david_r._edan

<p>Thank you, Gary. Shooting wired would have also saved me the time of writing this post.<br /> Getting a 5 megabytes per second transfer rate over a dedicated Wi-Fi network is unreasonable? I know I'm kinda pushing the envelope with this little SD card but last time I looked out the window, the year was 2013... So, go figure...</p>

<p>That is some very useful data. Thank you! I've heard about the 'direct mode' and that's probably what I would use. The speeds are in the ballpark for what I need. What kind of delay should I expect between taking a picture and the computer receiving it? It appears that the card doesn't immediately begin the transfer. However, most people who review Eye-Fi cards are not wireless communication experts. I've seen a video on YouTube of a guy taking a full RAW (80MB) photo with his D800 and receiving it on his computer after 40-45 seconds (can't remember). If that is really the case, then I should be fine, so long as subsequent photos keep flowing in under 15 seconds each.<br>

BTW, the 10 MB/sec is the <em>minimum</em> read/write speed guaranteed by the manufacturer. Most of the time, at least in theory, it should be a little faster than that.<br>

Many thanks!</p>

<p>It appears that all the bugs have been worked out, so I figured this was worth a shot *wink*</p>

<p>The net is flooded with amateurish implementations of the Eye-Fi technology, so the picture is very conflicting. I could not get any reliable info regarding the data transfer rates.<br /> I shoot with the D800 in the lossless RAW format (14 bits). The files tend to be around 50MB in size. I need a steady flow of images of about 10 to 15 seconds per image. The last captured photo must become available on the computer within 30 to 45 seconds. The machine is a powerful Windows PC that will have a dedicated Wi-Fi router, set-up to be used exclusively by the 16GB Eye-Fi card. The distance from the router to the camera will not exceed 35 feet. Except the air and (sometimes) myself, there will be nothing between the antenna and the camera.<br /> I would like to get some responses from people who have worked, or at least tried to work, in a similar scenario. I know that setting this thing up can be a pain in the rear. However, right now my main concern is the real-life data transfer rate. What should I expect?<br>

PS: I am quite aware of the numerous 'proper' wireless setups available out there. Kindly limit your replies to things Eye-Fi related.</p>

<p>I was looking for a 'fast' tripod head, which also offered fine adjustments. The A-S d4 fits the bill perfectly. 'Too precise movements' means 'a lot of cranking' and I don't want that. I'll be shopping for a large and heavy tripod sometime this year or perhaps a proper stand to shoot off of in my studio. It'll probably get both. But first things first.<br>

I've been needing a geared head for a long time. The Manfrotto 405 has always been visually appealing but I knew better than to base my decisions entirely on looks. In my opinion it simply falls between two stools. It's not built or operated like a conventional geared head, while being heavy and clunky as hell to be a 'compact alternative'. It can't hold a lot of weight and it's got a lot of bad rep, mainly for 'drifting'. I'm really glad I didn't pay the $500 to be taught a lesson that I really needed the A-S d4.<br>

I did all kinds of shoots and I know what kind of precision I need for each one of the scenarios. There probably will be times when I'll need more control than what the d4 offers. That's when I'll buy the 'Cube'. That's a big 'IF' as I wont' buy anything I don't need, though working on the Cube mounted on a stand is really how you're supposed to do macro work in a studio. I'm not about to shoot anything like that in the near or even foreseeable future, so I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. Learning about the Cube and possibly saving time on research in the future was a nice byproduct of shopping for a compact geared head.<br>

Manfrotto's QR system is marvelous. It offers true one-hand operation and I have only good things to say about it. The Arca-Swiss mounting system does not offer that kind of luxury. So if you're already using both your hand, how difficult is it to tighten a little screw? Well, I've decided to just 'screw it' and NOT get the flip-lock. I want the standard mount and not the new 'monoball fix', or whatever you call that thing. So thank you, Andrew (again), for explaining these things to me.<br>

