Might be the popup flash mechanism. My D800e (along with all others I have seen) make a rattle when the flash is closed, as the flash retention arms are not under pressure. If you pop up the flash, the rattle goes away since the arms come under spring pressure. . Completely normal.

I just did this with my D90 which has a lot of use. Sounds like a huge piece is loose inside. But, the fact is many of these cameras and lenses have parts which move and if jolted will make sounds. If the camera works, I certainly would not send it to Nikon and spend a service charge..maybe $75-$100 to find out nothing is wrong. I think if one sends in a camera even under warranty and no problem exists, there will be a charge. But, I cannot say for certain what any one service center will do.

Shoot images, let us see what you do... post on PAD

Hi jtcaraig, welcome to the NR forum.

I have to ask you - have you noticed anything wrong with the function of the camera or any problems with the images that the camera takes, and do you have any previous experience with DSLR's of the D7000's complexity? I'm just trying to get a feel for the detail behind Newbie with that last question.

TaoTeJared said:
That is the mirror flapping.

Hi. I am a newbie. I am also having exactly the same problem. And I also did what he did actually. My question is: Is the 'mirror flapping' normal? Shall I bring my D7000 to service center?

I would really love to see how this new 70-200 f4 Nikkor lens will fare as a portrait lens. When this lens is compared to the 70-200 f2.8 VRI at similar exposure settings - how attractive the bokeh will be and color rendition as well as contrast. Being that one could purchase either of these lenses for approximately the same amount of money...I will end up making a choice between one of the two.

At the end of the day - I do not think I can really make a bad decision here, but thoughts and examples of photos whenever someone picks up this new lens would be awesome!

msmoto said:
......I tend to download the photos to an external hard drive connected to the computer after a shoot, and reformat the camera entirely immediately after this. In the computer I have all the files in NEF and from that file I choose the downloads to Lightroom. ....

I do pretty much the same but using LR I also make a second copy

with important jobs ( weddings) I edit the RAW files and burn a set of jpeg to a couple of CDs (one of which is taken off site) before formatting the card(s)

I am not certain as to why I do what I do, but in the D4 is an XQD and CF card each 16 GB. And, I tend to download the photos to an external hard drive connected to the computer after a shoot, and reformat the camera entirely immediately after this. In the computer I have all the files in NEF and from that file I choose the downloads to Lightroom.

If, I am shooting an important job, I will look at the files in the hard drive to make certain I have those recorded and then reformat the memory in camera. Only after many years of photography have I determined my images are not priceless....and if they somehow are lost, well, I have lost tens of thousands due to Ektachrome dyes being unstable, so that is just the way it is. Hopefully, on Flickr, the images will stay for a while.

Ironically, when I ordered my D4, no one knew the cameras were delivered with the cards and reader. So, I have now two XQD readers and two 16 GB cards, but rarely use the second card as I perform the above and do not go out on long treks.

Huge SD cards (256, 128 and 64 GB) aren't needed for photography but come in handy inserted into a laptop as an extra "hard drive" or "removable media backup." I use from 4 to 32 GB and never fill them up. When a camera body has two card slots I will put one card in the first slot and a card containing twice as much GB into the second slot and set that second slot as backup. Then I shoot, edit and reformat the first card time and time again while just letting the second card fill up until it is nearly full before I reformat it. This way I have a backup of every shot from the last few shoots just in case I want to go beck and look for something I have already deleted when I edited. Cheap insurance. I use 4 GB in a D90, a 4 and 8GB pair in a D7000; 8 and 16 GB pair in a D600; and a 16 and 32 GB pair in a D800. I never come close to having a space problem but the most I usually shoot at a time is less than 300 images.

I have successfully moved over completely to the more expensive Sandisk cards and find that 2 16 GB SD Extreme cards at 90mb/s and 2 32GB CF cards at the same speed get the job done for me no matter what. I am still tempted by the insanely high speed Lexar cards though, but damn they sure are expensive...

