You have a lovely camera that is almost brand new! I sold mine to get a D800 and whilst I love the D800, I miss the D700 that was by far the best (digital) camera I ever owned. I wish I could have kept it but.........

Hello,
Thanks for all your suggestions. I now have done a shutter count on my recently
bought S/H D700 and it comes out to 464! I paid A$1450 plus spare battery.
Cheers, Pino.

Keep in mind that a D700 with 30,000 to 50,000 actuations is really just broken in and would make a great deal if picked up used.

@golf007sd, there is also a "Nikon" tab on that same dialog that calls the same value "shutter count". The reason I like reveal is that it's a tiny standalone program that displays all of the EXIF data. I grew up on unix so I guess I have a tool mentality. Most apps are like Swiss army knives with a small chainsaw attached. Yes, you can use that Phillips head screwdriver on the knife in a pinch, but I like a real (standalone) screwdriver for most tasks. Really just boils down to personal preference I guess :-}

There is a free program called KUSO EXIF Viewer that works great and displays the shutter count. You can download it here: *LINK REMOVED*

SquamishPhoto said:
neither tilt nor swing produce enough of an effect on their own to render full sized objects completely in focus.

I don't know what the setup is in what you're mentioning, but for a classic "tabletop" style product shot, it definitely does work, absolutely. I don't have the stuff here anymore to test this, but my setup was an 8° maximum-tilt adapter and that 150mm SK, and that worked perfectly. Or what do you mean?

Also, I haven't really encountered any lens (also expensive ones) without substantial focus breathing, and would be interested to find out about such a lens. It wouldn't be mentioned everywhere if there weren't any lenses that were free(er) of it.

Ironheart said:
I use a program called "reveal" on the Mac.

Why not just bring it up in Preview and then hit command-I and then look at the EXIF info. Forth from the bottom where it says "image number."

I use a program called "reveal" on the Mac.

I use the software Opanda load a pic into it (like flickr) and you should find it...

Try loading an image in your computer and look at Exif data. If the "Image number" is available it should show up there. If you cannot get the Exif data in your computer, load to Flickr. It should be available there.

In this day and age it is mainly focus stacking. Yes macro does suffer to a smaller extent but not much more than any of the trinity (I have shot hordes of macro)... Other than in cinematography where this really irked still photographers in the past was copy work. While photoshop and digital formats have eliminated the need to do most of the work in camera if a photographer had to shoot paintings as well as wall sculptures in a limited space he/she would have had to move the camera (given it had a prime on it) to maintain the same dimensionality....

Ironically back to cinematography Dslr makers should be aware that if they are marketing their video as such and are trying to compete with the big boys, they would be smart to develop lenses that breathed less specifically for video...

Spoken like someone who's never used a camera with tilt movements. Owning both a Nikon PC-E and an Nikon adaptor for my Hassy gear, I can assure you that neither tilt nor swing produce enough of an effect on their own to render full sized objects completely in focus. In fact, one of the single greatest aspects of a lens movements is how much more effective and easy it actually makes focus stacking.

Hello,
Does anybody know how to determine the number of shutter actuations on a used Nikon D700 ?
Cheers, Pino.

spraynpray said:
Funny how people with larger disposable incomes say 'get' when they mean 'pay a lot of money for'! :-)

Huh? We're talking a couple hundred bucks. Check out Schneider Kreuznach 150mm f/4 MC on ebay. Since, if you're using a tilt adaptor (between 40 and couple of hundred bucks), you lose all the electronic coupling anyways and are in manual focus and all that, so all you need is one of those old lenses.

DutchNikon said:
>>Well, it does matter in still photography if you want to do focus stacking. It actually sucks quite a bit<<

It does not matter if you move the camera for focussing ( on a focussing rail), which is common practice in macro ( micro) photography ..

In serious product photography, focus stacking is just a rather work-intensive fiddling workaround for not using a tilt setup. And, as mentioned above, the latter can be quite accessible.

DutchNikon said:
>>Well, it does matter in still photography if you want to do focus stacking. It actually sucks quite a bit<<

It does not matter if you move the camera for focussing ( on a focussing rail), which is common practice in macro ( micro) photography ..

But even that is not perfect, I see some movement as I move focus through deep objects.

>>Well, it does matter in still photography if you want to do focus stacking. It actually sucks quite a bit<<

It does not matter if you move the camera for focussing ( on a focussing rail), which is common practice in macro ( micro) photography ..

spraynpray said:
What is his point - why is it 'an issue'? Focus stacking couldn't work if it didn't compensate for the image size changing with focus.

It seems any muppet can - and does - make videos and put them up on YouTube.

It's certainly something to consider in photography.

On the 105mm macro Nikkor if I miss focus using autofocus and end up needing to autofocus again and the subject moves, there's significant focus breathing. It'd be more useful if I just move the lens in and out.

@ golf007sd Thanks for the video... it is entertaining. I really think the guy was just pointing out a phenomenon he thought was useful. He does mention it may be important in focus stacking but how much image size change is there in a fine tune of focus in macro and does this affect the focus stacking programs in post?

chris_weinert said:
Well, it does matter in still photography if you want to do focus stacking. It actually sucks quite a bit.

Maybe it sucks for the software designer, but it doesn't affect the end use of the software as the software is designed to compensate (re-size and realign) for the change in size and position of the images with change of focus.

chris_weinert said:
one should just get a descent medium format lens (i.e. Schneider Kreuznach) and a tilt adapter, done.

Funny how people with larger disposable incomes say 'get' when they mean 'pay a lot of money for'! :-)

Ironheart said:
In this situation, on a big screen, the breathing would be very noticeable, perhaps distracting or even nauseating. It really doesn't matter much for still photography.

Well, it does matter in still photography if you want to do focus stacking. It actually sucks quite a bit. Then again, if you want to do product or still life photography, focus stacking is just a rather poor workaround for not using a tilt setup. Instead of worrying about focus breathing, one should just get a descent medium format lens (i.e. Schneider Kreuznach) and a tilt adapter, done.

The term focus breathing comes from cinematography. A common technique in movies is to shift focus from actor to actor as they speak. In this situation, on a big screen, the breathing would be very noticeable, perhaps distracting or even nauseating. It really doesn't matter much for still photography.

One of the things you pay for in a cine lens is minimal breathing. The others are smooth aperture control, and the ability to gear up a follow focus rig.

My understanding of this video is that it was intended to show people that all lenses "suffer" from "focus breathing," rather than trying to scare people.

OMG - I think I'm going to send all my Nikkor lenses back to Nikon. Obviously they are all defective. They can give me my lenses back when they engineer a fix. LOL.

What is his point - why is it 'an issue'? Focus stacking couldn't work if it didn't compensate for the image size changing with focus.

It seems any muppet can - and does - make videos and put them up on YouTube.

I think this guy may need psychiatric help for his OCD...LOL. What he is talking about is IMO simply an optical phenomenon. It is well know by any photographer of any merit that when one focuses the camera the image size changes. This occurs on 11" x 14" format and everything else.

Most of the time, the issue is noticed in studio work where a specific set is arranged and the camera is then placed. As one places the camera, the image is viewed and one moves the camera in and out while focusing to compensate.

It is interesting the term "focus breathing"...wonder who thought of that? Fascinating topic...