http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm

Evidently Ken now has a 5D Mk III.

Russ Lewis
www.FineArtSnaps.com

Not so much dumb but a poorly written opinion piece. More power to him.

He makes money from commissions on sales routed through his web site. He raved about the D800 until he could not make any money because there were no new sales but every store has 5DIII sitting on the shelf that are potential sales commission to him. What else would he do but switch?

Remember he also said all anyone needed was JPG and the best camera in the world....D40. His income is not from his photography but web sales driven by recommendations of whatever is available. If he was not making controversial comments that get people angry or surprised his web counter would not be clicking over so much. At least he honest enough to state that one should not take him seriously or as being factually correct.

Don't be surprised if he does not secretly shoot his jpg snap shots and family events with a D800, he might be a mercenary but he is not dumb.
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

So, he repeats several times how much he is not getting paid from the brands, enough to build a suspicion that Stan's opinion seems quite spot on.

Also, why is he comparing the ISO from the D800 with the keepers at high ISO's from the Canon?

These are two completely different platforms at high ISO.

If he was using the D4 it would make more sense and is a false equivalency, the guy is a borderline fraud.

The Canon folks concentrate on noise issues as part of the video which likely is tanking because the MK3 is simply not that much better than the MK2 with Technicolor patches, and so those bodies sitting on the shelf need to move, and well, KR's web hits are stagnant as pointed out.

As noted in the DSLR Video threads, after post production, the D800 is sharper with more DR which he quixotically admits???

Point is, yes, thanks to the D3S, high ISO's were the new playground for sensors, and shooting on auto ISO with one, has been a success in non flash situations.

It was a matter of time before Canon, feeling eclipsed by Nikon, brought out a competing body, and the D4 replaced the D3S in Nikon's line at the same time.

I've decided to keep the D3S until the D4S arrives, so high ISO shooting, well, it's really not for the casual user and KR's not really a forensics shooter so has he finally figured out he CAN shoot in predawn or darkness, with decent results?

The complaints about ergonomics, and his retrograde comparatives to what the D7K does have, is trite.

I've quickly learned to use the ISO button on the D800 and seriously question his temerity in either sense of the word, he seems so intent on smooching Canon's (_ _ _), all of a sudden, it seems reasonable to suggest as does Stan, because he's known for Nikon, Canon seekers will not migrate through his site generally.

Oh, and enlargements? Please don't even go there, the laws of physics preclude the 24MP Canon from being as availed to that science as the 36MP sensor in the D800, with very rare and unusual exception, like say, a shot in the dark.

Desperation reeks on this one, and I hope he makes enough in click through to buy a stock of Duracell's at Costco, to keep his cattle prod at the ready.

As Bill the Cat would say, pffft.

Rob

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Sort of like watching a train wreck in slow motion.. you see the stupid coming, but cant look away

Visit My Website Nikon Fanboy.

I'm glad to know that Ken finally has a good camera that doesn't suffer from too many pixels…

Jon Kandel
A New York City Nikonian and Team Member
Please visit my website and critique the images!

Its a mighty camera indeed, apparently it has rendered both

f/2.8 lenses and Zoom lenses

obsolete.

Visit My Website Nikon Fanboy.

Glad to hear that not much has changed since I last looked at his site 5 or so years ago.

Mick
http://www.mickklassphoto.com
or
Visit my nikonians gallery

Who would anyone ever even read his reviews when they are money driven?

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
Abraham Lincoln
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)

Although I have opinions about some of his statements, he is not a fool or dumb. He found a way to make his bobby support himself and "his growing family" and does not hurt anyone. Maybe a used car salesman, but not a crook or fraud. There is a possibility that manufacturers do not pay him directly but I would be surprised if offers have not been made, or free 5DIII's. Such opinion forming web sites drive sales more than traditional print advertising by far. In my own industry now, in this one market a positive enthusiastic post on a popular cruise forum equals $50,000 in additional sales. So there is every effort to fake or influence opinion. He has a following and on his word a lot of equipment is purchased so manufacturers would naturally coming around wanting to be friends. There is no opinion, if it even remotely related to sales, or view, or statement in film, TV or high volume blogs that are not placed there for a reason and consideration. The stakes are too high to leave opinions to people to make themselves. Negative opinions expressed or negative representations of competitor's products are worth even more than positive ones directed to your own. People remember bad impressions far more vividly and longer than praise.
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Hi Stan,

The comparatives in low light shooting, versus NOT weighing the D4 in that equation are more than a bit misleading, hence my comment borderline fraud.

