The focus sensor is in the bottom of the mirror box, and it wouldn't take much dust, even a few specs, considering the size of the sensor (not the image sensor, which is totally separate).

I did forget to mention that I shoot AF-C and have tried release+focus and focus only.

It does fire as it's capturing focus somewhere.

I did flip the mirror to check for visible debris but could not see anything. There were some fibers (fuzz) on the small felt pad above the sensors. I used tape to remove the fibers. I can't imagine those little tiny (thinner than hair) fibers would interfere with focus.

@ R8R +1 Exactly... I would select "focus" for the "AF-C Priority Selection" in the "Menu button > Custom Settings menu". This will prevent an out of focus shot, although it can be a bit frustrating if the camera does not focus for some reason as the shutter will not release when we want it to. The other option is "Release + focus" in C mode as the camera will grab focus on the second or third shot in most cases.... I shoot at about 8 FPS for something like a fighter where I want the exact moment...sweat flying, etc.

I don't think you mentioned what you set as AF-C and AF-S priority selection (release, release+focus or just focus). This can have drastic effects on exactly *when* the release happens in relation to the AF, especially with fast moving subjects.

I would try the above test msmoto suggested but also with different AF priority selections. Pick a simple object in a dim room and focus on it while moving though the room. Vase full of flowers, table lamp turned off, etc. Focus on the same area from different points in the room, while standing and moving.

Review the pics in ViewNX to see where the exact focus points were in each shot. This may help you to narrow down whether it's user error or camera/lens error.

If you haven't had the camera inspected/cleaned in awhile, it might be worth it to send both the body and lens in to be serviced and calibrated, separately and in combo. Nikon has equipment to easily check if everything is within tolerances or if something has gotten knocked out of whack.

First, lens off, body with lens opening facing down, use manual blower to clean all dust out of interior. While still holding the body with opening facing down, use electrical contact cleaner on a Q-tip to clean the contacts of the body and lens. Remount lens.

Set to Continuous servo, 9 points and place the focus center in the middle of the viewfinder. Then, in a dimly lit room, move around and shoot sample images, noting where you had the focus point. If the focus is off, make certain the little dot is on when it is supposed to be in focus. (As opposed to the >< marks). If the camera shows it is in focus and the image is out by a few inches to feet, there is no doubt a malfunction in the camera. In your menu make certain Shutter/AF-ON is selected. It could be that somehow the AF-ON only is selected on the menu and thus the lens will not focus unless you have pressed and held this. I would also set the AF-ON button on the camera back so it initiates focus only while doing this check.

Check a couple other lenses to see if they have problems as well.

If none of this works, Nikon repair service?

If you weren't have problems before, but are now it might not be settings, but hardware. Have you ever taken the camera or lens in for a cleaning and fine tuning? Dust can build up on the AF sensor and throw focus off. Also with the lens, over time, focus can drift off slightly, due to being bumped around and used. If it is the lens, AF fine tune might fix the problem.

I have had my Nikon D3 for several years now and primarily shoot MMA and boxing. My primary lens is the 24-70mm f/2.8. The typical setup is manual, 640 to 800ths of a second @ f/2.8, ISO 1000 to 2000.

For live fights, I go for center-mass of the fighter to make most of the target.

Recently, I’ve been having a lot of problems with capturing images of fighters (while fighting) in focus. The usual problem is focus elsewhere behind or next to the fighter instead of the fighter themselves. I’ve run though the different focus options such as dynamic area 9/21/51 AF points and AF point selection of 11 and 51. The body is setup for AF-ON on the AF-ON button as well as the shutter. I also mix between dynamic and single AF and spot, matrix, and center-weighted metering. I have also tried focus tracking lock from off through 5 (longest).

This does not appear to be a back focus issue as the lens lines-up with testing on well-lit subjects.

The body has been reset to factory defaults several times; the issue persists.

Despite numerous combinations, I seem to catch focus on the fighters surroundings instead of the fighter. When on the fighter however, the image is tack-sharp.

