason Nikon doesn't produce a 10fps, 24 Mp D400 is avoiding cannibalizing not only D600, but D4 as well. High MP, high DR, low read noise sensor, similar FPS at $3500 less than a D4? With a x1.52 crop factor? Sounds very attractive as long as you're not into wide-angle or need less DoF.</p>

<p>BTW: It's true that FX performs better than DX. But ULV processors perform worse than normal laptop processors, let alone Desktop processors, and we still see *a ton* of Macbook Airs around. Maybe the DX compromise is good for many, as is MP3 or inline-4 engines in FWD cars.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I might bite the bullet and think about a D3300 when the price drops, even though it's huge compared with the GF2.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />How much smaller is it? I've always got the impression that, once you pair the camera with a typical 18-55, the size and weight advantage of m4/3 wasn't really that big (10%?). I may be horribly wrong, and biased, though.</p>

<p>Thanks, Rodeo Joe. I really need to up my speedlight mustard. Maybe I should ask for a book these Christmas.</p>

<p>I've finally bit the bullet, and got a 70-200 f/4 to complement my family's Nikon cabinet. With this lens, a doubt has jumped into my mind. The specs of my SB-700 speedlight state its zoom range is 24-120mm FX equivalent. Indeed, the speedlight keeps making noises as I zoom in the 70 to 120 mm range on a D700. What does exactly happen outside 120 mm? Do I just lose power? Can I compensate a bit using the centered lighting pattern? Also, does this render the SB-700 essentially useless on my D7k with my new tele?</p>

<p>OK, yes, these are more than one question, but all are related to the working of the speedlight beyond the zoom range. Thanks in advance for all your answers.</p>

<p>A question regarding the 70-200 f/4 has been around my head for ages. Is the AF on it fast enough on well lit situations? Would it be able to keep with, let's say, a small kid moving randomly?</p>

<p>@Francisco:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>BTW in our country, the 85/1.8 AFS is $499 and the 1.4 is $2199. Thats actually 440% difference.<br /> Please do remember that professional photography does exist outside the USA.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It actually isn't. The difference would be 100*(P-p)/p, which in this case is 341%. But that's just nitpicking. Whether 2/3 eV are worth it depends on what an extra $1600 buys you. If $1600 is your monthly salary, you have a mortgage to pay, and you won't get paid for small DoF portraitures then... well... maybe the 1.4G is not the best purchase you could do.</p>

<p>Let's be honest. The D4 has been out for 18 months, and the final XQD spec predates it slightly (it helps Nikon was on the tech committee). Since then, not even Sony has produced a single camera sporting XQD. Sony were also in the XQD comittee.<br>

Given the canikon pro camera cycle has just been refreshed, and no amateur camera since has had XQD, I really can't see XQD gaining traction. Not in the next 4 other years, at least.</p>

<p>Why get the Nikon 10-24? Well, I did buy it, so I should know. Back when I bought it (Nov 2010), my camera was a D60, with no AF motor, and back then the Tokina with built-in AF motor hadn't even been announced. That's only part of the story. Had I owned my current D7000 back then, I may have still purchased the Nikon, and it wouldn't have been a bad decision.</p>

<p>While the tokina is 1 stop faster and most certainly sharper according to all reviews between 11 and 16 mm, the Nikon has a very nice range. It has allowed me to go hiking with it, and still know I can take some "normal" pictures. For travelling, 10-24 and 70-300, plus 35mm f/1.8 for low night is a pretty good combination, especially when the 70-300 is on my wife's camera. It's more than good enough for what I print (A3 biggest, and not that often). 10mm may be crappy at apertures larger than f/8, but it still is a nice recourse when 12mm isn't enough to distort the perspective.</p>

<p>However, I do agree that the pricing on this Nikon (as in some others) hints at a level of quality that isn't really there. I wonder what would happen if the F-mount were actually documented and 3rd parties wouldn't need reverse engineering to build their lenses.</p>

<p>Andy, the latest Sigma (blablbabla EX DG OS HSM blablabla) is ~£900, compared with the £1200 for the Nikon. The older, nonstabilised Tamrons and Sigmas are about £600. In contrast, however, Jessops sells the stabilised Tamron for *more* than the f/2.8 Nikon.</p>