Otherwise, sure, he's a carnival barker.

Rob

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I'm always amazed how he somehow can afford every camera and lens made.

Mike

Well, obviously he can't. I'm told that some of his reviews are based on press releases. So if the press release says the widget is superfast with superb ergonomics and has 15 stops of dynamic range, then his review says that "this widget is superfast with superb ergonomics and has 15 stops of dynamic range, which is why it's my #1 camera!"

Jon Kandel
A New York City Nikonian and Team Member
Please visit my website and critique the images!

<<In my own industry now, in this one market a positive enthusiastic post on a popular cruise forum equals $50,000 in additional sales>>

Thanks for the tip Stan. I wish cruise.co.uk would offer me a slice of the profits after all the detailed and honest cruise reviews I've posted there. Mind you, they do give a free book

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Ok, I'll add my rant on Ken Rockwell's "trashing" of the D800. Giving him the benefit of the doubt that he's not deliberately steering people to the 5DMkIII for the money:

His biggest complaint seems to be the need to use the menus to access various shooting mode settings on the D800, since he only shoots jpegs. Doesn’t he know that hardly anyone who spends the money on a camera of that level actually uses it that way? His complaints about the color balance in the Nikon are utter nonsense, especially since he likes to shoot his cameras set to over-saturated levels to begin with.

Pssst… Ken… shoot RAW and use Aperture or Lightroom and you will find an entire new world of quality and color control at your fingertips, without having to think about what buttons you need to press on your camera… just get over the idea that low rez 8 bit jpegs that your camera spits out are the cat’s meow…

He's also saying that if you want the extra image quality of the D800 then you should be shooting 4x5 film… that's pretty naive if he is serious, as shooting sheet film is way less convenient than any differences between a Canon button and a Nikon menu selection… plus with the 4x5 camera you are much more limited on lenses and flexibility… But at least he is admitting that the D800 can give you that level of quality if you don’t try to treat it like a snapshot camera like he does.

He doesn’t seem to understand that the D800 is not intended to compete with the 5DIII, anyway, but rather as a lower cost alternative to a medium format digital in the studio or for professional landscape use… that’s exactly how Nikon markets it, not as a 5DMkIII killer. It is simply not sold to be a family photo camera or for occasional shots of restroom trashcans or neon signs at truck stops like he does. If Nikon wanted to go head to head with the Canon, they would have come out with a D700MkII. Instead they give us the D800, which is a true game changer even if guys like Ken Rockwell say that nobody needs more than 6 megapixels...

Steve

A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

http://stephen-bishop.com

Once again, I am reading a thread in which you geniuses have nothing better to do than to knock Ken Rockwell. This is not a high point for this forum.
I have read Rockwell's reviews on the D800/E. He is not saying that the D800 is a bad camera. What he does say is that the ergonomics and the low light performance is not as good as the new Canon offering. That's it.
He is entitled to his opinions, and ergonomics is always just that, one's opinion. Moreover, I have read some comments from experienced well regarded posters on THIS forum that have also complained about the D800's ergonomics.
Rockwell's opinion relative to the D800's low light performance happens to track with the recent Popular Photography review of the D800. Pop Photo was not particularly impressed with the D800's low light/high noise performance. Pop Photo says the D800 is fine to about ISO 3200 and is not particularly stellar thereafter. Pop Photo felt that the new Canon offering was superior (noise levels much better/lower) down to ISO 12,500. That is a heck of a difference in low light performance (if accurate).
As for myself, I prefer superior low light performance to all these pixels. Since I do not blow up my photos to make 10 foot prints, or crop much, I personally don't need a 36 mp camera. And, in fact, I don't really want one due to the huge file sizes (and, honestly, the high cost of the camera).
Now I know that some of you are going to begin posting how their D800's can take dazzlingly bright wide angle photos using only a single lit candle in the center of the Roman Coliseum on a moonless night. Fine. Believe that if you wish.
So different horses for different courses. Please don't diss the Rockwell guy just because you disagree with his opinions.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Nobody is dissing him for his opinions, but just noting how his opinions often change with the direction of the wind and sometimes contradict his other opinions. The problem is when people rely on those opinions because he presents himself as an expert, when he really is (admittedly in his own words) just a guy who likes to take pictures and fool around by writing outrageous stuff. He also gets paid for referrals to some camera dealers from his website, so beware if he tells you to buy one camera over another one. (And the D800 just happens to be out of stock everywhere, so nobody can actually buy one through those referrals right now... hmmmmmmm....)