I'm looking forward to joining this exclusive club ;)</p>

<p>Thank you, Andrew, for addressing all my questions. Believe it or not but you've actually SAVED me money. Yes, I was shopping for a lightweight, compact and much cheaper head but in a couple of months I was going to buy a proper geared head for my studio work anyway. I'm killing 2 birds with one purchase.... But "purchase"??? I wish! Looks like there will be no purchase for a while. That's alright, I can wait. I already ordered the Gitzo legs and in the meantime I'll use my old pan-tilt Manfrotto head on them. I have a few upcoming outdoor shoots but apart from that I have nothing serious planned to shoot outside. I'm actually interested in the A-S d4 to use it on something much sturdier than the Gitzo legs, in a controlled environment. I'll just transfer it to the Gitzo whenever I need to be super-lightweight. By now I've seen a ton of demonstration videos of the d4 and d4m. The d4 is everything I've ever dreamed of having in a tripod head and much more. It's not too complicated, not overly precise, just what I need. I'm in love. It's definitely worth the wait, so for now that's what I'm going to do. I won't be buying any plates either. What's the point? As for the 300/4's collar... I'm really used to the one I have. It's actually the only one thing that I like about this lens. If it ain't broke - don't fix it. I guess I'm old school, which reminds me.. In my very early days I've worked for a while on someone else's tripod which had geared panning. I hated it. It really slowed me down. Never bothered to remember the brand but shooting on it felt like driving a car with your feet.<br>

Can you tell me one last thing? This business with the "monoball fix".. I've seen this head in several stores. I'm pretty sure it's not what I'm looking for but what exactly is it? I'm locked on the screw-tightening d4 but my choice could be wrong.<br>

All the L-brackets and accessories can come later, if I ever need them. First I need to lay my hands on the actual Arca-Swiss d4.<br>

Thank you again, Andrew and thank you, Rod, for your input. Aside from the "monoball fix" I have no further questions.</p>

<p>I was looking for a compact, lightweight, versatile tripod. I wasted many hours shopping for a ball head. I've never even worked on a ball head and the only reason I even considered getting one was because I needed something compact. Unfortunately (not really), after much research I came to realize that no ball head could serve my needs. The future looked very dim... Along came Mr. Andrew Gerrard and introduced me to the wonderful tripod heads made by Arca-Swiss. I wasn't living under a rock, I've seen their products here and there. Never bothered with them because they all just looked weird to me, sort of 'unconventional'. However, the d4 and the d4m are exactly what I had in mind in the first place. My search is over. Thank you, Andrew.<br>

There are a few final confirmations and I'll be able to put all of this behind me.<br>

First of all, where can I buy these heads??? Are they even available for sale? At the Arca-Swiss online store it says they're out of stock. Makes sense. I imagine millions of people want these babies. I will buy from the US or Europe, I don't care. I would really want to see the real (current) retail value of these 2 models. There's a million reviews of these heads and each place lists a very different price. I just want to compare the 2 models and decide which one it's gonna be.<br>

Can someone please tell me whether the d4 can be moved just as freely as the d4m (without using the gears)? I'm 99% sure the answer to that is yes but I need a confirmation.<br>

I will require these QR plates, can someone confirm they're 100% compatible with the Arca-Swiss d4? I'm only interested in the standard QR mount, not the flip-lock, if it makes any difference.<br>

http://reallyrightstuff.com/ProductDesc.aspx?code=L97L&type=0&eq=B97L-001&desc=L97L%3a-For-Nikon-AF-S-300mm%2ff4-D-ED-IF<br>

http://reallyrightstuff.com/ProductDesc.aspx?code=BMBD12&type=0&eq=&desc=BMBD12%3a-Plate-for-MB-D12-on-D800&key=it<br>

http://reallyrightstuff.com/ProductDesc.aspx?code=BF5&type=0&eq=&desc=BF5%3a-Plate-for-Nikon-F5<br>

One last question. I'll be mounting the head onto Gitzo GT2541 legs. Will there be any issues? Just making sure....<br>

<br />If anyone wants to add something, share their first-hand impressions - I'd be delighted!</p>

<p>First of all, thank you for pointing out the arca-swiss system. It is actually very close to what I need. I have to investigate more into the matter. It is very likely that I will purchase one of their models because a couple of them appear to be almost exactly what I was looking for. A panning clamp can also present a workable solution. I've seen plenty of those online but it never occurred to me to use one of those <em>on top </em>of a ball head. Thank you again, Andrew. It looks like I'm finally getting somewhere with this.<br>

<br />The problem with the Nikkor 300/4 (among other things) is its defective bayonet mount. No loose screws there. Everything locks into place and seems really firm. However, at least in my unit, the machining of the mount itself must have been faulty as it allows some 'rotational play'. I will say that the lens exhibits this behavior when attached to any one of my 4 camera bodies while none of my other 6 lenses has this type of problem. I might have gone overboard when I said it rotated up to 2 degrees, I just checked it again and it's probably just 1 degree. Still.. it's too much. Now that I think of it, I may be onto something bigger. I've noticed that the lens was producing inconsistent results when it came to exposure. I wonder how the aperture selection lever is affected by this 'play' in the lens mount. I'll have to look into it at some point. Right now I have no love for this lens.</p>

