aj_bonomo

<p>There is a 2 button reset I had to do a couple of times not long after I had purchased the camera, but I haven't had to do it since. QUAL & Exposure buttons do that on the D810 (easy to remember the buttons as they both have a green dot).</p>

<p>I've been using this with my D810 for a while : Phottix Aion Wireless Timer and Shutter Release for Nikon<br> Love it. Light, versatile, not expensive, and isn't just a shutter release - can also set up a lot of options, which is nice if you would prefer to not go into the D810 menus.<br> I got this from a local shop's website: <br> <a href="http://donsphoto.com/product_description.html?catalog[product_guids][0]=e92d1f10-bab3-0132-dc0b-00163e9110c0">http://donsphoto.com/product_description.html?catalog[product_guids][0]=e92d1f10-bab3-0132-dc0b-00163e9110c0</a><br> The Phottix Aion Wireless Timer and Shutter Release takes wireless triggering to the next level. The revolutionary wireless/wired timer and shutter release offers photographers an amazing number of triggering options, including auto-bracketing for HDR.<br> A medium range trigger capable of being operated from 60m it works on a universal 2.4GHz frequency. Easy to operate wherever you are the backlit LCD makes it suitable for use on a sunny day or in the dark.</p> <ul> <li>Multiple timer functions: <ul> <li>Self, interval and long exposure timers</li> <li>Number of frames setting</li> <li>Auto-bracketed timer setting for HDR photos.</li> </ul> </li> <li>Multiple shutter functions: <ul> <li>Two-stage shutter button for AF and shutter release</li> <li>Instant, continuous 5 shot, 2 second delay and bulb shutter release mode</li> <li>Phottix Aion sets for Canon, Sony and Nikon Olympus are available.</li> </ul> </li> </ul>

<p>With my D7000 on a tripod, I would turn the dial to mirror up mode, and then I would use the delay, and that method is much better than the timer, especially when shooting long range, like at the moon, but the remote makes all the difference. If the remote really isn't an option, your highest percentage of sharp & 'in-focus' images will come when you set your camera on a solid tripod, set your exposure delay to 'on', set the dial to 'mirror up', then press your shutter button, and give it a couple of seconds to settle the vibrations from the mirror lifting (the longer the lens/focal length, the longer I wait, because a heavier lens may allow/cause more vibration), and then press the shutter button again when you're ready. Oh, and I set my AE-L/AE-F button to do my focusing, my shutter button does not focus, so it is pre-focused when I press the shutter button to take the image.</p>

<p>It is as Andrew said. Confirmed by testing on my D7000. And it is not mentioned in the menu that by setting that setting to AF-ON, it disables the AF on the shutter button, but I have mine set that way, and it disables the shutter button, and I checked, and can't find any other option to disable it, so enabling AF-ON seems to do both. Please let us know if this solves your issue. If not, I'll check for a third time.</p>

<p>What will you do with the images? Are you going to print them? Are you just looking for some to post on a blog or media page? How important is image quality? How close can you get? Would this lens be sufficient? NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED ? I have it and have used it on both a crop sensor and an FX sensor and have no issues with it, though it is not a low light lens, so if you're looking for something to shoot wildlife in the early morning or later in the day, this isn't the lens for you.. How much are you looking to spend? What about something like this : Nikkor 300mm f/4D IF-ED which you could pair with a TC-14E III when you want the extra reach ? If you don't need a 'zoom', I'd go with a prime, if image quality is high on your priority list. That being said, as I mentioned, I use the 70-300 above and it works great on my FX, but on my DX, since it only uses the center of the image circle, any CA at the outside edges isn't visible.</p>

<p>You can test the flash by setting it to manual (instead of TTL) and crank it to max output, then set your D700 to manual exposure based on ambient light, and have the flash fire at max.</p> <p>That should seriously over-expose the image, and if so, you'll at least have confirmation that the flash is firing at the expected brightness.</p> <p>Also, did you take the lens cap off? ;)</p> <p>Are you firing straight at your subject, or are you bouncing the flash?</p> <p>Is the slider (back right) set to direct, or to spread the light?</p> <p>Do you have Zoom on (on the flash)? And what lens are you shooting with, at what settings?</p> <p>Are you sure it isn't just the modelling or TTL flash that's firing? <br> <br />Does the SB700 beep after it fires? Different beeps mean different things.</p>