No other reviewers have complained about the ergonomics of the D800 as he has, but actually the opposite is true. The D800 is a very ergonomic and user-friendly camera.

The D800 actually costs less than the 5DMkIII, and it easily outperforms even less expensive cameras in terms of low light performance. PopPhoto may have been unimpressed with its high ISO capability at the pixel level, but at the image size level the high pixel count actually results in cleaner looking prints than their test data would suggest. And regardless of the ISO number, the D800 does not suffer from the shadow noise problems that many have noted in the 5DMkIII.

It's easy for someone to say they don't need all those pixels, but if you actually use them you will see that it isn't about making 10 foot prints, but rather all the image detail you can capture at any print size, let alone the cropping flexibility it gives you. And the dynamic range it has is nothing short of amazing. These are truly substantial things, which is why it is so hard to get a D800 right now. But if you choose to believe Ken Rockwell, all you need is a 6 megapixel camera for anything, and if you are a "real" photographer then you should be shooting film anyway.

Steve

A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

http://stephen-bishop.com

Good reply. I will say that the three reviewers that I have consistently found to be the most accurate are Markus Stamm (Photozone), Bjorn Rorslett, and Ken Rockwell. Tom Curious from this forum also makes very accurate posts which I have found to be extremely helpful. I have purchased products based on their recommendations and have never been mislead or disappointed. They ended up being good purchases. I cannot say the same for anyone else. And what most concerns me is that Rorslett, Rockwell, and Tom have not been effusive in their praises of the D800. I think that Rorslett and Tom have received a series of defective cameras. So, when my most respected reviewers are cool on a product, I look elsewhere. It is what it is. What I don't do is condemn or ridicule the reviewer.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I can't find anything (good or bad) about the D800 on Bjorn Rorslett's own website. Has he posted his views elsewhere?

We all have our favourites, but I find it hard to believe that you have been misled or disappointed by every reviewer other than those three!

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

Brain, LOL! You are quite correct. I meant to say "everyone else" not "anyone else." I am glad you spotted that -- good catch. See, it is good that you are back!

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Mmmm, I think I'll stick to Thom Hogan and Nasim Mansurov and last, but certainly not least the Nikonian pundits!

Ken Rockwell is well, Ken Rockwell. It's not the place that would be my first port of call when considering how to spend my hard earned, but each to their own and yes, he has a growing family to feed too! It's a tough world, so good luck to him.

I think a serious critique has to be technically correct, balanced, well thought out and helpful. This is probably why in my world pre-ordering a new model is as about as likely as me buying a new car without a test drive. Someone has to do it, but not me I'm afraid

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Doesn't KR know that a 36 MP image down sampled to 22 MP will always look better and less noisy than the same image shot at 22 MP, assuming all other variables to be equal? It sounds like he is twisting himself quite hard in order to like the Canon.

Actually, Thom Hogan recently ran a column that discussed the unusually high number of defective D800 cameras he had encountered thus far. Again, not a glowing endorsement of the D800 by Mr. Hogan.
Look, I think that the D800 is a good camera, and may be a great camera for those that need its 36 mp (i.e., for cropping, or for very large prints). Since my needs are admittedly much more modest, as is my budget, I just do not need this camera. I would be much more interested in a lower priced FX camera that is comparatively smaller and lighter, and excels in low light situations. I just don't need all those pixels as I do not crop much or print very large photos (i.e., greater than 11 x 13 inches).

