DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Camera splashed w/ water....but G lenses work?!
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 61 of 61, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/17/2013 01:52:27 PM · #51
Originally posted by Trotterjay:
It's not that a broken camera is causing Sue to fold on her photography pursuits. It's that life's problems have started to mount. Sometimes when you reach that point then the bucket becomes full and one more drop causes an overflow. That's what you've got here. She just has no more room, (at least right now), for any more problems in her life. I get it. I've been there.

I don't know Sue well but I can tell you that she always responded to my PM's qickly and with helpful information when I was trying to decide if I should purchase the D7100 or not. I ultimately did. She's a good DPC'er and I, for one, hopes she has a bit of good luck flow her way.

I'm sorry that I didn't see her here when I went on line this morning. Hopefully she'll be back stronger than ever! Good luck to you Sue.


+1
 11/17/2013 07:24:53 PM · #52
Thanks Tracey, Jay and Bear for kind words and PMs. Life does suck right now. Oddly enough in responding to a PM just now, before coming to the forums, I likened all the current problems I have to snowflakes. Tiny and harmless on their own but pack enough of them together and you have a snowball. So all my snowflakes have been well-packed into a snowball or two and I'm feeling somewhat walloped.

At least I have an appointment with the GP first thing tomorrow morning, hopefully she can tell me a few things, requisitison a blood test and maybe even send me off for a fine-needle aspiration of a suspect area located right beneath my left eye. My business demands a lot of attention, my clients have high expectations so I have to bury everything and get the work don and gun through everything else.

So though I *know* the camera issue is relatively small and harmless, it it like Jay said just that one last drop in the bucket making things overflow.

And I am STILL pissed off that a weather-sealed camera would be prove to be such a wuss... but that's neither here nor there. I have been told of an excellent camera tech who can and will do a complimentary look-see and give me some idea as to what is wrong but unless he is authorized by Nikon, I don't want him doing work and voiding the warranty.

Anyway. I don't know how much I'll be around for the next while.
 11/17/2013 07:50:18 PM · #53
Snaffles I do hope things work out and turn around for you. But I would like to point out that in order to retain the "weather sealing" of any camera system the lens attached to the front must also be weather sealed. In this case your lens was not and could be the weak link in allowing moisture to enter where it shouldn't be.

Matt
 11/17/2013 09:40:43 PM · #54
Originally posted by MattO:
...But I would like to point out that in order to retain the "weather sealing" of any camera system the lens attached to the front must also be weather sealed. In this case your lens was not and could be the weak link in allowing moisture to enter where it shouldn't be.


True, but there was no caveat in any of Nikon's literature stating any of this...if they say the body's weather-sealed, then they should be standing by that. I used to work in Advertising as a copywriter and you have to be especially careful about such claims as they lead to false and misleading ad claims. And issues just like this.

The message crops up with the 300mm too as it's a D-lens. It's a wildlife lens so I am assuming it's sealed to some extent.

And again, my un-weather-sealed D90 (the 2nd one, the first one was the lemon and that was an ongoing camera error) took far worse beatings in terms of dust, snow, hot/cold weather, rain etc and there were NEVER any issues like this.
 11/17/2013 10:35:36 PM · #55
Good to hear from you Susan. Take care of your health and personal matters. We'll be here waiting for you when you're ready to come back whether that's tomorrow or next year. Keep the faith and I wish you well.
 11/18/2013 12:32:25 PM · #56
OK well I have some news, good and not-so-good.

Good: went to Canadian Camera and all the guy did was play with the switches that lock the aperture to its minimum - which both Ryan and I had already done btw - and lightly run his finger over the contacts inside the camera. Eh wala, no more Fee. So though I still don't know wtf actually happened, at least I can use the D lenses again, my camera is with me and I don't have to send it on a paid vacation to Nikon.

Now the not-so-good news. The patch of reddened skin under my eye is indeed pre-cancerous. GP galloped from the consulting room and galloped back with a little container of something with dry ice in it and liberally applied a lot of freezing compound to it. Said to come back in a couple more weeks if skin is red/flaking.
 11/18/2013 01:35:17 PM · #57
Regardless of the laws of physics, a few people have the demonstrable ability to "lay hands" upon electronic equipment and make it work ... I highly recommend the short story "Uncle Fremmis" by Theordore Sturgeon -- it will almost certainly add to your understanding and perhaps contribute to your healing.

Your lesion was almost certainly zapped with liquid nitrogen -- dry ice isn't cold enough. At least it was in the "pre-" stage ... good luck!

Message edited by author 2013-11-18 13:37:37.
 11/18/2013 01:47:46 PM · #58
skin thingy Yeah I had me some cryosurgery, it was liquid nitrogen. At least keeping an eye on it won't be a problem
 11/18/2013 06:13:56 PM · #59
I think your news was positive on both fronts, all things considered.
 11/18/2013 06:38:46 PM · #60
Originally posted by Trotterjay:
I think your news was positive on both fronts, all things considered.


True..I could be facing a much worse diagnosis and at the very least 2 weeks without my camera. I think now that the tech must have managed to unjam something and it was slight enough that he didn't even notice it. All I know is both Red and I toggled those damn D-lenses switches a bazillion times over the last week to no effect.

So, sorry for drama and the huge buildup everyone...nothing to see here, move along...
 11/24/2013 05:37:47 AM · #61
Originally posted by snaffles:
Originally posted by MattO:
...But I would like to point out that in order to retain the "weather sealing" of any camera system the lens attached to the front must also be weather sealed. In this case your lens was not and could be the weak link in allowing moisture to enter where it shouldn't be.


True, but there was no caveat in any of Nikon's literature stating any of this...if they say the body's weather-sealed, then they should be standing by that. I used to work in Advertising as a copywriter and you have to be especially careful about such claims as they lead to false and misleading ad claims. And issues just like this.

The message crops up with the 300mm too as it's a D-lens. It's a wildlife lens so I am assuming it's sealed to some extent.

And again, my un-weather-sealed D90 (the 2nd one, the first one was the lemon and that was an ongoing camera error) took far worse beatings in terms of dust, snow, hot/cold weather, rain etc and there were NEVER any issues like this.


Nikon could probably do a better job of explaining the limitations of its weather sealing, but its obvious that your system won't be equally resistant with any lens on it, especially considering the fact that you can mount very old Nikon lenses.
Of note- I do NOT believe the 300 F4 is "weather sealed." What that bit generally refers to when it comes to lenses is a small gasket that you can find surrounding where it couples. Your 18-200 should have one. Look at it with the rear cap on. If you run your finger around the bottom, right next to the cap, you should see/feel a rubber gasket. Now, there's more to it than this, but this is generally the specific feature that is meant by "weather sealing." The general robustness of a lens varies in other ways too, with some lenses being more or less sturdy as a result of their general build, but don't assume the "grade" of a lens will indicate if its sealed or not (of note, neither of my 2.8 zooms are weather sealed, and they were both pro lenses, yet, my 18-200 has it). If you can't find the ring I'm talking about, tell me and I can upload a picture.

And so far as the camera bodies are concerned- it refers to inner gaskets and seals. Some of the models have illustrations showing where the gaskets actually are, if you're curious.
D7000 sealing vs d600 sealing. You'll note that the 600 has more sealing than the 7000 does. Compare with the D300s
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/08/2025 06:04:38 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/08/2025 06:04:38 AM EDT.