I have found that my D800 fires my sb600 and/or my sb910 about 1 in 10 times. Sometimes I have to shut it completely off and turn it back on and then it will occasionally fire the flashes. I also noted that the flashes don't fire at the same strength that they do when fired with my d300. I ran a side by side test with the d800 and d300 and the d300 fired them every time and the d800 would fire them once and then not again until after I shut it off and turned it back on again. The strobes fired about a stop too dim compared to the d300.

With this and the image moving during auto bracket and interval shooting, this camera is going back for repair. I still like the rest of the d800 but I have to say it wasn't very well tested before release.

Scott

I have just recieved the new Kinotehnik D800 viewfinder that was anounced on Nikon Rumours recently. It's really neat and lightweight. A much better design but it's not properly in focus. Very frustrating. Holding the viewfinder slightly apart from it's D800 screen clip causes it to focus but that is no good. I'm waiting for a responce from Kintehnik.

I use a JuicedLink RM333 to ride audio levels when shooting video but when I have a external monitor attached to the D800 HDMI the audio level meters disappear from the camera's LCD screen when I hit Record. I have sent issue to Nikon Canada but only reply is that they are looking into it. With no hdmi monitor connected audio level display remains on screen during recording.

For lots of video work you really need a finder to see the screen properly and hold the camera more firmly when not using a tripod or rig.

Can anyone recommend a good one?

Today I got the Zacuto Z_Finder Pro 3.2 and sent it back after trying it and discussing with the seller. Very disappointing! It didn't fit well, obscured the top and bottom of the menu info a little, is heavy and just feels like it’s not properly made for the camera.

Has anyone tried the Letus Hawk which claims to be made for the D800?

I think the report button never worked for me either. If fact where is it now? I would like to have it back and in addition agree that it may be better to allow links based on classification. I have seen threads full of confused forum members because a link was banned. However I do also agree it should be moderated heavily...

Mine never worked - maybe it never worked?

Why isn't there a report button? That would save the mods a lot of problems.

RE: The copyright issues....you may be correct here....only a thought from an attorney, not connected in any way with NRF.

One other note on links... sometimes links are corrupted and we see that sometimes blatantly as in the ones which send us to "adult content" sites or commercial sites. My guess is it discourages the spammers to some extent when the rules suggest their links will be monitored and removed. Although some of these bots are persistent, for sure.

So, I will be gentle regarding links and if it is clearly a demonstration of the topic, it might remain. But I was taught very early on to be aggressive with any links to a personal or business website with which a poster may have a close connection.

tcole1983 said:
If at all possible I think there should be a post minimum before you can post a link. It would keep the spam links out at least...or at least keep them not hyperlinks.

I can see the potential for harmful links causing someone to get a virus or spyware from a link.

I'm not sure you can keep track of that. How about new members must have 20-30 posts before being allowed to start a new topic? I have seen something like that on other forums, Not sure if this version/base of software has that option. I think that would really clean things up.

Good thread.

@jonnyapple and msmoto, appreciate you not being aggressive with the link removal policy.

I don't think a link would cause any copyright infringement issues because that link is just sending you to their site. Infringement would be when you copy their material and post it in your site as your own. Links don't do that. They send you to their site where they have their own material published, so you are viewing their material on their site.

Yes, Tao, I knew if the D400 was out that would have been your first choice. Many people are in that same boat. Must be problems with the sensor or some part going into the camera to cause the delay.

If at all possible I think there should be a post minimum before you can post a link. It would keep the spam links out at least...or at least keep them not hyperlinks.

I can see the potential for harmful links causing someone to get a virus or spyware from a link.

donaldejose said:
Let me give an example. Tao was not hot for the D800. He was a D400 or D3s man. Then I linked to an interview with Jim Brandenburg and it changed Tao's thinking. Now he is hot for a D800...

Good example. (Not exactly how I moved towards it - lack of D400 is more the case) but seeing great user interviews, Nikon promos, even other videos and public domain items can help others. Now if someone who makes videos to generate ad revenue for a living wants to use this as a springboard, that is "promotion" and should be removed.

Just a note on potential copyright violations, the more I read, the more I am learning it is very, very difficult for anyone to claim copyright violations if it is already on the web. Basically if it is out there and you do not need a log-in to view it, it becomes public domain as long as you are not selling it for revenue.

Good thoughts, TTJ. Amazon is a sponsor of NR, so it would be silly to ban those. As I said in the other thread, I don't have any problem with most links. If they add to the discussion or just help someone find something obscure, then deleting them just frustrates people.

I think one of the problems with a link is in the area of potential copyright violation. Then the issues of implied endorsement may come into play. And from there no doubt a bunch of other legal mumbo jumbo which could potentially be harmful to NRF. Please note, this is my personal opinion and I do not speak for NRF nor for any member of the administration. These are just some thoughts I have found along the way by reading the very long legal disclaimers on most websites, e.g.., NIKON...