<p>I don't have a 3rd party collar for my 300/4 nikkor. I've had this lens for over 7 years and the OEM collar seems to be just fine. I'll keep a closer look though, thanks for pointing it out to me. I would not recommend this lens because it has <em>a number </em>of issues. One is that the mount is loose. The perpendicular alignment to the camera is good, no slack there, however, the lens (or the camera) can rotate 1 or 2 degrees along the lateral axis. This can potentially introduce some 'radial blur' in long exposure as the camera body will drift over time while the lens will remain solid. I will point out that I purchased my version about 8 years ago and it's quite possible that since then the manufacturer had some or all of the issues fixed.<br>

As for the Manfrotto 055 ballhead. I managed to find a video that features a little more comprehensive demonstration of the head... Am I glad I didn't buy it.<br>

I don't need any additional info regarding the 055 ballhead or the Gitzo tripod. I already know everything I need to know about both of them. This ballhead is not right for me. I cannot use it for what I'll be shooting. I'll try to find something else but I'm pretty sure there's nothing out there.</p>

<p>Yes, the tripod is kind of light, but that's the whole idea of being 'lightweight'. With the head that weighs almost a kilo and a pretty hefty body+lens I figure the balance will be terrible. Well, obviously I'll never set the lateral axis to 90 degrees with the 300 f-4 and I'll just have to be more careful not to knock the whole rig over. I know that there will be times when I'll have to stabilize the tripod with my camera bag. I'm prepared to pay this price.<br>

Obviously having a geared head would be ideal but there are no <em>compact</em>, lightweight geared heads that can support my type of equipment.<br>

I would really like to hear from someone who actually owns (or owned) the Manfrotto 055 ballhead. I'll be shooting lots of low-light HDRs, which means that the head <em>cannot</em> drift AT ALL. Does it drift when it's set to vertical shooting and the camera is something like the Nikon D800 (+grip) and the lens is a Nikkor 24-70? How durable is the ballhead? Will it start drifting over time? But most importantly; can it be used for shooting multi-row panoramas?<br>

I know I'm kinda pushing the limits but my demands are not crazy. What I'm about to buy isn't cheap either. It's only fair that I know whether the ballhead can deliver what it claims.<br>

Shopping for a new a tripod is by far harder than shopping for a new camera body. I would love to get some feedback regarding the Manfrotto 055 ballhead and the Gitzo GT2541 legs.<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>Let's start off with the head because that's what dictates the most in terms of functionality.<br /> I've always distrusted ballheads. Never owed or used one. However, I need to go 'compact' and that's the only reason I'm reevaluating my general stance on the subject. I did some poking around and settled on the Manfrotto 055 ballhead for 2 reasons.<br /> The first is that it accepts the Q2 quick-release plates. I have 4 or 5 of those; each permanently attached to every one of my camera bodies and one to my Nikkor's 300/4 tripod collar.<br /> The other reason is that the head, supposedly, has separate controls for tilt. They claim (and it appears) that this head is good for shooting panoramas. This is where I need some good advice. What I'm looking for is an all-around ballhead, which is also 'excellent' for shooing multi-row panoramas. I have the Nikon D800 (with the MB-D12 grip) and a number of heavy lenses. In about 70% of my panoramas the camera is in the vertical orientation. A bulky and heavy body such as the D800 plus a heavy lens amount to considerable leverage. That's a lot of stress on the ballhead when it's set to vertical shooting. The 055 is MASSIVE so I have no doubt that it'll hold but what about the movements? I have no idea how it works and I could not find a proper demonstration of it on YouTube. I know I don't have to disengage the 'ball' itself for 'panning' the unit but what about the 'tilting'? Remember, since I'm shooting a multi-row pano, I can't just disengage and 'reset' the whole fixture, as I need to adjust the tilt independently of anything else. Obviously with my 300/4 I don't need to apply any lateral movement as the lens has a dedicated tripod collar but that's still a lot of leverage with a heavy lens like that. I'm kind of skeptical about this whole 'ballhead' idea.<br /> So, is this ballhead right for me? I am willing to sacrifice the quick-release if there's something more suitable. I do need a 'compact' and possibly lightweight solution. Please, don't propose anything 'pano-designated' as I need a head that's a good all-around head in its own right, which can also shoot multi-row panoramas.<br /> Now, about the legs. I've settled on the Gitzo GT2541 Mountaineer and I'm stretching my limit with the 3 pounds of weight but the tripod's height and minimum folded lengths is really what I need. The reason I'm even considering Gitzo's legs is the negative customer reviews of Manfrotto's carbon fiber tripods (of equal specs). According to the rave customer reviews on B&H, the Gitzo's model is very stable, something which cannot be said of the very few equivalent models from Manfrotto. As I've recently learned, Gitzo is actually owned by Manfrotto. I spoke to a B&H representative and he said that the Manfrotto 055 ballhead <em>can</em> be mounted onto the Gitzo GT2541 legs. Can someone please confirm this?<br /> There's only one more thing I'm concerned about. It is the Gitzo's rubber feet. How durable are they? I'm asking this because I remember replacing my Manfrotto tripod's feet after only about a couple of months of outdoor use. To be on the safe side I've replaced them with retractable spiked feet and never had to worry about it since. Are there spiked (retractable) feet that can fit the GT2541 tripod? It looks like there are none but I would buy them from any 3rd party manufacturer. Maybe the Gitzo's feet are so durable that I'm worrying for nothing. However, I must state that from time to time I'll be shooting in the mountains, on very rocky terrain. The tripod's feet will get a lot of abuse. If they fail I need at least some kind of back-up. What can you suggest?</p>

