yup i still copy all the pictures from the SDCard whenever i take pictures...The only problem is that when the camera is turn off the ACCESS Memory Light is continually blinking and the battery will be drain then the camera is getting hot on the SDCard part,,,

Are you able to transfer data via the USB cable to get pictures off of the memory card? I am just wondering if pictures are even being stored on the memory cards or not...sounds like they aren't. It might be a PC issue also...I would start with the USB cable to transfer. If that works then it might be the SD card reader or whatever you are using.

It seems like something is still wrong...obviously it is useless if you can't get anything off of the cards.

oops, that was a typo on my part. I meant to say "connected to this competition" My point was that its possible that their license goes beyond just printing things about the competition. But as others have said, its par for the course.

When my wife said I could. I tell her that she can get almost all her money back when im gone. I show her some of the threads like i bought this 85mm lens and a year later sold it for more than I paid for it(we need more of this). She just smiles at me and says ok. Thanks for the help everyone. Not sure if I like that kind of a smile though.

n0msky said:
I am wondering, as you guys have mentioned above about FX being able to produce more shallow DOF and better bokeh and to shoot at high ISO , is it worth enough to spend more than $3,000 just to get those advantages, especially for those who just doing photography as hobby?

YES!

spraynpray said:
Thanks Seven, I'l tell the wife I'm OK to buy one then....

No! You have permission to buy two.......one for you and one for your old mucker Skinty!!! :-)

Geoff_K said:
Wait until I start to add lenses to go with it. THAT will tell how much she loves me.

I wouldn't want to take that chance..... ;-)

After 3 years of shooting HS football and basketball with my D90 I decided it was time to move to FF. Luckily I have a very understanding wife as this is just a hobby for me.

Wait until I start to add lenses to go with it. THAT will tell how much she loves me.

PB PM said:
If you have the disposable income, and love photography, why not? .

+1

other wise no, enjoy what you have

n0msky said:
I am wondering, as you guys have mentioned above about FX being able to produce more shallow DOF and better bokeh and to shoot at high ISO , is it worth enough to spend more than $3,000 just to get those advantages, especially for those who just doing photography as hobby?

To answer your question, no. When you buy a DX camera such as the D7000 you get about the same complexity as the D600 at (currently) less than half the cost. Buy the D7000, use it, learn the difference in the way it affects you in your fields (i.e. macro, sports, portraits, landscapes cityscapes, nightime etc. then make the decision. If you buy an FX lens to go on that DX body, you can take it with you if you go to an FX body.

As said before, DX is a positive advantage in many fields of photography, not a disadvantage across the board. View the PAD thread to see what cameras people are using and you will see that the difference in quality of the images is more to do with talent and lens than body or sensor size.

Be logical - it is when you lose control of your mind that the cost of this hobby gets way out of hand ;-/

What "... connected to this publication" ?

I dont think its underhanded, however, this legal terminology gives them more right than people have been saying:

" ... in any of their publications, their websites and/or in any promotional material connected to this competition." can easily be read as: ANY of their publications, and of their websites not connected to this competition and ANY promotional material connected to this competition. In other words, it would certainly be forseeable for them to use the material in a publication that has nothing to do with the competition as long as its THEIR publication, and not a third party publication.

My point is the "... connected to this publication" does not have to tie to all three of the parts of that clause, just the last part about the promotional material.

all that being said, I still dont feel there is anything underhanded or dishonest about this. You know that you are granting a non-exclusive license, retaining copyright, in the hopes of being published (or maybe just winning money).

And i completely aggree with heartyfisher about the types of material in a contest. sure its a marketting reason, but there is nothing wrong with contests being about marketting, and there is no reason costest have to be "arty". (your point about homelessness and christmas)

If you have the disposable income, and love photography, why not? It also depends on what you want to do with your images.

Although I primarily shoot as a hobby, I also provide images for charities websites and a few clients. Having the ability to shoot high quality images in low light can be very helpful, given those uses. Unless you get caught up in the, I must upgrade every time a new camera comes out, mindset you can keep using that body for years to come.

I am wondering, as you guys have mentioned above about FX being able to produce more shallow DOF and better bokeh and to shoot at high ISO , is it worth enough to spend more than $3,000 just to get those advantages, especially for those who just doing photography as hobby?

spraynpray said:
Thanks Seven, I'l tell the wife I'm OK to buy one then....

Now come on guys...

YOU don't buy one, you have her buy one for you as a Christmas present.

Thank you! Amazing.

The LENR may kick in at 8sec and map that pixel out for you. Check your owners manual, as there is a cutoff to what is considered Long Exposure vs. not.

Edit: I just checked the manual for you pg 167:

LENR on: Photographs taken at shutter speeds slower than 8 s
are processed to reduce noise.

So just keep the exposure above 8s and everything is dandy :-)

bjrichus said:
I know a photographer who uses two D3 bodies for EVERYTHING. He has more FX glass in his gear boxes than most stores keep!

We spoke about the D4 a few months ago and while he likes the results, he thinks that for his work, he cannot justify the upgrade. Yes, over time they would pay for themselves, if he swapped out the 3's for 4's but he doesn't HAVE to, so no NEED to.

I can't argue with him ...

Same thing here. I looked at the D600 and accept for video, could not see the benefit over an older FX body.

With a grip, the D600 was close to $2500.

I picked up a D3 with less than 7500 clicks on it for $2000. I already have a D7000 for video. No brainer.

It may very well be dead pixels or due to higher ISOs. I just did a little analysis of which images had them and which didn't. Oddly, everything with an exposure UNDER 8.0s had them while everything OVER 8.0s didn't. Seems counterintuitive to me. I would think that a longer exposure would lead to MORE noise artifacts (or would be more likely to show dead pixels), not less.
For the record ISO was 400 and aperture was f/7.1.

Thanks Seven, I'l tell the wife I'm OK to buy one then....

spraynpray

As you know, we love spending other peoples money

you have our permission to buy a D800

There are of course pros and cons for both formats but with a D800 I could shoot crop mode, but there is no button on my D7000 for switching to 36Mp FX mode.....

My D90 does the same thing. I find it becomes more prevalent the higher the ISO I shoot. Lightroom 4 seems to remove them for me at time of import.

TaoTeJared said:
Dead/stuck pixel probably. Every sensor has them. I think the D90 has the dust mapping feature, if you use that it will usually catch them.

That looks VERY much like a dead pixel to me.

Do as Ms.Moto says.

Have a nice day and don't stress over it.

Not sure how hard I'll pursue it. As Moto said, it's pretty easy to edit out. For the record, he was inspired by this:
http://www.thecoolist.com/light-painting-by-pablo-picasso/
Never underestimate what will inspire a 17 y/o.