And thus follows the rule regarding links.... I tend to be very gentle and only delete the blatant ones.... It is also amazing how some terms used show up as links automatically..... Oh well...

Recently I have been putting links in when I felt they helped the discussion or pointed to a little known product I like and use and they have stayed. Currently, I have no problem with how "link removal" is being practiced by the moderators. Some time ago, I did. Maybe that is a function of who is moderating; some people just cannot resist asserting and exercising their power, you know. Too many were being removed in the past and I spoke up about it. I hated to see someone discuss something, link to another site which contained more information only to have that link removed. It seems to have relaxed now.

Let me give an example. Tao was not hot for the D800. He was a D400 or D3s man. Then I linked to an interview with Jim Brandenburg and it changed Tao's thinking. Now he is hot for a D800. If he gets one and loves it allowing the link to remain will have been a good thing. From what Tao has posted that link seems to have made a change in his mind getting him to consider seriously a camera he had not before considered as a serious option for himself and the type of work he does. If he gets his D800 and doesn't like it, allowing the link to remain will have been a bad thing because it sent him down the wrong track. I think this is an example of the great benefits links can have for all of here. They expand the universe of information easily available to us. I am glad the moderators left that link in. Whether Tao is remains to be seen. Hope so.

On another thread the discussion went into allowing links on the site. I thought I would create a thread on this rather than seeing another one being hijacked.

Current Concerns as I have seen them:
-Do not want to become an advertising avenue
-Do not want to seem to promote any individual or product (other than Nikon)
-Keep spam off
-Broken links/missing pages on old links. Especially for future use.

Benefits I can see allowing SOME links:
-Being able to find products other users enjoy using
-Links to reference items that are helpful

My suggestion: Classify the links, personal, promotional, reference and examples.

Category 1: Personal/Professional
A place on people's profile for their web site is already exists and links to Flickr images are already permitted and nothing feels like anything is lacking or would be added if it were allowed. I don't particularly like the self promotion or the attempt to get business from by people who always end a post with a link with their web site. I say keep that banned. If someone has a reference item on their site (i.e. map of a location for shooting or a DOF calculator) I think that would be ok.

Category 2: Promotional posts/links.
Ban it all.

Category 3: Reference and Examples
If the post is intended to provide a reference or example to help illustrate what is being discussed of the topic, I think it should be allowed. If it is only a shameless plug, (i.e. Promotional) remove it.

Category 4: Products
This seems to be one of the things that could really help. Providing a link to a product that someone likes using would really be helpful. This is not as big of a deal with major company's items, but 3rd party items where it is marketed under multiple names, can be really hard to find with a Google search. Allowing a link to Amazon, etc. would really be helpful. Again, if some company comes on and starts promoting their products, (i.e. Promotional) remove it.

Those are just my thoughts. Admins, if you don't think it is time to discuss this, feel free to remove my post.

Yap, normal for that lense, congrat. You still have to expect a steep learning curve. Macro ain't easy and don't expect too much at first.

Gareth said:
I'm pretty sure that's in the manual.

Manual??? :-)

I'm pretty sure that's in the manual.

Yes, this is normal. It only shoots at 2.8 if you are focusing at infinity.

Any macro lengths and you'll be shooting at smaller apertures. Down at 1:1 reproduction it starts off at f/4.8 or so.

I used to do some Hi8 video and found that a cheap way to keep the camera steady was to attach a monopod to it, but keeping it loose and off the ground. Adjusting the length of the leg, and/or adding some weight at the bottom gave me a near perfectly steady camera, but you'll need to test various lengths and weight.
I finally gave up video when I discovered how much work it involves in post processing to get a reasonable result… Not forgetting the cost of course !… :)

Hi 7Crossing,

I'd probably stick to a head that is compatible with your current tripod so your plates would also be compatible, unless your heads are too big to work - something that is unlikely (I have some tripods from video days...).

You might find some grave disappointment with fancy steadicam tools. Unless you're willing to commit to top-dollar, er, pound, quid, whatever the jargon, most of it is just weight at the bottom of the stick. Getting a real gimbal device will be very, very dear, far more than the D800.

My best,

Mike

Mike Gunter said:
. Without getting your feet too wet, I'd recommend a nice monopod.

......My best, and if you want to pass the D800 around...

Mike

thanks I will give that a try , what head do recommend

if you are ever in Brizzle do drop in a have a play with the 800

Has anyone used the WONDLAN ARES 'steadi camera device'

Many Thanks for your reply, I would normally use F8- F16 except when shooting creative tight headshot portraits where I use F2.8 or F4.0 . I really wanted to see if this was a general characteristic of this lens or a indication of a problem, cheers.