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

It is obvious you are looking for straws to bolster your opinion that has been influenced by very biased and illogical claims by Ken Rockwell. You know of course that he praised the D800 as the best camera ever until he found he could not get commissions when they were in such sort supply.
The reason well respected reviewers rave about the camera, including Thom Hogan who you suggests is panning it due to running into some that needed adjustment, has little to do with printing large but because so far, no camera excels in as many meaningful photographic criteria. For example it competes favorably with the best MF cameras up to 800 ISO but after that it pulls rapidly away. Its AF is faster and more accurate, in lower light than the best sports and action cameras out except possibly the D4 in some conditions. It has far better image quality, lower noise and more flexible files than any Canon ever made, including Ken's sudden favorite, 5dIII which has some serious issues that are carried over from the 5DII. The list goes on but why did KR miss those pretty significant traits that no camera had before? Oh, yeah, he did not miss them, he praised it greatly until he found his income dropped because there were no D800's sitting unsold on dealer shelves and needed to find a product to push that WAS sitting collecting dust on shelves.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but he is deceiving readers who do not know better to make a buck, and he knows it. That is not a favorable personality trait, and it calls into question every thing he ever says as a result. That is why so many people who DO know better are angry has his blatant lies and manipulation of less sophisticated readers. If he will lie about something that is so easily proved wrong, he will lie about anything.
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

KR says that if you need more resolution than the 5dM3 can provide, you should shoot medium format 4x6. Let's take that again in slow motion. He's saying that if you want the 36 MP the D800 has to offer, you should rather spend 3x-5x the cost of a D800 plus put up with all of the frustrations and shortcomings of film and medium format cameras, plus the cost of getting that film drum scanned. This makes absolutely no sense, none whatsoever, unless his sole motivation was to discourage D800 sales at all costs.

That comment alone should call KR's credibility into question. He strikes me as a guy who got lucky taking a few good photos with his 6 MP camera that may have been sold to someone or found some limited acclaim, and now thinks of himself as a "pro" photographer. After reading two of his articles, it's pretty obvious to me that KR takes decent point-and-shoot photos of his kids and likes to have himself photographed with very large and long lenses in order to make him look more like a "pro". He might as well use my 10 year old Olympus digital camera.

I am happily shooting stock photos with my D800 at a quality level

<<That is why so many people who DO know better are angry has his blatant lies and manipulation of less sophisticated readers.>>

Stan, right or wrong, but is Nikonians the correct place to vent these feelings so vociferously.

Just a thought.

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

I don't know if it is vociferous venting for someone to warn fellow Nikonians about misleading info on someone's websitge. If some are angry about how that kind of thing can lead others astray, especially beginners who are looking for genuinely helpful advice, then so be it.

Steve

A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

http://stephen-bishop.com

All we ask is that we don't stray into a situation where members start attacking each other or ramp up the insults to an unprofessional degree. That hasn't happened in this thread to date.

Ken Rockwell has made deliberate choices regarding his writing style, as well as information on his website, and people will react to those choices. It's completely fair and reasonable to have discussions about the validity of the information and conclusions he presents.

Rick Walker

My photos:
GeoVista Photography

Download from our library of Image Doctor podcasts here

I was replying as I thought this was getting a bit personal and in particular the words "blatant lies and manipulation". I am well aware of KR's reviews, his preferences etc. etc. I'm not sure where this thread is going to be honest. It's not our job to save others from something when no one can prove motive or intent relating to a website.

I would just be guarded against inappropriate comments, which may get out of hand especially legally.

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Where did I say anything that was a vent of feelings?
I was explaining, accurately, why so many people are angry with his lies while a prior poster was defending him as an "industry expert".

Facts are not usually dismissed as "feelings" nor is reporting them usually described as "venting".
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Stan, I fully understand how feeling can get heated. Please see my reply a few moments ago to an above post as mine and yours must have crossed.

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

It isn't condemning the reviewer, but giving an honest evaluations of the reviews for what they are. Ken Rockwell's reviews are anything but objective, as they always seem to dwell on what he thinks is important rather than on a camera's actual capabilities or the kind of results you can expect from it. The things he complains most about are often very trivial, and he dismisses things that are actually important by saying things like nobody needs more than 6MP. The guy brags about shooting pro level gear at low resolution jpeg settings, for goodness sake.. or that an inexpensive Canon p&s camera gives equivalent results to a 5D... or that the D70 made film obsolete, until he decided that film is "real RAW" and that serious photographers only shoot film. It isn't condemning him as a person, just taking his words at face value -- how can anyone take his reviews very seriously?