I am looking for advice on what may be the issue. At this point, it could either be me or the camera settings. It seems like the camera will focus where it thinks it should focus vs. where I am telling it to.

Any help?

From the guys I work with, they all have told me that the D3s is the best camera that they have ever shot with. Some shoot the D4, but they have kept the D3s as a second body and often find themselves going back to it constantly because they like the results better. Even for landscape photography, the D3s has has a better iso 50. It seems the D3s is the best Nikon body ever made. I'd love to have one and would not buy the D4.

Has anyone seen any comparisons of the D3x vs D800/D600?

I haven't ran across any at all. Just curious if it has held it's own.

I've been thinking of getting a 2nd FF body or new D400 if it comes out like a mini D4. Checking some D3 and D3x on fleabay I see some nice D3x in the low 3's and D3 in the low 2's. I D3x might be an interesting compromise between old and new. I've done some framing for a pro that uses a D3x and I can say I never seen better 30 x 40 photographs. It was better than some Mamiya 7 stuff from years past.

framer

From talking with friends who have shot over 100,000 clicks on their D3's and D3s', and now have the D4, they really think the D4 is a clear improvement in all respects. But, the D3 is a phenomenal camera and will be an excellent primary body for a lot of folks, especially those who want a paparazzi camera for a lot less money than a D4.

TaoTeJared said:
By the looks of it, the D4 has better color range at high isos. I think it looks better even if it did come at the cost of some noise. The richer tones of the photos outweigh the noise for sure.

+1

By the looks of it, the D4 has better color range at high isos. I think it looks better even if it did come at the cost of some noise. The richer tones of the photos outweigh the noise for sure.

one of the photographers for a local paper was telling me that his friends that shoot the D4 think it is superior to the D3s and they would not go back. He was hoping his paper would buy a few D4's to replace their aging D3s's as theirs did.

I cant say one way or the other since I have not shot with either, but put a bit of weight on local photog's with no desire to drive traffic to their site. NOT saying this person is trying to do just that (come on, if you have a site you want traffic) as their only reason for this review. I am certain many do it because they enjoy it.

I was surprised to notice in this months UK What Digital Camera magazine, an editorial comment that the D3s in spite of the arrival of the D4, retains their crown for the best low light (hi ISO) performing DSLR. Seems some believe the old girl is not dead yet!

Some people did not think it was perfect...

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=3564&page=2

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2236

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=3993

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=1034

Was the D3s so perfect that no complaints or problems needed to be discussed?

framer

Mike Gunter said:
Hi TTJ,

Good for him, but that galls me that he would have had such a bad experience with such a good one....

I didn't mean to imply that he had a bad experience - I parsed all the stories maybe a bit much. He really enjoyed it, had great experiences and was offered work at a few newspapers based on his work for the daily rag.

We went to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln which (at that time at least) was in the top schools for journalism so I was surprised to hear the separation but they certainly had their rudder as they did have a full time "professional" staff that advised them. Many years before my time, professors harshly graded their students who wrote stories they didn't agree with. One of my Professors in the Communication studies department, which had separated from Mass Communications, spoke fondly about fighting with the students to separate it from the program. A few spaces were reserved for Journalism students but nothing large. There were close to 1,500+ students in the program at that time so probably much of it was just pure unrealistic logistics on how they could give equal time every student. They did have many other avenues they utilized like the two state and a few dozen local papers in the surrounding areas that students wrote for.

photoguru2 said:
I am worried about the "work for hire" statue, as it relates to my contributions.

There is nothing about the contract or "work for hire" statue to know or that is in some way a violation of any right or law. If they require that to continue to work, then that is the requirement. People may disagree with it, but there is not a "fight" though laws. These types of contracts have been around for decades. Hell there are still a handful of companies I can not work for that were vendors of an employer I once worked for 6 years ago. That was a 10-year non-compete. It was simple - sign the contract or be "released"/fired since there was no use for me then. That's just the world.

If you want something different then what they offered, then the only way to change it is to sit with them and negotiate it. Give them what you would like to have and show the advantages it has for them, and/or how it realistically doesn't effect or change the reasons they believe they need the contract. If you remember to keep it about them and not you, you should be successful. It all could be as simple as some lawyer (or worse not one) suggested it and no one really thought it through. That happens more often than not.