<p>You really are trying to help, Andrew, and I previously did thank everyone for their input. However, in my original post I did point out that I wasn't interested in any type of DIY solutions because I knew exactly where this would go. Don't you people think that I already researched this thing? I can google, I can search on ebay, I know what's available out there and I did see this under-a-dollar-DIY-tie-a-rope-around-your-neck-become-the-town's-laughingstock gadget. I also found out about all kinds of questionable Chinese and old Russian finders. It made me think there was more stuff out there, not readily available online. Before actually settling on any kind of finder I figured it was worth it to get a second opinion from this forum. Once it's been confirmed that something with my requirements simply did not exist I went ahead and bought the next best thing. Now, because everyone's been nice and because I'm a generally polite individual, I will actually describe what I ordered as well as provide my thoughts on it.<br>

First of all... why do I even need a director's finder? There's about a million reasons but I'll state just a few. I have a permanent wrist injury, which means I can't hold a bulky camera with a heavy lens on it for very long. 95% of my shots are taken with the camera mounted on a tripod. I have to plan each shots ahead but first I want to determine whether I even want to take it. I need to see if it's even doable. Anytime I'll be studying a scene through my new viewfinder I will always have my old Sekonic L-608 meter right with me. By the time (and if) I mount a lens and set my camera on the tripod I will know that I definitely want that shot, taken from that very spot, with the lens that I just mounted AND it can be properly exposed. The list can go on and on but one HUGE bonus is that instead of clenching my teeth in pain throughout the whole thing, I'll be able to focus on the task before me.<br>

What I bought is the Cavision VDL-11X finder. It's far bigger and heavier than what I had in mind but unlike its compact counterpart it's adjusted via 'rotation'. This means, at least in theory, that I'll be able to paint a little dot somewhere on the existing scale and use it to tell me the real focal length in the 135 format. It should go wider than 20mm but it probably won't even reach 200mm. Well, it has a 49mm filter thread and that means that I can use all sorts of optical attachments available on the market. I can also attach them via step-up/step-down rings. I'd just have to figure out what each such setup would mean in terms of the actual focal length. If you think of it, though, with any of those additional lenses, the finder becomes a huge and heavy hunk of glass and metal. I have no choice here but to bite the bullet, so instead of my shirt pocket I'll have to carry it in a little pouch, or in my vest pocket (whenever I'll wear it). On the upside, I don't think that I'll be looking at a tiny, dim image with this finder but I'll have to see about that, won't I?</p>

<p>I'd rather shoot myself in the eye.</p>

<p>How would a cardboard cutout and a piece of string simulate the different perspectives you get with each focal length? I already said that what I needed was a serious instrument which would go WAY beyond determining lens coverage... I have already placed an order for a proper director's finder, what I should have done 11 years ago.</p>

