Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
It was not a fun experience, lemme tell you. Especially watching it bounce. But they can keep it for as long as they want... all I care about is that it comes back perfect. So long as it comes back to me as-good-or-better-than-new, I can wait for them.
It'll also give me time to get well-acquainted with its little brother, the D3s, which should be arriving at my door by the end of the week. And I haven't been naked during this time, either, since Warner Boyd (met here on FM in the Mustangs thread, user waterflyboy22) was kind enough to lend me a D300+grip to cover for the missing D3x.
I was shooting the local tulip festival and my wife and I were having a wonderful day. I had my 4 month old D3x, 2 week old Nikkor 200mm F2, and Nikon SB-900 mounted on my Manfrotto tripod. I was setting up for a shot and I turned my back just for a second. And, you guessed it – it tipped backward and hit a gravel path. It cracked the back of the prism of the D3x, bent the attach ring on the 200mm, and broke off the hotshoe attachment on the SB-900. Considering all the weight of these, it could have been a lot worse. Especially, if it would have been a hard surface.
Needless to say, the remainder of the day was a real downer. I thought I was going to break down and bawl. Shoot me now. I was in a funk for two weeks.
The good part is that it is a Nikon. I sent all to Nikon service in California and told them to replace any and all parts to make them look like new and work like new. And, they all now do. Can’t tell it from new. Cost $700.00 though.
I will never turn my back again on my camera attached to a tripod. I don’t think my 50 year old heart could handle something this bad again.
Was at a group shoot at a dance studio...I tied a makeshift loop on a profoto acute battery pack to hang it off a lightstand. Grabbed the loop to move the pack from point A to point B 3 feet away. Unfortunately I passed the pack over a gap where the floor was 7 feet lower than where I was standing. Knot came undone, pack fell 7 feet...blam...everyone in the studio stopped and all had that horrified look you get when an expensive electronic hits the floor.
I swear I thought the rental place would make me buy a $2k pack, but instead they sent it for repairs and sent me a bill for $240...Talk about breathing a sigh of relief...
I was shooting the local tulip festival and my wife and I were having a wonderful day. I had my 4 month old D3x, 2 week old Nikkor 200mm F2, and Nikon SB-900 mounted on my Manfrotto tripod. I was setting up for a shot and I turned my back just for a second. And, you guessed it – it tipped backward and hit a gravel path. It cracked the back of the prism of the D3x, bent the attach ring on the 200mm, and broke off the hotshoe attachment on the SB-900. Considering all the weight of these, it could have been a lot worse. Especially, if it would have been a hard surface.
Needless to say, the remainder of the day was a real downer. I thought I was going to break down and bawl. Shoot me now. I was in a funk for two weeks.
The good part is that it is a Nikon. I sent all to Nikon service in California and told them to replace any and all parts to make them look like new and work like new. And, they all now do. Can’t tell it from new. Cost $700.00 though.
I will never turn my back again on my camera attached to a tripod. I don’t think my 50 year old heart could handle something this bad again.
That you do. If I may suggest, there is so much money sitting on top of that tripod that I would ask whether there is a better choice in support systems. I'm biased, because I've had less-than-stellar luck with Manfrottos. Now I use Gitzos with a bag of rocks hung underneath if necessary.
HerbChong wrote:
why do you want to do that, storage? setting a lens that long down like that just to set it down is asking for a fall.
Herb...
Everyone was complaining about the hood, I was just giving a suggestion for a mod. Usually, I just set the lens down on / in the backpack myself, but I have been known to set it face down if I'm doing a quick lens change. All depends on what I'm up to at the moment, but the option set it on its lens hood is a good one if you ask me.
Go4Long wrote:
I think the x to the s jump is going to be quite different...totally different cameras from what I can tell. could be fun though :P
They are entirely different cameras indeed. I've found, though, that I really need faster frame rates and faster ISO than what the D3x can sometimes provide. I really need a D3xs... 24MP at ISO 102K. But since I can't have that, and since I would ideally prefer to have identical-twin bodies, I'm debating (and debating and debating...) my choices.
For the moment, I'm going to have one X and one S. If I can adapt to that, then great... but I am not hugely hopeful. For airshows and wildlife, I go out with the 70-200 on one body and the 200-400 on the other, and I count on being able to get the shot from either camera, with the lens being the only variable. The S/X pair does not give me that capability at all.
I can see two X bodies and one S working well, since I normally don't do "S" type outings with two cameras. But I'd rather not have nearly $20K tied up just in bodies... I'd much prefer to have just two bodies and be able to get some additional glass (600/4, 200/2, 14-24...).