Thanks for all the help. Take care.

Hi,

"The paper can't be taken back by the school because it's its own corporation."

Why not? It didn't magically become a corporation without the university's help. The college could buy it, it could sell a controlling share, whatever. It could be put into bankruptcy by court order.

"I'd like to point out, though, you insinuate that there would be some sort of lawsuit for language used in the paper."

Insinuate is not the word you should have used. It would mean that I was hinting coyly or slyly.

There's nothing coy about what I'm saying: you could be sued.

If you or the paper liable someone and are successfully sued, your wages and some of your possessions (such as your nice camera) and future wages (only in rare cases do judgments ever go away, in NY it will hang on you for 20 years unless renewed for another 20) and that what's at risk for a poor youngster with nothing in his/her pockets. You can likely get an attorney for little or paid on time, but it be a drag.

You might be poor now, but, god forbid, if it ever comes to it, a generous judgment against you will guarantee that for quite some time it will linger around your neck stinking like a dead albatross from a Coleridge poem.

As for it can't happen to me, the list of school papers that have been sued includes high schools from Arkansas, Iowa, Colorado, Wisconsin, New York, and many more.

If there isn't much of a case and you don't have much likelihood of a future - you don't look like you have much prospects - it's likely that the suit would be dropped, although you would likely have to pay some money for attorney fees (and some part of your future would be affected), but you would have a few months of some uncomfortable times.

Will it happen? I don't know. My guess is no. But I'd also guess that you don't know the circumstances that can ignite a legitimate suit especially when your chief concern seems to be public figures that would will the fire for the suit - you clearly don't understand "public figures" in media, and the "privilege" that media has - and that seems wrong to me, and without having a someone at the paper who is well founded on media law to advise you and others, you are walking in a potential minefield, not even knowing of what the makeup is of the mines.

"Insinuate would mean that I'm hinting slyly.

There's nothing coy about what I'm saying: you could be sued.

If you or the paper liable someone and are successfully sued, your wages and some of your possessions (such as your nice camera) and future wages (only in rare cases do judgments ever go away, in NY it will hang on you for 20 years unless renewed for another 20) and that what's at risk for a poor youngster with nothing in his/her pockets. You can likely get an attorney for little or paid on time, but it be a drag.

You might be poor now, but, god forbid, if it ever comes to it, a generous judgment against you will guarantee that for quite some time it will linger around your neck stinking like a dead albatross from a Coleridge poem.

As for it can't happen to me, the list of school papers that have been sued includes high schools from Arkansas, Iowa, Colorado, Wisconsin, New York, and many more.

If there isn't much of a case and you don't have much likelihood of a future - you don't look like you have much prospects - it's likely that the suit would be dropped, although you would likely have to pay some money for attorney fees, but you would have a few months of some uncomfortable times.

Will it happen? I don't know. My guess is no. But I'd also guess that you don't know the circumstances that can ignite a legitimate suit, and without having a someone at the paper who is well founded on media law to advise you and others, you are walking in a potential minefield.

"I am worried about the "work for hire" statue, as it relates to my contributions."

That seems to be the easy for you. Sign the contract, the work is theirs and don't worry. Don't sign and the work is your and don't worry.

Moreover, if you really can produce work at a good rate, do it. The college wasn't paying you anything. What prevents you from just working on your own? You can collect your own royalties with any middlemen.

My best,

Mike

Mike Gunter said:
The UG case is a good case in point of fact. The students there had used adjectives to describe the student body in libelous language. 'Burr headed' is but one example, and I suspect the gathering of the newspapers is to limit the college's liability.

Their note to the staff was poorly written, even dumb, but gauging the paper's content, written to its readership.

A few lawsuits will likely take these quasi-independent papers back into a oversight position, since culpability - the payee - is the college or university.

Somehow you misread my comments on oversight and advise and got 'Big Brother'. Must have had a rough childhood. Big brothers aren't all bad. They can be teachers and mentors and lead their wards to meaningful decisions.