I haven't personally shot the Sigma lens, but the Nikon 70-200 is one of Nikon's best lenses. In general Nikon has better build quality. I know Sigma has some quality control issues and the lenses can be hit or miss. Third party lenses do depreciate faster then the Nikon counterparts. From what I have seen the performance is pretty good, but the Nikon comes out on top especially wide open. I feel like Nikon lenses are more reliable, fully compatible and always perform better in the extremes because of the Nikon lens coatings and stuff.

That being said coastalconn on the PAD thread shoots with a tamron 200-500 and they look pretty great. If you like the Sigma then get it...check out youtube for a comparison between 3 or 4 of the 70-200 lenses.

SkintBrit said:
Seems like a good time to resurrect this thread, as Lexar introduces its $1000 256GB SDXC 400x card. One question........why would you want one?

There was a guy who scattered nikons or gopro's or something all over the arctic to take timelapse unattended for a few months. maybe he would need them ? Me, I'm like Msmoto, smaller cards are safer. I've picked up 4 x 16gb cards but no fast ones (90mbps+) yet :-)

Though I have crossed the Sigma 70-200 OS lens off my list - I am wondering: aside from brand loyalty and future compatibility issues - what is the big deterrence from considering a third party lens? In this case, the Sigma is considerably newer than the Nikon 70-200 VRI, has pretty good reviews, and is still cheaper to buy new than older Nikon glass.

The reason I am no longer considering the 70-200 Sigma is the depreciation aspect. Whether I purchase the Nikon 70-200 VRI or the Sigma, I think they will both be good glass for my DX body for now. If I ever move into the world of FX bodies - it seems I would have to sell and upgrade that telephoto (due to vignetting on APS-C sensor on the Nikon). It seems like the Sigma just will not hold it's value like the Nikon.

To tell all I love the 70-200vr v1 for single portraits. I use it @ f2.8 in real world for people shots. Corner problems are not in my subject. I've never considered it a landscape lens.

framer

Shooting both FX and DX, the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 is probably my favorite lens. I have both version 1 and version 2. On DX you would never notice the difference as the main differences are in the corners. On FX, version 1 has noticeable vignetting wide open, and a little corner softness stopped down to f/8. Version 2 does not have this problem. So if you plan to go with FX, you probably should spring for the new version or plan to upgrade.

The Nikon 70-200 is better stopped down slightly. I try to use f/3.2-3.5 rather than wide open to keep a nice soft background. It's actually best at f/4.5-5.6, but the incremental difference is small. The 70-200 makes a good landscape lens for extractions, or with the Canon 500D it doubles as a macro lens.

I have two versions of the 70-300 - the current VR version and the earlier ED version. The 70-300 has a variable aperture, so if you are at 200mm your wide open aperture is f/5.6 - and you stop down from there for more sharpness. You lose the smooth backgrounds with this lens - especially on DX. You can live with the backgrounds on FX. I use the 70-300 VR as part of a light weight kit for hiking and some travel. I pair it with a 16-35 f/4 and a 50 f/1.4. I often substitute the 70-200 into this kit if weight is not a big issue.

Since you are using DX today, a used copy of the 70-200 Version 1 is probably okay. Just know that if you jump to FX - and there is no automatic reason why you must do that - you will probably want to upgrade to the newer model. But going with the used version up front would save nearly $1000. KEH.com is a good reference point on price for good used gear.

I'm sure the 70-200 f/4 is a good lens, but the loss of f/2.8 is a big deal. For optimum sharpness you know you need to stop down a little, and by the time you get to f/5.6 you might as well just get the 70-300 and spend the balance on other lenses.

The 18-200, 18-300, 28-300 zooms are not really alternatives to a 70-200. Those lenses are single do everything okay lenses. Image quality is good, DOF is okay, but you would never pick the 10x zoom if you could use a 70-200. I've got an 18-200 - and it has only been used once in the last year. Usually I don't even carry it.

