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?

R8R said:
"14 Bit" .........
"Lossless compressed". = 41.3 MB
"Compressed" = 35.9 MB
"Uncompressed" = 74.4 MB

"12 Bit" ..........
"Lossless Compressed" = 32.4 MB
"Compressed" = 29.0 MB
"Uncompressed" = 57.0 MB

The whopper is TIFF: 108.2 MB
o_O

These file sizes vary, though, depending on the image. I mean the compressed ones.

@Geoff_K if you have a smartphone...like the iPhone...just get the iPhone App by Nikon and download the manuals for your cameras for all the ones you want. :D

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-And-Explore/Article/fyu1ffrj/Learn-And-Explore-for-the-iPhone.html
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/manual-viewer/id468999172?mt=8

@ Geoff_K Tape....you mean all forty hours of it? LOL

It is on my iPhone and computer. Actually very easy to reference and search. There is way too much information to remember...

I leave mine in 14bit. I changed it to 12 when I started shooting with it and decided to try it at 14. It didnt seem to make much difference in my computer editing time, so I left it at 14.

I cannot say I noticed a difference however I was not really looking at an image difference, just if it would make a noticeable difference in my editing time. I leave it at 14 for the same reason I leave it at 36MP.

R8R, do they have it on tape ? ;- >

msmoto said:
Great R8R, I guess I did not look at the manual close enough. I will pass this along.

You only read to page 435 huh? You do remember that as a Nikon fan, you need to read every manual cover-to-cover, even if you don't own the camera.

Start with all the Coolpix models and work your way up.

Great R8R, I guess I did not look at the manual close enough. I will pass this along.

msmoto said:
OK, a question was asked about a D800 and the sizes of the images with the various types of recording in RAW. So, there are six different types to shoot and I am asking what the file sizes are for the following.

"14 Bit" .........

"Lossless compressed".

"Compressed"

"Uncompressed"

"12 Bit" ..........

"Lossless Compressed"

"Compressed"

"Uncompressed"

Would someone with a D800 tell me the approximate file sizes for the above conditions? Thanks,

Msmoto

It's all listed on page 436 of the user manual.

http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/dslr/D800_EN.pdf

"14 Bit" .........
"Lossless compressed". = 41.3 MB
"Compressed" = 35.9 MB
"Uncompressed" = 74.4 MB

"12 Bit" ..........
"Lossless Compressed" = 32.4 MB
"Compressed" = 29.0 MB
"Uncompressed" = 57.0 MB

The whopper is TIFF: 108.2 MB
o_O

OK, a question was asked about a D800 and the sizes of the images with the various types of recording in RAW. So, there are six different types to shoot and I am asking what the file sizes are for the following.

"14 Bit" .........

"Lossless compressed".

"Compressed"

"Uncompressed"

"12 Bit" ..........

"Lossless Compressed"

"Compressed"

"Uncompressed"

Would someone with a D800 tell me the approximate file sizes for the above conditions? Thanks,

Msmoto

Saw this on TV the other day and got a good chuckle out of it. Reminded me of when I was laying in the church aisle and got a weird look.

https://www.longliveimagination.com/community/tips-and-techniques/

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!

donaldejose said:
Perhaps this isn't quite kosher on NR but I accidentally ran across this wedding photographer's website and was very impressed by his creative and unusual compositions. If you scan through his site you will find lots of ideas you can try yourself. He was a sport's photographer who now shoots weddings, perhaps giving him an unusual perspective.

http://www.dazzlephotography.com/#

VERY, very nice post, thanks so much, seriously. Wow. Wow, wow. It once again shows how much it's the photographer that makes the picture. I just saw 10 pictures until now, but they were truly great, simple, touching, perfect. This link should be posted as an auto reply to "which camera should I get, A or B" questions.

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.

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?

Thanks msmoto, I'll give it a try. I would like to at least approximate the original but if they have something that works that would be good.

i'm LMFAO. Great stuff...had to put them on my FB page. HAHAHAHAHA!

Not recently, but in the past I'm embarrassed to say I've been a "Sideline Hero" (looking at the ground in shame)!