The X is intended to allow me to get the same kind of shots I was happily used to getting with the D300, but with the ability to make very large prints at top quality. When forced to crop, the idea is again to end up with 14-18MP instead of 6-8MP so I can make much larger prints.
The only problems are that there are a few shots I'm simply not getting because the X can't hit 8 FPS like the D300 did, nor is the buffer as deep as either the D300 or D3, nor is the ISO anywhere near what the D3 or D3S delivers. (The D300 didn't either, but new circumstances are more demanding in the low-light arena.) Mostly the X gets everything done well. But for now, I also have the issue that I had no backup camera... and as we know now, it bit me.
basically yes...I was saying that because you couldn't crop an image out of the S as far as you could with the X it might be part of your concern...and it indeed appears this is PART of the issue
I'm going to miss the reach of my D300 when my D3s arrives(already sold the D300 to finance the purchase) but I think the benefits will far outweigh the negatives...and I shot most of the year with a 70-200 2.8 on my D300 and to compensate bought a 300 2.8 to go with the D3s, plus the normal selection of teleconverters, I think I will turn out ok. I know there will be times that I wish I still had the reach, but it was a sacrifice I was willing to make for the huge jump in performance. I run into buffer issues with my D300 on a fairly regular basis(turn one on the first lap of every race for example) so Im looking forward to the massive buffer. I'm actually not so much concerned about the higher frame rate, and will probably dig around in the settings and turn that back down to around the 8 fps mark if I can.
My worst fear is dropping the camera, no matter which one of them it is. Hope it's not too painful in the wallet, cause I know it had to be painful to watch in that slow motion that things like that turn to.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Yup. Four-foot drop onto concrete and it died a quick death... I could see the shutter curtain was stuck/locked/jammed/something shut. It's on its way to Nikon now.
Go4Long wrote:
I'm going to miss the reach of my D300 when my D3s arrives [...]
Oh yes, you are! When my 300-600/4 VR turned into a pumpkin... I mean, a 200-400/4 VR... I certainly noticed. The longest 2/3 of my zoom range had vanished.
There is a huge jump in performance and I also decided that the hit on reach was an acceptable sacrifice. Definitely a sacrifice, though.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Oh yes, you are! When my 300-600/4 VR turned into a pumpkin... I mean, a 200-400/4 VR... I certainly noticed. The longest 2/3 of my zoom range had vanished.
There is a huge jump in performance and I also decided that the hit on reach was an acceptable sacrifice. Definitely a sacrifice, though.
curious if you got your D3s yet...I got mine and I love it. But I'm going from a D300 so it's obviously a MAJOR step in a lot of ways...wondering on the opinion of someone coming from the other flagships of the line.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Oh yes, you are! When my 300-600/4 VR turned into a pumpkin... I mean, a 200-400/4 VR... I certainly noticed. The longest 2/3 of my zoom range had vanished.
There is a huge jump in performance and I also decided that the hit on reach was an acceptable sacrifice. Definitely a sacrifice, though.
While I don't have a D3 serries camera, I do have the D700. I find the D300 makes a great long reach camera to complement the D700. For that reason I will likely always have both DX and FX in my lineup. Just like I have different lenses for different applications, I use different bodies depending on what I am trying to accomplish. Ah, the beauty of choices!
As for the 70-200, it sounds like Nikon did it right - again. Maybe someday I will be able to add one, but with my current lens lineup (including both the 70-200 VR version I and the 80--200 for FX) I am hard pressed to justify the purchase. My wife wasn't too happy when I bought the 80-200, so I know how another 70-200 would go over.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
The only problems are that there are a few shots I'm simply not getting because the X can't hit 8 FPS like the D300 did, nor is the buffer as deep as either the D300 or D3, nor is the ISO anywhere near what the D3 or D3S delivers.
Someone who posts as Brainiac claims that for equivalent sized prints, a high pixel density camera at high ISO is on a par with a low pixel density one at high ISO. I think he claims the 5D2 matches or beats the D3. Does this match your experience with a D3x?
LeifG wrote:
Someone who posts as Brainiac claims that for equivalent sized prints, a high pixel density camera at high ISO is on a par with a low pixel density one at high ISO. I think he claims the 5D2 matches or beats the D3. Does this match your experience with a D3x?
Best of luck with the D3x.
I tested this when I got my D3x. I shot some ISO 800 / 1600 images, upsized the D3 to D3x size, and the D3x was just a tad better.
Sold the D3 and haven't looked back.
What I'd really like to see is a D3x vs D3s comparison done the same way. D3s should easily win, but by how much is the question. If it's significant, I might have to pony up for one (but I'd really like another D3x - my wife is gonna kill me).