<p>Why do people think that an LCD image is somehow equivalent to direct observation? Viewing your scene on a tiny LCD screen is NOTHING like looking at it through some even mediocre optics. I use my photo equipment to do serious work and not some social-recording-casual-weekend-photo-snapping. Among many things I stitch panoramas, I do HDRs, some real high contrast going on there. How would a tiny P&S cope with ranges of brightness that can't even be accommodated by a human eye? What if it's broad daylight? What if direct sunlight is falling on the screen? How good is it then? Now I need to try to cover the LCD, or take a picture and view it under a coat. Yeah, right... I want to OBSERVE the scene, study it, figure out a composition and NOT just determine lens coverage. What if it's a moonless night? How good will your P&S be then? Will it be able to even pick up ANY KIND of super-grainy image? A compact P&S may be a workable solution for you but to me any P&S is GARBAGE. I do thank everyone who's trying to help but please stop suggesting solutions that involve any type of electronic displays. </p>

<p>I remember shopping for a finder about 10 years ago but not being able to find anything. Since then I pretty much locked myself up in my studio. I haven't done any serious outdoor work in many years. Now I'm gradually getting back 'outside' and a proper finder is what I really need (among other things). Sadly the selection of director's finders hasn't been updated. It's the same thing all over again. Thought there would be some progress by now. Oh, well... I know I'll figure something out because I have no choice.</p>

<p>Andrew, I didn't mention the 'cheap film SLR + a super zoom lens', because it was very obvious. It was so obvious, that in fact it was the first thing that came to my mind. Unfortunately, it's not the kind of solution that I'm looking for.<br>

I do have my old Nikon D70s and a beat-to-hell Sigma 28-300, which I got for free. I use them for scouting shots, albeit rarely. I want a proper finder for situations when none of my photo gear is with me. That's why I said I that needed something that can fit in a shirt/vest pocket.<br>

Matt: How wide can those pocket digicams go? Not very, I figure.. nothing equivalent to 20mm in the 135 format anyway... so no help there..<br>

I thank you for the creative but rather common solutions but I need a proper director's viewfinder. There's a million formats out there and almost all finders have quite a few to choose from. Many offer the selection of the aspect ration. There has got to be something that should work for me.</p>

<p>I'm looking for a basic director's viewfinder, which would be good for still 35mm (FX) photography. There's plenty to choose from and B&H and Adorama carry quite a few. My concern is that all of the models are basically for cinematography and videography. All those I've checked out had a separate scale for 35mm but I know, of course, that motion picture 35mm film format is not what I'm looking for. What do I do? I need to be able to tell which focal length I should use and it has to be pretty exact. Then there's the aspect ratio that has to be 2:3.<br /> So, has anyone used one of these for still photography? There's really a lot of them out there, probably too many, so there's got to be something for me.<br /> The range I'm interested in is about 20 to 300mm and I <em>would </em>buy accessories that can either meet or expand this range. The size of the picture in the viewfinder is also important. Naturally, the bigger - the better. I'll be also using the finder for night photography, so if some model is really dim, I would have to pass.<br /> The finder has to be small enough to fit in a pocket.<br /> The most I would pay is probably around $350 but that's not really my absolute limit, plus the thing doesn't have to be available at Adorama or B&H. I would have no problem with buying one (even used) from ebay or pretty much any other site. The most important thing is that it has to be good for what I need to do with it.<br /> <br />Thanks.<br /> PS: If you're about to suggest an 'iPhone' or some other DIY solution, please save your time as I'm not interested.</p>

<p>Well, that's what I thought. You are just the kind of crowd that's not worth arguing with. I wish you happy shooting and I thank you for saving me a whole afternoon of writing a text that would probably not fit on a single page in this forum. I have a better technique than ANY of you has, software or not. It is a lot of work but it ultimately gives the most accurate results. I needed a confirmation that it would be taken seriously or at least read in its entirety. Life has taught me not to waste time on people that ridicule you even before hearing you out. Frankly, having my lenses tuned better than most anyone has them is what matters to me. I'll save this technique either for my blog, my book, my YouTube channel or maybe for all three of them. That way at the least I will be compensated for my labor. Keep liking your AF tuning and forget I ever posted anything in this thread.</p>

<p>"I have checked the auto-focusing of my D300s for all my lenses shooting a brick wall, and they all seem to be spot-on."<br>

It appears that you're interested in only absolutely the best. Otherwise you wouldn't have started the thread. After all, "they all seem to be spot-on."<br>