<p>Good points - about the filter esp, I forgot about that for the 14-24.. </p> <p>I already have a 77mm CPL for the 17-55 and a GND filter drop in set for use with that lens (and an adapter to use on the 50mm, but that never happens) so the 16-35 and 17-35 get points as a 'buy that one next' because they both have 77mm threads..</p> <p>Guess I'll have to wait until I get some $, and then test both (if testing the 17-35 is an option - might have a hard time finding a store that has it locally, and may by default test the 16-35 and fall in love, but that wouldn't be so bad, I suppose..)</p> <p>I think those two really are the best options - thank you for all your advice and opinions, and for taking the time to read and respond. Your attention to my questions have helped me decide to keep the 17-55 for the D7000 and save for a new lens, either of the two I mentioned above.</p>

<p>What am I looking for, you ask? I want it all. I know - there is no such lens.</p> <p>I think what was lost in my verbose OP was that I have two other lenses to fit other needs.</p> <p>I have the AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G and the AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED</p> <p>If I add a wide angle FX lens, I end up having most of the useable ranges covered. </p> <p>I want to be able to take handheld shots in museums, concerts and at indoor family gatherings. I want to be able to take photos at weddings and receptions and so on. I want to be able to take landscape shots that will stand up to my expectations when I decide to put my tripod to use.</p> <p>I know the 70-300 is not a fast lens, but it does produce excellent images outdoors, and even does okay indoors if the lighting is sufficient, at least for those images where I don't mind pushing the ISO on the D810.. If/when I can afford to do so, I'll be replacing it, not sure with what - considering a 70-200/2.8 with a 1.4TCE but that's a completely different topic. I only mentioned this lens because one of the reasons I chose the D810 was because I want to be able to print large prints at max resolution. Granted, I can create some fine panoramas, but it is nice to be able to shoot 36mp at FF right in camera, which I can do at 35mm without issue, and even lower, without vignetting, and can still produce 25mp images at the 21mm setting as mentioned earlier, producing the equivalent of 25mm FL (and 25mp at 25mm is better than the 16mp I get from the D7000 at 17mm (which is 25mm equivalent))</p> <p>If I absolutely need low light shooting, I put on the 50mm, and the biggest problem is solved by converting to B&W (chromatic aberrations can be corrected in Lightroom but at f/1.4, they can get pretty bad, depending on the subject). With the 50mm lens at 36MP in low light, I have enough resolution that I can crop if I have to, and really, if I'm shooting at 1.4 in very low light, the plan is not to print door sized posters from those. That type of print will be reserved for the tripod shots, so, I need a lens for those times I put the D810 on the tripod to create landscape photos to be printed at crazy resolution - and the 17-55 can perform that trick, easily if I shoot at 35mm, and even down to 25mp at 25mm equiv, but .. I guess I don't really have a preference, and I like to keep my options open, to be able to shoot whatever FL, and I don't mind carrying multiple lenses and both cameras.</p> <p>I am a Nikon guy, and I prefer keeping to their lenses, so while others may be ok, (the Tamron 15-30 might have been in the running, based on a review I watched a while ago, if not for the filter issue) I would plan on looking at Nikon options - I feel they are the best.</p> <p>My 3 real options are the 16-35/4, the 17-35/2.8 and the 14-24/2.8, and I think I'm going to just keep the 17-55, and eventually move it to the D7000, and when I can afford it, get one of the above - and I guess testing will be my best choice - take some photos with each and see what works..</p> <p>I had to ask - I do appreciate the advice and suggestions - and it gives me something to think about while I try to find a way to make money with the gear I already have, so I can buy more. :)</p>

<p>I haven't read all the replies yet, I'm only part way down, but I wanted to confirm your correction, Dieter. I wrote the wrong numbers - all the time I spent crafting my post and still got the numbers wrong!<br /><br />The D810 has 4 sensor modes. In my practical experience and testing (which I consider to be be fairly extensive)<br> In full frame mode (36x24), the 17-55 lens will shoot without vignetting at 28-55mm settings, at 36mp. <br> In 5x4 mode (30x24), it shoots at the 24-55mm settings without vignetting<br> DX mode, of course, works across the entire range of 17-55...<br> In 1.2x crop mode (30x20), it will shoot at the 20-55mm settings at 25mp ; equivalent to 24-66mm<br> NB. - During testing, I've found that the vignetting is not always there at the 20mm setting, and I believe it is more likely a focus mechanism issue (not a perfectly accurate focus ring, depending which way it is turned), combined with a software reporting issue (the camera tells me it is 20mm but maybe is really 21) - so to be safe, I set the focus ring to 21mm, and that eliminates vignetting for sure, so we're talking 25mm instead of 24 equivalent. That makes sense at 25mm, since on a DX body, 17mm is equivalent to 25+ (it makes sense the FX sensor would not be able to physically see beyond that width)<br> So, the real sacrifice is going from 36mp to 25mp when going into the widest useable setting, but 25mp is nothing to sneeze at - though I know, I'm not using the full sensor - that's why I'm writing this ! It is still better than nothing ... At the moment, I can't afford to buy a new lens. My choice was to either sell the one and get the other, or keep the one and live with the limitations.<br> I'm starting to think I should just keep the 17-55 for now, and save it to use on the D7000 later, and get a 14-24/2.8 for the D810 later, or maybe by the time I can afford that, Nikon will have come out with yet another, though I like the idea of the 17-55 on the DX, and maybe the 16-35 on the FX, at least for now - I will continue reading the replies, though I'm a slow reader, and there are many, so I appreciate your patience! :)<br> If money was no object, this post would have never been written. I have much to consider, and I am reading the rest of the thread (I had not gotten past Dieter's post at the time of this writing, so I have a lot left to read)</p>