Steve

A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

http://stephen-bishop.com

<<As for myself, I prefer superior low light performance to all these pixels>>

No arguments from me on that one. I've never been interested in the D800 from an FX aspect as I don't print larger than 16 x 12 inches and my D700 copes with that very, very well. It's low light capabilities and low noise still amazes me. To be truthful and whilst not trying to be controversial in any way, I haven't seen an image yet which could not have been achieved with the D700 and pro glass to my eye. That said, my only interest lay in the crop to DX for reach, which as a wildlife shooter I dismissed due to both low fps, cost and it was never designed for my wildlife needs.

I am looking forward to a new APS-C and missing out at least this generation of FX offerings

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Ken Rockwell recommending a good camera such as the new Canon. As noted previously, Mr. Rockwell did not state that the Nikon D800 was a bad camera. He merely preferred the ergonomics and the general performance of the Canon. That is his opinion and he is entitled to it.
Moreover, some of you have ridiculed Mr. Rockwell for allegedly favoring the Canon as a result of the Nikon D800/E largely being out of stock. Now think about that ... Mr. Rockwell is recommending a camera (i.e., the new Canon) that is generally available for purchase over a camera that is largely vaporware and is unavailable for purchase (i.e., the Nikon D800/E). What is so freaking strange about that? I, too, would recommend a good camera that is currently available over one that is not. Kinda makes sense, doesn't it, when you really think about it? And that doesn't even take into consideration that a fairly substantial amount of the few D800's that have thus far been shipped are defective.
Really, has Ken Rockwell done anything but be reasonable and provide his opinion?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Mr. Becke,

No it does not make sense. Of course, he is entitled to his opinion. No one disputes that.

The reason he favors a camera that is in stock is because if you click on that camera on his site, it is linked to a sales site, B&H, etc. He gets a commission each time someone buys anything that is through his link. Of course, he want to put in links, and favor links that lead to sales, hence money in his pocket. He has a perfect right to do that also, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the camera.

To call the D800 largely vaporware is pretty absurd. Most of us her have acquired one. If you put in an order at your local Best Buy now you can probably have one in a few days if they don't have one on site. It is anything but vaporware. It does not make sense to recommend a camera as being superior to another simply because it is sitting on a shelf at your camera store. If that was the criteria, a) he should state it; b) there are a lot of cheap and inferior cameras that are even more available than the Canon 5DIII.

You do not know that a "fairly substantial" amount of the "few" D800s that have been delivered have been defective. I think it is more like "a few" of the substantial number of D800s that have been shipped and delivered have had a defect.

Larry Miller, Annapolis, MD
D700/D800
http://www.pbase.com/lmmiller9
http://lmmillerphotography.smugmug.com/

Let's take this a piece at a time, shall we?

> There is absolutely nothing wrong with Ken Rockwell
>recommending a good camera such as the new Canon.

You're absolutely right, nothing wrong with that.

>previously, Mr. Rockwell did not state that the Nikon D800 was
>a bad camera. He merely preferred the ergonomics and the
>general performance of the Canon. That is his opinion and he
>is entitled to it.

Yes, so let's make a special point of remembering exactly what you just said.

> Moreover, some of you have ridiculed Mr. Rockwell for
>allegedly favoring the Canon as a result of the Nikon D800/E
>largely being out of stock. Now think about that ... Mr.
>Rockwell is recommending a camera (i.e., the new Canon) that
>is generally available for purchase over a camera that is
>largely vaporware and is unavailable for purchase (i.e., the
>Nikon D800/E). What is so freaking strange about that?

Here we clearly have two issues. The first issue is that the D800 is not "vaporware", as you call it. I have two of them, both working perfectly, so these cameras clearly do exist and are available for purchase all over the country to anyone who wants to buy them. In fact, Best Buy has them in stock regularly 1-2 times per week on their web site. The same goes for Crutchfield, Walmart, Nikon's own online store, and other national online resellers.