+1

Hard for us to say what you are going to like or use. An F2.8 zoom isn't really a replacement for a fast prime. The 85 F1.8 would still have a use with the 70-200 in hand. As Tao says though...as you shoot more you will see that despite wanting that $2000 lens to cover your bases you almost always need another lens it seems. I started with an 18-200 and after shooting that for some time I narrowed down what I needed and got a macro lens, ultra wide, fast prime and super telephoto...but I did it over time and knew I needed them for what I wanted. Not saying the 70-200 isn't what you need, but it is a bit of money to spend. You could even try renting one for an event just to see. It is a whole different beast if you haven't shot any of the pro zooms before...they are heavy and can be a little intimidating I think...if for no other reason but for the cost.

Paxton said:
Thanks, TaoTeJared - would the 70-200 not replace having those lenses in one lens?

Yes in theory but in reality, mostly no. Every lens has a designed purpose but can do many things very well. Starting out and the fact you have a D3200, IMHO I think you would get more out of a 70-300vr and learn what you do actually shoot the most, look at what focal lengths you shoot the most, at and then throw your money at a lens in that range. Throwing $2,ooo at a lens and not really knowing what you need (not want) is kind of like giving a 16yr old a Porsche, when they actually like going camping in the back mountains.

You may end up with one in the far future, but at least you know you need it, and you don't have just $2,000 sitting on the shelf collecting dust.

Thanks, TaoTeJared - would the 70-200 not replace having those lenses in one lens?

9x 8gb sandisk extreme sd = 72gb

Paxton said:
I am more leaning towards either the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRI or the new 70-200 f4 as they will both fit my budget. If I am spending that much money on a lens - I do not want to chance having forward compatibility issues when I upgrade camera bodies in the future. I do plan on owning this lens for many years.

If you think you are going to update your body to FX in 2-years or less than that is a valid concern. If not, then put your money to a bit better use to give you more options. IMO from what you started this thread with what you want to do, 50mm 1.8G, 85mm 1.8G & 70-300vr would cover Everything and give you many creative opportunities to learn from. With those and a SB-900/910 flash would get you set up to do almost anything. You may even want to consider a 60mm or 105mm macro.

If you mind is made up, then you can't go wrong with either 70-200mm Nikkor.

I am more leaning towards either the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRI or the new 70-200 f4 as they will both fit my budget. If I am spending that much money on a lens - I do not want to chance having forward compatibility issues when I upgrade camera bodies in the future. I do plan on owning this lens for many years.

tcole1983 said:

I have never been sad or disappointed by ponying up the extra money to get the lens I really wanted instead of compromising and getting the third party or variable aperture lens just because they were cheaper.

+1

there is one big advantage of the 70 -120 f 4 apart from cost ; It is a lot lighter

If you have light the 70-300 will do for a budget. If you have the money and really think you are going to use it a lot I would go for the 70-200 F2.8 VRI or VRII. I think the 70-200 F4 is going to produce great images...I think it is probably on my list. Hard to say what I would get since I have a totally different setup. I opted for the 300 F4, but I wanted it for animal shots mostly. If I knew I was really going to use it a lot and make some money I would spend the extra money and get the lens I really thought I would want/use.

I have never been sad or disappointed by ponying up the extra money to get the lens I really wanted instead of compromising and getting the third party or variable aperture lens just because they were cheaper.

Paxton said:
I would like to retain that nice bokeh and separation for my portraits,

In which case. forget the 18-200

out of the lenses you have listed I would go for Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRI
I have not used this lens , but do I have the VRII and at f 2.8 the bokeh is just what the doctor ordered

I would not too excited about the D400 or D7XXX. when the D600 is available today

The 70-300 VR is an FX lens.

I would REALLY like to see sample images from the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRI @ f/4 and the same image on the new N 70-200 f4 @ f4. I would like to see how they compare both with sharpness and bokeh.