<p>Hello,<br> I currently use a Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 DX lens, (a beautiful lens IMO), and have both DX and FX camera bodies. This lens lends itself to beautiful images on both bodies in various capacities, but on the FX body, depending on what crop factor I use, there is minor vignetting that I have to treat manually, depending on the settings, and so I'm considering replacing it with this :</p> <p>Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Lens</p> <p>While perusing this forum, it became obvious to me that many of you are knowledgeable. Therefore, I see this as a good place to start a conversation. I'm looking for opinions in either direction, particularly advice relating to your experience with the 16-35, especially but not exclusively when directly comparing the 17-55. At the moment, the only practical option for me is to keep the one I have, or sell the one to buy the other..</p> <p>The DX lens is a more expensive, a pro build, heavier lens, but I can only use it down to an equivalent of 24mm at 30% of the megapixels on my FX camera in 1.2x crop mode (it is about 26mm equivalent on my DX body) - so on the FX body, I can shoot basically 24-55mm in FX mode (and in DX mode, the equivalent of the 1.5x crop on the 55mm = approx 82mm)</p> <p>If I replace that one with the 16-35mm f/4, I lose a bit of bokeh when compared shooting each wide open at their individual max aperture (f/2.8 vs f/4), but I'd be buying the 16-35 (in part) for landscapes, so I'd be shooting more at f/8-f/11 anyway, and I'd have a useable 16-35mm range, more the landscape range, with 35 still useable for general purpose photos (esp if I switch to a crop mode, equivalent to 52mm at 1.5x). I also have a 50mm f/1.4 prime, and I have a 70-300 to cover the longer focal ranges.</p> <p>I'd be giving up some build quality, higher max aperture, fabulous bokeh (not sure how great the bokeh is on the 16-35, even at f4), and the 17-55 is weather sealed, if I recall correctly, and I'm not sure if the 16-35 is weather sealed, but it is a gold ring.</p> <p>On the other hand, with the 16-35, I'd be gaining a lot on the wide end, being able to shoot from 16mm to 35mm at full FX resolution (using the entire sensor) instead of the 24mm equivalent at 30% max resolution (in the cropped mode when using the 17-55mm DX lens), and it is a bit lighter, though that's really not a major factor, it might be noticeable on a long hike/walk/trek.. I'd also be rid of the vignetting situation I'm experiencing on the 17-55 on the FX body. I use Lightroom, but because I'm not running in auto crop mode, the camera profile gets loaded, but doesn't completely correct for the vignette while in FX mode, and I have to manually correct vignetting on everything photo shot at 35mm and wider. I've been creating presets depending on which settings I use, but it would be nice to not even have to think about correcting a problem.</p> <p>While I think I would miss the 2.8 max aperture on occasion, I also imagine how many more images I could capture at the extra 16-24 range in full resolution that just aren't possible now, and continuing up to 35mm and switching to the 50mm f/1.4 FX lens when needed.</p> <p>I'm torn because I have no experience with the 16-35, though I'm perusing images on Flickr, and reading reviews, those are almost always biased in one direction or another...</p> <p>The 17-55DX is awesome for what it does. I'd love it if the 16-35FX was also awesome for what it does - I am concerned that the image quality might not meet my expectations... That's my biggest concern - IQ on the 16-35, will it be similar, or not even close, or ? I've read some people claim it is one of the sharpest lenses ever made by Nikon, though I'm skeptical, maybe it is true?</p> <p>Maybe I should just go try one out?</p> <p>:P</p> <p>Thoughts? Comments? Questions?</p>