<p>As an aside, only Amazon seems to "have" the Nikon f/4 on stock. No Calumet, no Jessops, no other high street retailer I'm aware of.</p>

<p>I've got 0 experience with that lens, but I've read quite a few funny stories. It's a rare lens in that the corners are much better on FX that on DX. Other than the typical review sites, I found the following read about the 28/1.8g's character quite interesting:<br>

http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2012/8/the-28mm-f1-8g-nikkor-on-d800</p>

<p>I've been eyeing the 70-200/4: nice MTF, positive impressions in the web and compared to the 2.8 VR, half the weight, a much nicer minimum focusing distance and minimal focus breathing (185mm at mfd). It seems tempting, but the current UK price is outrageous: Almost 50% more than the 3rd party 70-200/2.8, as well as Canon's own 70-200/4 IS.</p>

<p>IMHO, this lens becomes truly attractive at about £800, not £1200 (essentially $2k). That is the price range of the Canon version, as well as the 3rd party 2.8 zooms.</p>

<p>My wife's D700 misbehaves when coupled with Transcend CF cards. The camera becomes sluggish, as Allan Armstrong describes. Furthermore, every once in a while, a picture gets "half-corrupted": it can be opened with ViewNX but Lightroom 4 (Windows) or Photoshop CS5 (Mac) refuse to open it complaining about an unexpected end of file.</p>

<p>These issues do not disappear after formatting the card, but were gone as soon as we used a new Sandisk CF card.</p>

<p>Doing an APS-C EVIL camera and keeping the F-mount seems silly to me. You are essentially keeping all the baggage of a decission taken 60 years ago, with dimensions chosen for a 35mm sensor sporting a mirror, with all the size and wide angle performance disadvantages that entails, in order to 1 to 1 backwards compatibility. A small sensor EVIL camera can become a tiny leica. Sticking to the F-mount would deny that straight away, Clever engineering would be designing a mount so that an adapter is feasible.<br>

I suppose Nikon is concerned with cannibalising their DX userbase. Not in the sense of selling less DX cameras, no. I'm pretty sure that, all things equal, they prefer you to spend $1000 on mirrorless than a DSLR due to margins. However, the D7k user has a clear upgrade path to FX. The CX user isn't hooked to the F mount.</p>

<p>I think it's quite obvious Nikon neglects DX users. To be fair, FX users haven't got all the love they should be getting, considering they are the prestige users. This APS-C snobbery will come back to hurt both Nikon and Canon in the long term, I'm sure. After all, if you ignore what represents more than 80% of your DSLR users, how can you convince them they won't be ignored if they moved to FX?</p>

<p>The fact is, DX lenses are smaller and lighter and cheaper than FX equivalents. By how much? By about the same amount as 4/3 compared to DX. For example, Tokina's 50-135 weights slightly less than the new Nikkor 70-200 f/4. Yes, a D600 with the 70-200 will produce a better image than a D7000 with the Tokina, but it is also about £1200 more expensive. I believe there is a market for a DX system beyond 18-xx zooms and macro lenses that nobody understands. If nikon is reticent, they could (harharhar) open and license the mount technology, so that Sigma et al. can produce these lenses in a more reliable way, without resorting to reverse engineering. This would actually increase the value of Nikon's DX cameras. As would sharing with Adobe and others the light performance of their sensors, but one can only dream.</p>

<p>Finally, I find those comments that FX is not expensive out of touch. FX *is* expensive. FX used to be *very* expensive. Even a D600 represents a big chunk of the average monthly household income in the US (maybe a full month after taxes). Photography never was a cheap hobby.</p>

<p>I would be surprised if there are detectable colour changes in the D700 raw files, while they should happen with the D200. These changes also happen in the D60 that I own (same sensor as the D200). <br>

It turns out Nikon changed the colour processing for the 2007 generation, which you can see by comparing the colour profile options in your D700 and D200. When you process the D200 raw files in ViewNX, any other than "original" will process the colour information using the newer algorithms. Essentially, it'd be like processing the raw files using a different raw converter.<br>

<br />Finally, be aware the shadows will be more blocky and possibly slightly lighter on the JPEG due to the lossy compression applied.</p>

<p>I also have doubts regarding VR. It seems to me as if the shutter release wasn't depressed for long enough for VR to stabilise, adding extra motion blur.</p>