If you looked into the Associated Collegiate Press and the Student Legal Press Center, you would have found out that Student Presses, even High School Presses, control their own content. I've tried to use language such as 'oversight', 'manage', 'teach', and 'help', never have I indicated select, edit or pick or select content.

The paper can't be taken back by the school because it's its own corporation. I'd like to point out, though, you insinuate that there would be some sort of lawsuit for language used in the paper. Who would have any vested interest in suing the newspaper and spend thousands of dollars in litigation? You state earlier that: "...[the] last of [your] worries would [be] that your images would be tremendously fought over by news or other agents." Our paper isn't one that would slander a government figure or politician who has the potential to sue for libel because we're just that, a paper that isn't read by millions of people. Also, I'd liken oversight at the paper by the University to permitting the City of New York or Columbia University to advise the New York Times. It shouldn't happen and it never would happen.

I am worried about the "work for hire" statue, as it relates to my contributions.

It is my opinion, this thread is documenting some wonderful advice which I hope is being listened to by the younger folks on NRF. While my experience working in college news was to run my own business and make some money, I was able to do this and hand pick what I wanted to shoot. Then, my jobs in more commercial work started at $490 per month. This in 1966. My first Nikon F with 35mm f/2 was about $400. By 1969, I was up to $800 per month. But, during those years I was learning from some very talented photographers and was able to shoot with top models when this was the assignment.

It takes time to learn how to take photographs, but even more time to mature as a photographer. And this is what I believe the ones with experience are talking about here on this thread. And, the process of maturation is one of being open minded, curious, able to take direction and willing to make a heck of a lot of mistakes. But most important it is one of bing able to admit we are in error when we have been wrong.

Unfortunately for many of us, probably me, it took fifty years at least to figure this out...:-)

Hi,

The UG case is a good case in point of fact. The students there had used adjectives to describe the student body in libelous language. 'Burr headed' is but one example, and I suspect the gathering of the newspapers is to limit the college's liability.

Their note to the staff was poorly written, even dumb, but gauging the paper's content, written to its readership.

A few lawsuits will likely take these quasi-independent papers back into a oversight position, since culpability - the payee - is the college or university.

Somehow you misread my comments on oversight and advise and got 'Big Brother'. Must have had a rough childhood. Big brothers aren't all bad. They can be teachers and mentors and lead their wards to meaningful decisions.

If you looked into the Associated Collegiate Press and the Student Legal Press Center, you would have found out that Student Presses, even High School Presses, control their own content. I've tried to use language such as 'oversight', 'manage', 'teach', and 'help', never have I indicated select, edit or pick or select content.

Mark Twain said that experience might be the best teacher, but the fool's only teacher.

I have had to teach the writers how to write, the photographers how to photograph and develop and print and more, but what went into the paper was all up to them - advise, but no consent.

You'll find, if you ever work as a photographer, there will be someone that will tell what should or shouldn't be published. I don't know how old you are, but I started working full time at 19 as a combat photographer in Vietnam, and switched to the AP at 21.

The AP is always looking for good shooters. That would at least pay better.

My best,

Mike

Mike Gunter said:

I'm more concerned that an all-student publication doesn't have a rudder. There has to be someone there to tell them that their stuff is bad or good or needs work or whatever. There is no mention of someone to teach them how to do a newspaper or news work. That's a grave mistake.

Running a student paper is actually more work than running a professional publication. I've done both - several times over. When you give a story to a Ph.D. at Princeton who is _the_ authority in the field and is going to get some money and notoriety for the article he's asked you to place, you sort of expect him to do it on deadline and have it fact checked for you (although, since you have a staff for that, you do it anyway). With students, well, not so much.