The second problem with your statement is that now you are somewhat conceding what others here are saying, and which you denied earlier, which is that KR actually dislikes the D800 due to its lack of availability. Yet also in the beginning you said KR dislikes the D800 for ergonomic and certain unspecified "performance" issues. So which is it?

If KR's dislike for the D800 is fueled by its limited availability, then he should be forthright in saying so. Instead, he focuses on the camera features and writes in two different articles about how poor the D800 is, when those of us who own and use this camera clearly disagree with his amateurish findings. Combined with the fact that he makes a living off people clicking on his affiliate purchase links, and it quickly starts to look like you are right - that he doesn't like the D800 due to availability because he makes less money by promoting a camera that is out of stock - but is a coward to say so, instead opting to criticize the camera for having too many megapixels. Imagine that as a criticism - that the camera captures too much detail. If that isn't the remark of an arrogant, uninformed individual, I don't know what is. That's like saying nobody will ever need more than 64K in a computer, and people said that a long time ago.

>I, too, would recommend a good camera that is currently
>available over one that is not. Kinda makes sense, doesn't
>it, when you really think about it?

Yes, makes sense, so KR should man up and tell the truth instead of hiding behind a bogus comparison between what is a landmark technical achievement in the DSLR world compared to a camera sporting a 2 year-old sensor with clearly inferior image quality.

>And that doesn't even
>take into consideration that a fairly substantial amount of
>the few D800's that have thus far been shipped are defective.

That is an absolutely false statement that you have no way of backing up with any factual data. I have two that are functioning perfectly, so based on my first hand and anecdotal experiences, I can say exactly the opposite - that a fairly substantial amount of D800s shipped are NOT defective. Those who think their D800s are defective may simply be unfamiliar with the advanced controls, the over 5 million (or billion) options that seem to confuse KR even though he's able to use a much more advanced device - his PC - on a regular basis, or that the incredible resolving detail of this camera has brought attention and visibility to defects in other areas - for instance, lenses or even the technique of the photographer.

> >mis-aligned make the camera defective by any reasonable
>interpretation of that concept.]

Again, this is simply your opinion and not based on any factual data. I have already seen people in other forums retract their statements about AF issues because their testing technique was flawed. One person said "oh the latest firmware update seems to have fixed my focus issues" - and what a load of manure that is because Nikon has done nothing in its firmware updates to change the camera's focusing behavior. So there we have another person who didn't really have a focusing issue to begin with, just flawed testing methodology that gave inconsistent results.

> Really, has Ken Rockwell done anything but be reasonable
>and provide his opinion?

Have any of us not been the same way, just in the opposite direction? And why is that less valid in your mind?

AZBlue, You are correct relative to my earlier "defective" comment. I have been reading this and other forums and there appears to have been a fairly sizable quantity of complaints about the D800's AF, firmware, etc. Some of the experts have also remarked on some related issues with the D800/E.
However, these other posts may or may not be accurate. Using anecdotal evidence to try to make a point is not really a good general practice. Accordingly, I think that your last point is well taken regarding my comment on the defective cameras. Therefore, I now formally retract that part of my prior post. Thank you for pointing this out.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I generally don't read KR blog, but you guys made me go to it.

Here is one of the dumbest statements I have heard:

"On consumer electronics products like the D800, we now have 845 different options and menu items, which provide a total of over 5,439,486,960,532 different combinations of settings — of which only one is correct.

"It takes a lot longer to set-up a D800 for each new shot, and all that time is spent worrying about our camera, staring at its menu LCD, instead of thinking about our picture."

Only one is correct? Wow! taking pictures with this camera must be really difficult. Well, I have found the ONE. Auto ISO and "P" Mode. Amazing how many good pictures you can take with that one setting.

Larry Miller, Annapolis, MD
D700/D800
http://www.pbase.com/lmmiller9
http://lmmillerphotography.smugmug.com/

<<Well, I have found the ONE. Auto ISO and "P" Mode. Amazing how many good pictures you can take with that one setting.>>

Absolutely right and with my D700 I saved what would have been a disastrous wedding shoot last year, due to lighting difficulties using auto ISO "P" mode. Interestingly, when I posted my results a wedding pro, said ""P mode at a wedding, is there any other setting to use"

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery