Hi, i want to make a small advertisement for a opensource remote app developed by me. It is development phase so my contain bugs.
You can download from:
http://nccsoftware.blogspot.com/

Toni said:
Hi there all. I need help

I have a d90 and have recently installed nikontrol 3k. The programe has found my camera and is did take a few pictures via time laps, but it will not take a picture via portable shutter and none of the shots displayed in the image preview window or even display any of the info attached to the images just taken.Also none of the is,o shutter speed, and f number changes i made via the programme did not activate . Any ideas why this is happening?

Many Thanks.

Where did you get Nikontrol 3K.. the above link is broken. Can you PM me with the download link? Thanks in advance.

Hi there all. I need help

I have a d90 and have recently installed nikontrol 3k. The programe has found my camera and is did take a few pictures via time laps, but it will not take a picture via portable shutter and none of the shots displayed in the image preview window or even display any of the info attached to the images just taken.Also none of the is,o shutter speed, and f number changes i made via the programme did not activate . Any ideas why this is happening?

Many Thanks.

Dave you will be glad you made the move and ordered your kit, I bought D700 and the 70-200mm F2.8 lens two weeks ago after like you waiting and waiting for the new releases to appear.

The results from the D700 especially in low light & high ISO are brilliant.

JY said:
@Casperweb & CTLG, thank you for your comments and I have to agree.

It was a short story of my journey to what i acquired and learnt or noted all these time. However, there was not much details to why I picked one over the others and forgot about how my opinion might be seen by the OP or others.

I was mainly just mentioning one bit of my own experiences without thinking of the impact it may have as you both mentioned. I am a very careful person, it is not easy for me to spend my hard earned $$$, but if i decided to get something say new lens, I will hate it if I learnt there is something i missed or make mistake on my research prior to purchase. Just for ilustration I was out of the wide end of lens for a long time when I got my d700 (only had the 70-200 and a 50 1.8d). If you guys remember, I did ask around in this forum on that and received lots of valuable inputs. I considered the available options carefully (and took my time thinking) and I tried to be honest regarding my need, want and budget and made my purchase accordingly.

"as an example: using a 70-200mm $2500 lens does not mean that you will take better quality pictures than the guy next to you using a 300mm f4 that cost $1000 less on a bright sunny afternoon at the ball game."
I totally agree here Casper. Thats why I went with the d700 and not d3x/d3s. I guess understanding our need and want is the key here? I am sure a d7000 is more than enough for me, but I wanted and willing to spend the extra for the higher ISO ability and shallower DOF without the headache of a 2nd morgage if I went with the d3 series (so no, cost is not always equal to quality for me)

I guess I will need to be more careful when I am responding particularly to those who are looking for opinions re future purchase.

cheers

No worries, mate! We must be cognizant of the advice we give people and I think you totally get that. :) Bravo!

To the OP: The D700 is an excellent camera and will remain so for many years to come. While it's only 12.1MP, it resolves more like a 16-18mp sensor from the "other" guys. I've up-sampled shots from the D700 to 16mp and compared the exact same shot taken with a D7000(16mp) using the same equivelant focal length and could find no noticeable loss of image detail from the D700 shot @ 100%. It was actually very startling. I even went a step further and up-sampled to 24mp and was still really surprised at the results. I didn't have a D3x in my hands to compare, but we already know who would win that battle - hands-down. I love the D700 and use one all the time. The D3s has the fondest place in my heart, due to it's insane high-ISO handling. The D700 is no slouch and neither is the D7000, for that matter. The D7K is about a stop behind the D700 in high-ISO handling (in my copies).

As for lenses, the 28-300 is a do-it-all good, but not amazing lens. I'm not a huge fan of those types of lenses and it's slow aperture is also a serious issue for me. I would prefer the Holy Trinity zooms whenever possible or a set of nice primes (or like me, all of the above). Ultimately, it's totally your call, depending on what you'll be using the gear for.

@Casperweb & CTLG, thank you for your comments and I have to agree.

It was a short story of my journey to what i acquired and learnt or noted all these time. However, there was not much details to why I picked one over the others and forgot about how my opinion might be seen by the OP or others.

I was mainly just mentioning one bit of my own experiences without thinking of the impact it may have as you both mentioned. I am a very careful person, it is not easy for me to spend my hard earned $$$, but if i decided to get something say new lens, I will hate it if I learnt there is something i missed or make mistake on my research prior to purchase. Just for ilustration I was out of the wide end of lens for a long time when I got my d700 (only had the 70-200 and a 50 1.8d). If you guys remember, I did ask around in this forum on that and received lots of valuable inputs. I considered the available options carefully (and took my time thinking) and I tried to be honest regarding my need, want and budget and made my purchase accordingly.

"as an example: using a 70-200mm $2500 lens does not mean that you will take better quality pictures than the guy next to you using a 300mm f4 that cost $1000 less on a bright sunny afternoon at the ball game."
I totally agree here Casper. Thats why I went with the d700 and not d3x/d3s. I guess understanding our need and want is the key here? I am sure a d7000 is more than enough for me, but I wanted and willing to spend the extra for the higher ISO ability and shallower DOF without the headache of a 2nd morgage if I went with the d3 series (so no, cost is not always equal to quality for me)

I guess I will need to be more careful when I am responding particularly to those who are looking for opinions re future purchase.

cheers

casperwb said:
JY

you are quantifying cost with quality of photographs.

a dangerous thing to do, it leads you down a road that says, if you pay more for a lens it is better than the lenses that cost less.

there are low cost lenses that produce pictures that are fantastic.
as we get deeper into photography, we find out that all lenses have their sweet spot, their sharp spot and we use them accordingly.

you pay more for certain features, stronger build etc.

as an example: using a 70-200mm $2500 lens does not mean that you will take better quality pictures than the guy next to you using a 300mm f4 that cost $1000 less on a bright sunny afternoon at the ball game.

or your 12-24 on a d700 will do better than the guy with the 11-16 TOK on his D7000

It will be nice if we remember that there are many people lurking in the shadows and our comments will most likely infulence their choice of equipment.

Agreed, totally. Especially on that last paragraph; What we say and recommend can and does have an incredible impact on what people buy.

JY

you are quantifying cost with quality of photographs.

a dangerous thing to do, it leads you down a road that says, if you pay more for a lens it is better than the lenses that cost less.

there are low cost lenses that produce pictures that are fantastic.
as we get deeper into photography, we find out that all lenses have their sweet spot, their sharp spot and we use them accordingly.

you pay more for certain features, stronger build etc.

as an example: using a 70-200mm $2500 lens does not mean that you will take better quality pictures than the guy next to you using a 300mm f4 that cost $1000 less on a bright sunny afternoon at the ball game.

or your 12-24 on a d700 will do better than the guy with the 11-16 TOK on his D7000

It will be nice if we remember that there are many people lurking in the shadows and our comments will most likely infulence their choice of equipment.

Good choice.
I am not a pro, got into photography because I wanted to shoot my newborn and got hook. I always tried to have good quality items efficiently (good quality and cheap). I started with d90 + tamron 17-50mm then bought the 70-200 2.8 months later (it was an orgasmic). The 70-200 made me realise the importance of getting the right gears from very beginning, otherwise you will end up wasting more money by trying to save money at the first place. After running out of patience waiting for d800, i bite the bullet and upgrade to d700 in january (sold my d90 & tammy at alost) and since have added 14-24 and the 24-70 nikkors. Super happy with my decision. I have known many people who tried to save money by buying cheaper lenses, regretted later on and had to sale them and buying a better one (and lost much more).

That will be a great setup, Dave. Have fun and let us know how it goes.

Congratulations! Enjoy your new gear. I think you will find the 70-200 f2.8 a very useful lens.

I was in the same boat a year or ago. I pickup up the d700 and am glad I did. Its a amazing camera. The 50mm 1.8d is on my second body almost all the time. The 70-200 is magical. If you want to get close to a "moment" at a wedding or event but don't want to intrude you cannot beat this lens.
It looks like your set up for a great time. You will have to get back to all of us when it finally arrives.
~click click

Well, thanks everyone for your feedback. I took on board some of your suggestions and have now placed my order for the following:

D700
50 f/1.8D
70-200mm f/2.8 VR II
16-35mm F4 ED VR

stretched my budget a little but thought it would be worth it in the long term to invest in better 70-200, especially if I do upgrade body in future will need best lens I can get my hands on to cope with the anticipated resolution.

So thanks again for everyone's help, it is much appreciated.

It's funny, I found [NR] when I was getting ready buy the D700 almost two years ago. The thinking then was the replacement would be announced in June 2010 with general availability near the end of 2010. I decided to jump on the D700 and not wait, a good decision as it has turned out.

Since that time I have purchased the D7000 to replace my original D70 (not the D700).

Given all that, if I were in your position and knew what I do know I might go with this list instead.

D7000
AFS 50mm F1.4G
14mm - 24mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S
70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S VR II
SB 700

My reasoning here is that with the two f/2.8 lenses and the discount, you get the D700 for an additional $400. The D700 with those two lenses is still $1,900. On the D7000 the 14-24 will be close to 16-35 you are looking at (not quite as wide) and the 70-200 covers the long end for you. The advantage is that you have two legs of the Nikon "Holy Trinity" which is very much worth owning. You also have video if you want it and a camera that comes within 1-1.5 stops of the D700 in low light.

Then when the D700 replacement is out and available, you can add it as a primary camera IF you feel the need. Budget wise that is within $24 of your current list.

The D700/D7000 combo is a great one, they play to each others strengths very well. I'm sure the D7000 would continue to be an excellent side-kick to the D800 as well.

I was really wanting to wait for a D700 replacement but decided I had enough after a few weeks of the latest rumors before the release was postponed. I wanted to get a good body now, but more importantly wanted to start with good lenses. So a couple weeks ago I was checking BH and saw that they had new stock of the D700 bodies. I pulled the trigger on it and the holy trinity of 2.8 lenses while I could get the nice $300-$400 rebates. I wanted the best low light body without having to go to the big D3S and I'm not even sure if the D400 or D800 bodies will beat the D700 in this regard. And, I didn't care about video. So I decided that the D700 was for me. I am very happy with it's performance so far and have taken shots with ISOs up to 6400 so far and am very impressed.

I make you right on all points Casper.

SkintBrit said:
Even if it doesn't stay at 4K, it'll be dear for a good few months after launch. Oh I'm forgetting about Nikons price fixing, er I mean dealer instruction, on second thoughts it might stay 4K forever.

.

on the matter of pricing, the D7000 has not really dropped, and I expect it will go up slightly for Christmas, especilally with the Thailand problems.

Therefore, expect the D800 to not be sold at a dicounted price and as a result, the used market on the D700 will remain up.

Now for something that I uslly do not do, you will not see the D800 this year, and it will be about six months or more after it is announced before it becomes readily available on the shelves. remember what happened to the D7000

The people who buy and inflate to resell [ebay] will have a field day.

Just curious .. what lenses and other gear do you have with your D40x?

I doubt the price will be $4k. That price was a direct conversion of the rumored Japanese price using the current exchange rate. I don't think Nikon is going to price the D800 in the US market simply by converting the Yen to USD. It will most likely have a higher price than the US launch price of D700 but just not as high as $4k.

Even if it doesn't stay at 4K, it'll be dear for a good few months after launch. Oh I'm forgetting about Nikons price fixing, er I mean dealer instruction, on second thoughts it might stay 4K forever.

Hi Dave,

Just like others have said, your story reminds me of my self before buying the D7000. It's not such a bad thing that this site has got you checking back, and re-checking back to get the latest news. In fact I was about to go to Costco and buy a D90 kit before discovering this site and learning about the upcoming D7000. So, in a way, it saved me from the grief of wishing I'd waited a couple of months. As far as your decision to go ahead and get the D700 I think it's a good move especially if the D800 comes out at 4 grand.

SkintBrit said:
but would you really use one for full time portrait work over the 85 1.4?

I mostly shot portraits outside, rather than in a studio, so yes i prefer the 70-200 but if confided to a studio the 85 1.4 might be better

sevencrossing said:
The lens you are missing is the 70-200 f 2.8 the best portrait lens money can buy

A much more versatile lens, but would you realy use one for full time portrait work over the 85 1.4?

D700
AN Excellent camera, I have one my self, it will remain an excellent camera, even if the D800 ever comes out

AFS 50mm F1.4G
I also have one, superb lens for photographing a black cat in a coal hole but, if tight on budget, the one I would miss out

AFS 28-300mm F3.5-5.56G ED VR
??? beware, according to most reviews, it needs stopping down a bit, so it has to be used @ f8 a lot of the time. It is also not a Pro lens, I went for the 24-120 f4. It works fine wide open and is my most used lens

AFS 16-35mm F4 ED VR
Use mine a lot. A superb lens, one of Nikon's best. For most subjects, including weddings, VR makes up for it only being f4

SB 700

not used one,

The lens you are missing is the 70-200 f 2.8 the best portrait lens money can buy
more useful than the 50mm f 1.4 but, I admit, a lot more expensive
just get a second mortgage :)

Your post echos my situation also. At this point i am not sure the posted specs on the 800 are going be what i want. My problem is i am not yet that deticated to nikon and am seriosly concidering going with a canon. Thats where i am today but who knows.