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

DaveyJ said:
What I am looking for is assessment of the video capabilities of the D600 compared to D800 and D7000. I also am looking for this comparison as a short WRITTEN summary. Not video clips like many will try to go for. I will be checking the reviews. I do think Nikon has pushed the FX limits given that their FX glass (example the 200-400) is quite preposterous as field lens. I have been with "pros" in the field, Alaska, Safari type shoots and have seen their photos and they have seen mine. Since Nikon hasn't updated their 80-400VR and several major shortfalls.......especially no D400......I think they are once again not following serious photo enthusiasts purchase desires, and have been mostly listening to NPS photographers. They right now seem to have totally put the small light and packed with power goal in FX not DX. Since I have owned quite a bit of expensive and light field lens in the past, I feel that Nikon has gone way to much to big expensive lens. Personally in many cases I would prefer an f5.6 or even f8 minimum aperature lens over a 1.2 or 1.4. I have very little interest in shallow depth of field photos. I don't see in shallow depth of field. Humans with good eye sight have a wider depth of field than some photographers think is fashionable. I am certainly interested in the D600 and given finding some useable lens in addition to FX glass I already have.....I might just buy one. I do see when a DX lens (like the 12-24DX wide angle zoom) is attached to the D600 it automatically switches to DX mode (in my mind NOT desirable). I'd just take photos with my D7000 rather than DX mode with D600.

Your post is kinda all over the place. What exactly do you want here? FX with a small lens? There is a ton of FX glass to choose from since the late 1950's.

At present, many fashion brand long-term occupy the high-end market, earn

a higher profits, in the eyes of the public, she is a luxury, but his

appeal is really strong, people still try to buy the luxury power everyone

can enjoy the luxury big-name feel we have made high copy product to

satisfy everyone's life hope that we support a lot to change their lives
hermes kelly handbags

What I am looking for is assessment of the video capabilities of the D600 compared to D800 and D7000. I also am looking for this comparison as a short WRITTEN summary. Not video clips like many will try to go for. I will be checking the reviews. I do think Nikon has pushed the FX limits given that their FX glass (example the 200-400) is quite preposterous as field lens. I have been with "pros" in the field, Alaska, Safari type shoots and have seen their photos and they have seen mine. Since Nikon hasn't updated their 80-400VR and several major shortfalls.......especially no D400......I think they are once again not following serious photo enthusiasts purchase desires, and have been mostly listening to NPS photographers. They right now seem to have totally put the small light and packed with power goal in FX not DX. Since I have owned quite a bit of expensive and light field lens in the past, I feel that Nikon has gone way to much to big expensive lens. Personally in many cases I would prefer an f5.6 or even f8 minimum aperature lens over a 1.2 or 1.4. I have very little interest in shallow depth of field photos. I don't see in shallow depth of field. Humans with good eye sight have a wider depth of field than some photographers think is fashionable. I am certainly interested in the D600 and given finding some useable lens in addition to FX glass I already have.....I might just buy one. I do see when a DX lens (like the 12-24DX wide angle zoom) is attached to the D600 it automatically switches to DX mode (in my mind NOT desirable). I'd just take photos with my D7000 rather than DX mode with D600.

Looks epic. If only I had enough money to afford it :( . I am stocking up on FX lenses now. If there is a successor I am probably going to buy it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB7C1QUfkio&feature=player_embedded

kanuck said:
Interesting question chinokie I had the procedure done back in 2007 and did not notice any side effects although I wake up with dry eyes frequently. Other than that I don't have any problems photography wise. I even shoot a Leica rangefinder without any troubles although I'd love to add the 1.4 viewfinder for it to ease my troubles. I agree with golf007sd its been amazing and my only regret is that I didn't do it at least five years earlier. I have heard long term contact lens use leads to cataract risks when you get older because of the buildup of protein that sits on your eyes for hours on end. I was a user for 14 years (15-29):(

+1

Interesting question chinokie I had the procedure done back in 2007 and did not notice any side effects although I wake up with dry eyes frequently. Other than that I don't have any problems photography wise. I even shoot a Leica rangefinder without any troubles although I'd love to add the 1.4 viewfinder for it to ease my troubles. I agree with golf007sd its been amazing and my only regret is that I didn't do it at least five years earlier. I have heard long term contact lens use leads to cataract risks when you get older because of the buildup of protein that sits on your eyes for hours on end. I was a user for 14 years (15-29):(

I had this procedure done in 1993 and it was one of the best decision I made regarding my true lenses. Should need such a surgery have it done and begin to see the world in a whole new way.

Cheers

I had PRK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorefractive_keratectomy last October and am still not sure it was a good idea for me, mostly because of my age (53) AND because My left (dominant) eye has wrinkles on the retina (not good for any distance focus). Long story short If you are near-sited older and your work is closer than arms length think very hard about it... I have to wear reading glasses much of my time at work, flipping them on and off all the time (which I did not have to do before). I do cabling in a data center and was probably better off before the surgery. as far as photography goes with my right (non dominant) eye I see pretty well but rely heavily on auto focus... Just remember IT's PERMANENT.

I had the Lasik procedure done on my eyes last August. Best decision I have made in a long time. I went in and it took 9 minutes and i was good to go. There is always adjustment periods being that i had a huge astigmatism it took little longer to adjust then normal. First few weeks you tend to see hazy highlights especially looking at bright lights in the dark but that goes away in a month. Your usually take a few months to almost a year to fully adapt to the surgery. However even thought certain things took little time to adapt i did see 20/20 right after the surgery. Just make sure you do your research and go off of recommendations and price wise usually the same many will advertise cheaper deals but usually there is a catch to why its so cheap.

As for my photography it didnt really change anything took a little to get used to not having glasses but it was for the better. Not having to worry about smudging the glasses and being able to really put your eye into the viewfinder makes things nice. Worth it dont hesitate!

If my eyes ever stabilize for such a procedure, I do wonder how it would affect photography. My eyes are terrible (-8 and -10 diopters) so part of my enjoyment from photography comes from my camera and lenses being able to see far better than my own eyes and pick up details I may never catch through my eyes.

There is actually some strange statistical data on this -- baseball players. Everything is measured statistically in baseball, and batting average/contact rates are some of the easiest stats to get. The odd conclusion: laser eye surgery doesn't immediately help your vision the first season, but offers some improvements in seasons 2 and 3.

Photography is obviously a different application--we're not trying to hit a 90 mph pitch. But I've wondered if there is an adjustment period of months to a couple years to the new improvement in vision.

Now that said, I knew a very good amateur photographer who had the laser work done in one eye--totally wrecked his DOF in that eye. Not just for photography, but period. He got his $1200 back, but it was scant consolation.

How has LASIK or other corrective eye surgery affected your photography?
Were there only pluses or were there some things that you had to compensate for?

I'm assuming that it helps in almost all cases but wanted to hear from serious photographers.

Thanks...