I myself do not want to "get out and shoot" unless I know that I and my equipment are ready. The thing with inaccurate focus goes beyond the issue of image sharpness and often it cannot be "fixed" by stopping the lens down, which in itself has the potential of yielding a blurry photo.<br>

Consider this scenario. You're taking a closeup portrait of a beautiful lady in a studio. The lens is focused on the eye(s), like it has to be. But guess what... your lens backfocuses. On the LCD it all looks normal. You preview, zoom in and check the eyes.. yep.. they're sharp, moving on. Did you check the EARS by any chance? Probably not. If you did, you'd see that they're sharper than the eyes. No idea at this point, though. You have someone else print enlargements and the next day you have to explain to the beautiful lady why her not-so-beautiful ears stand out so much and her NOSE looks funny because it's out of focus. "Dammit... Should have stopped down to f-16".. You'd just probably make her ears even sharper. Bottom line: Missing the focus mark means that what you want to be sharp is soft. And often: what you want to be soft is sharp.<br>

The focus HAS to be spot-on and not just 'look' like it is. And guess what... you may not know it but I do.. NONE of your lenses focuses properly at this point. You can ignore what I just said and "shoot happily ever after" or you can read on.<br>

I've read all of the posts here and the people here fall into one of 3 categories:<br>

1. They don't care about the AF if the pictures look good enough.<br>

2. They care but they can't be bothered with tuning the AF.<br>

3. They know a lot about the AF tuning and AF in general but they don't know a proper technique of nailing it down.<br>

<br />Tuning the AF is A LOT of work. At this point you cannot imagine what it entails. But it can be done.<br>

Mike, if you're interested, I will write and post an entire article about tuning the AF. I would do that for you and also to demonstrate to everyone here a very good technique, something they do not have. I had to figure it all out all by myself because NO ONE on the entire internet seems to know how to do it right.<br>

You would need:<br>

1. Your camera (the D300s)<br>

2. A cable release<br>

3. A good tripod<br>

4. A completely manual strobe that you can sync with your camera, a good Nikon speedlight is better. Being able to shoot and sync it off-camera, is preferable.<br>

5. Photoshop.<br>

6. A proper indoor environment to execute the procedure.<br>

If I get a request from you and 2 more people, I will write the article. (Arrogant remarks will not be counted)</p>

<p>PS: When I started putting this camera through some serious tests I was simply blown away by the exposure latitude. The highlights are nothing special but the shadow recovery is amazing. If you need that extra stop of shutter speed - just go for it! You can underexpose by a stop and later bring it all back in post-processing. As an added bonus you'll have nicer-looking highlights. This applies, of course, only if you're shooting 14-bit RAW. This is actually my current project. I'm trying to figure out just by how much I can underexpose and still get a workable image. (lens contrast is a major factor in this)</p>

<p>I'm a recent purchaser of the D800 myself. Apart from a few quirks, I'm loving it. You chose a really good combination of f2.8, 1/400 and iso 3200, something I would have done in the same scenario. If you don't know this already, in order to benefit from the massive resolving power of the D800, you will have to shift the paradigm slightly towards higher shutter speeds. This means that the speeds you were getting sharp images at with the D300 probably won't be fast enough for razor sharp photos with your new camera (at pixel level). Another very important thing is to get your AF tuning right. I had to tune all my 6 lenses. The smallest adjustment (of -2) was applied to a Nikkor 300mm f-4 D and that's a relatively-simple-design, prime lens. The rest didn't fair so well, which means, they were way off. Not having the focus where you want it means that what you need to be pin sharp is not and what you want to be blurred actually draws a lot of attention. If you don't know how to tune the AF, just don't go there, because you'd be entering a world of pain (headache). You can instead just focus via live view but I suppose that's out of the question. I wouldn't use it either for what you shoot.</p>

<p>I just checked to see if anyone by chance posted another comment even though the topic has been pretty much exhausted.<br>

Thank you for your input. Well, the unfortunate case with your camera just goes on to show why I 'never' purchase any 'new' models of anything. Especially cameras. A camera is a very complex apparatus and hence the chances of something going wrong are quite high. If there's a new hot item out there, I wait at least about 8 months before purchasing one. That allows some time for issues to be detected by the actual consumers, for the manufacturer to address those problems and for the defective units that are already circulating to be either replaced or rotated. However, no one, not even someone caution such as myself, is actually immune to receiving an item with manufacturing defects in it.<br>