Students don't know much about how things work. They really want to put themselves into everything they do, which is neat, but terribly wrong. News should be reporting facts. And I've never, ever, ever had any student that didn't need help getting their first stories or pictures right - including me. If I could have taught journalism without advising the newspaper, I would have. :-)

Well it's been working for years with no input from anyone from the school. I have friends who just walked out of their offices at the University of Georgia because the school was imposing censorship requirements. I would much prefer have an independent paper such as the one for which I contribute without any overhanging head or "big brother," if you will, constantly telling the publication what should and should not be published. In fact, the University once even removed the paper from the newsstands because it was judged too critical of the school, or portrayed the school in a negative light.

TaoTeJared said:
I ran into an old friend from college today who worked for the "daily rag" and I asked him if he had contracts, and what Mike wrote. He was a journalism student but then went to law school and is now practicing at a firm.

At a larger school (less than 10 yrs ago), he got paid $5 for each published photograph. He had to use his own gear, no insurance (he got a mono-pod bearing his only camera and a new 300mm lens busted on the sidelines at a game - home owners insurance covered it), it was not connected to any sort of academics but did have access to professors for "help" if he had questions. There was no, zero, zip relationship to his major or academics at all and when he was there, out of a staff of 40 there were only 10 students in the journalism school. He had to sign a contract, but they only owned the photos that were published. In 4 years working with them only 1 photo ever made it to the news wire, and the school made $2,000 and him nothing more than his $5.

That all surprised me a bit, and it seams that photoguru2's experience is not an unusual practice, except for "all photos" belonging to them.

What I found interesting was that he didn't really want to talk about not being paid, broken gear, etc. but the times he met Desmond Tutu, Coretta Scott King, Mikhail Gorbachev, Al Gore, Bono, B.B. King and the 100's of others who added to all the stories he will have for the rest of his life. That was an amazing experience and opportunity that few ever get.

Hi TTJ,

Good for him, but that galls me that he would have had such a bad experience with such a good one.

In any of the schools I've worked with all the students had the option to get credit for writing or photography (some choose not to), and all could vie for scholarships, some of them very, very good.

Furthermore, I wouldn't let anyone use their own equipment less they _insisted_ and I got a wavier from them; however, one of the schools told me our insurance would cover the students' gear.

All photos reverted to the original user - there is so, so, so little chance of a rainmaker, and ownership and sales are a bitch - some beginners are all about 'rights' - really it should be all about the work.

I'm more concerned that an all-student publication doesn't have a rudder. There has to be someone there to tell them that their stuff is bad or good or needs work or whatever. There is no mention of someone to teach them how to do a newspaper or news work. That's a grave mistake.

Running a student paper is actually more work than running a professional publication. I've done both - several times over. When you give a story to a Ph.D. at Princeton who is _the_ authority in the field and is going to get some money and notoriety for the article he's asked you to place, you sort of expect him to do it on deadline and have it fact checked for you (although, since you have a staff for that, you do it anyway). With students, well, not so much.

Students don't know much about how things work. They really want to put themselves into everything they do, which is neat, but terribly wrong. News should be reporting facts. And I've never, ever, ever had any student that didn't need help getting their first stories or pictures right - including me. If I could have taught journalism without advising the newspaper, I would have. :-)

But it comes (or came) with the job.

The same is true for taking news photos. One of the best biased photographers was Alfred Newman, and one of his pictures for _Newsweek_ was a 1963 photo of German industrialist Alfred Kruff, Jr, who was involved in the Axis tank building industry some 20 years earlier.

The portrait makes no attempt at impartiality. It casts Krupp as cold and sinister. I think the only reason _Newsweek_ passed it was the proximity to the WWII.

Photographers who shoot for the news need to do better. They can be artists and create their own vision on their on time. But shooting a story needs a clear vision thats has no filter.

TTJ, as a young reporter, I met President Johnson and candidates Nixon and Humphreys and many more interesting folks, too. Reporting was one of the coolest jobs there was, although I think print media is taking a long drag of its last breath. That pains me, but I read the news on my pad or computer and don't subscribe to a paper anymore either.

One last thing, rarely, but in a blue, blue moon, I see one or two or so of my photos from either the AP or Vietnam surface in illustrating something or other, nothing iconic. If I were to get any royalties from anything it likely wouldn't even pay to have the photos warehoused anywhere.

My best,

Mike