I've only just noticed, that for whatever reason (?) when I left my camera out tonight taking 30sec exposures with a shutter release locked, it only saved 100 of the images to the card, despite there being about 3gb free!? Any idea why this is? From my calculations there should have been 3 times that many on there?
Yes, I believe 100 images is the limit on continuous shooting. Why not use the interval timer? 30 second exposures starting every 31 seconds?
Yeah I found the option for the limit,but why is it there? Surely it can just write stuff to the card empty it's buffer then carry on? Seems daft that there's a limit there at all.
I could use the interval timer certainly, but that would leave me with a 1 second gap in the star trail when i've stacked them.
Just beginning to believe that it is better to shoot RAW Camera offers:
a. Lossless compressed
b. Compressed
c. Uncompressed
then:
a. 12 bit
b. 14 bit
Bit daunted by all this, by default is uncompressed and 14bit best to use?
Appreciate some views, thank you.
Brian
Just beginning to believe that it is better to shoot RAW Camera offers:
a. Lossless compressed
b. Compressed
c. Uncompressed
then:
a. 12 bit
b. 14 bit
Bit daunted by all this, by default is uncompressed and 14bit best to use?
Appreciate some views, thank you.
Brian
It is? I didn't actually look at this feature in the manual yet, but my D200 shot WAY more than 100 images in a sequence using the interval timer. In fact, going through my D200's menu options right now, it caps out at 8,991 images (9 images per interval, to a maximum of 999 intervals).100 images is also the maximum when using the interval timer.
If all the technical gobbledegook on the subject bamboozles you, then 12 bit lossless compressed are the settings to use in the first instance. If you get confident that you understand the technicalities of it all, then feel free to switch to settings of your own choice at a later date.
Why would somebody choose lossless over lossless? That doesn't make any sense.Why you would ever choose lossless over lossless compressed is beyond me?
Why would somebody choose lossless over lossless? That doesn't make any sense.
So, just plain uncompressed then?He means lossless not compressed
That time has come and gone with the Nikon D100. Now they have dedicated hardware to accelerate the compression process (whether lossy or lossless) to the point where it's not really noticable.Its an interesting one, if we look into the future there may be a point where memory and buffers become that quick it is actually quicker to write uncompressed as opposed to the processor overhead required to compress the image (this would impact fps).
So, just plain uncompressed then?
That time has come and gone with the Nikon D100. Now they have dedicated hardware to accelerate the compression process (whether lossy or lossless) to the point where it's not really noticable.
Shooting compressed NEF on my old D100 took about 30 seconds per image to process.
Well, I did, but what I said still holds true. On the D100, the compression process did go through the standard CPU on the body, which is why it was so slow, and the need for hardware dedicated to just this process.I think you misread what I said - I said there may be a time when memory/buffer speed overtakes cpu speed to the point where its quicker to write uncompressed.
Can anyone help?
I've recently upgraded from a D50 to the D300s and used to use an infra red remote (the ML-L3), the manual for the D300s says that the ML3 is a possible accessory but I can't find out how to set the camera up to make it work. Does anyone know how to do it?
why was you gonna change if you dont mind me asking, what canon was you thinking of getting.Can a D300s owner join in too?
Mine arrives tomorrow.
I sold all my Nikon gear on here 2 weeks ago inc my D300, 24-70-70-200 vr, and 1.7TC. and intended to go back to Canon.
Then i inherited a Nikon 14-24 lens (something i had wanted for ages) i was going to sell it to help my Canon fund but i had a complete change of heart and would have liked the D700 but i want to get into wildlife and birds so opted to come back to a D300s, not interested in the video but the info button, dual cards and keeping it's price were my main reasons for buying.
i have also brought another 24-70 and 70-200 VR and am looking for a 300MM F4 a bit later on.
Has anyone else gone to the D300s and was it worth it?
looking for a 300MM F4 a bit later on.
Has anyone else gone to the D300s and was it worth it?
Went from the D200 to the D300s, and it was definitely worth it (even if you forget about the free SB-900). Although, unlike you, the HD Video abilities are a big bonus in my case.
Just on the 300mm f/4. I've owned the 300mm f/4 AF-S for about 5 years now, and as much as I love it, if you can wait and save a bit longer, I'd go for the 300mm f/2.8 VR if you can or even the 200-400mm f/4 VR.
I've really not used my 300/4 since picking up the 70-200VR, and with a 1.4x TC, you get a very similar focal length @ f/4, but with VR. I'd probably sell my 300 to put towards the 24-70 f/2.8 or something else to feed my NAS addiction if my wife didn't need a long lens to go do her wildlife thing (she ain't touching my 70-200VR :nono
Thanks for that, I had the 1.7 TC on my old 70-200 VR and it was terrible i guess from what you are saying the 1.4 is a better match?
Went from the D200 to the D300s, and it was definitely worth it (even if you forget about the free SB-900). Although, unlike you, the HD Video abilities are a big bonus in my case.
I was going to shoot our county dart match today with my D300 & 70-200 f2.8 lens but it's quite a dark nightclub with the stage barely lit apart from the board area so the players would show up as silhouette's, also the practise area is much the same.
I had a try in my living room with just a lamp on and all i could get was 1/20th sec @ 135mm f2.8 and on ISO 1250, anymore and the noise would become unacceptable. I really need a D3 on my lens to make it far more worthwhile, any comments would be great.
Well my free SB900 finally came!