For a very brief period there I did consider going for the D600 instead but for the not so big price difference I decided to stick to my original plan: the D800 which is better on several levels.<br>

I did pick it up and it's currently sitting in a drawer. Unfortunately, I fell a little sick and wasn't able to give it any thorough 'getting to know with', as I took some pills that do not let me concentrate enough to be testing a new camera body. The viewfinder looked very clean though and what I did with the camera seemed to work OK. I'll wait until my mind is clear and the fever goes down. Then I'll connect it to my PC and begin putting it through a real test.</p>

<p>Seriously? It's come to this?<br>

No complaints here, so there will be no posting. I illustrated a point by giving an example. Believe me, I do not need 'any' help with either shooting or post-production.<br>

People read this, you know... I myself occasionally read all kinds of posts from 6, 8, 10 and 12 years ago. What is said here will still be popping up on google 20 years from now.<br>

No visible noise at ISO 50? - Wrong! Try squeezing out the shadow detail and you'll get it.<br>

No need to open up shadows in perfectly exposed studio photos EVER? Wrong again!<br>

I felt that it had to be said.<br>

I received plenty of useful input regarding my original inquiry and I give thanks to all who took the time to help. I'll be getting my new D800 tomorrow. Hopefully there won't be any issues... but we don't 'hope', do we? People like us make it happen.<br>

Cheers!</p>

<p>I was illustrating a point, man. You're saying that having to open up shadows in studio shots is nonsense and I say that it's inevitable. For someone who actually does studio work this is very clear. Dulling spray? I threw mine into the garbage the first time I ever used it (about 12 years ago). "Choosing a darker background"? Come on, man, I know you can't be serious.<br>

In my example my key and fill are placed about 2 feet from the subject while the background is about 12 feet behind. The strobes are set to light the subject which is very close and not the background which is waaay back. There 'is' some spill on the background but did I mention that it's 'black'? There's no way in hell it can register. In theory you can use a huge 'white wall' but have it rendered with 'zero density' if it's far enough behind. Here's a great read for you, just googled it. Laws of physics but really kindergarten stuff. You learn this in the first week you actually start to work in studio environment.<br>

http://photo.tutsplus.com/articles/lighting-articles/rules-for-perfect-lighting-understanding-the-inverse-square-law/<br>

PS: Even if I do get a perfect exposure, with all the detail being there, who says I have to accept it as a given? Maybe I want to make the shadows brighter than they actually are? I'm not photocopying reality.</p>

<p>Thank you Ilkka. You pretty much put into words what I was thinking; my concerns over the reliability of my new camera body in non-repeatable situations.<br /> I didn't want to create another subject for discussion but since that the matter has been mentioned twice already, I feel I have to address it.<br /> For some reason people here seem to think that once you have total control over the contrast of the lighting - opening up shadows should not be necessary. I could go on and on describing different scenarios in which that statement would not have any merit, however, I'll suffice to give just one example.<br /> Consider a highly reflective (metallic) object, that also has some very dark material. Let's say it is a stainless steel BBQ lighter with a black plastic handle. The background is black and it HAS TO BE 'completely' black (RGB 0,0,0). To make this simpler I won't be talking about the flame (which the composition actually requires).<br /> Well, there is only so much detail any given camera can take in. The softboxes are reflected in the metallic part of the lighter, which produces a lot of overexposed glare. We lower the light output to bring the glare just inside the dynamic range but wait a minute... What about our black plastic handle? Unfortunately it is now underexposed. Looks like we'll have to deal with it in post-production, but not to worry! Our new D800 is nearly noise-free! There should be no problem whatsoever since we took the shot at ISO 50. We open the file in Lightroom and begin dialing in some positive values in the "Shadows" slider. Uh-oh! The black background starts showing some density in the form of random noise plus some nasty horizontal 'scan lines'. No matter, we'll just clip them with the "Blacks" slider. But wait.... What about the plastic handle? That's right... half of it is blocked.. Oh well... Good thing there's photoshop... There are only 18 of these images (different compositions), so we'll be working on them the rest of the afternoon, all evening and half the night. But that's OK, because we like photography and we don't have a life anyway.<br /> I could give half a dozen other examples right off the bat. The bottom line will always be: there are scenarios in which camera noise comes into play, no matter how little noise it inherently produces.<br /> When Nikon comes up with a noise-free camera - give me a call.</p>