don_cooper

<div></div>

<p>Shun, I looked a little further into the combos that I can duplicate. With a D7100 and the 300mm F4E PF autofocus works fine with both my TC14E II, TC14E III, and also the TC17E.<br> Results are the same with the 500mm F4E.<br> This looks like a major screwup from somewhere in Nikon, to put the supposed incompatibilities into print for the entire planet to read is pretty puzzling. I wonder how many users switched to Canon or put off purchasing any of these 3 Nikon lenses due to this error. I'd hope that somewhere at Nikon an executive is blistering the paint on the walls to get this straightened out pronto. Looking forward to anything more you might hear from Nikon.</p>

<p>Don't understand that the new 500 will not autofocus with the TC14III. Since I frequently don't understand many things I just went outside with the new 500 with the TC14III and my D7100. I had received the 500 last Friday so I hadn't had a chance to do any shooting with it. Tried all kinds of combinations with the combo and autofocus was excellent throughout, crazy sharp too. Can't speak for any of the 600/TC combos but the 500 certainly does not have an autofocus problem with the TC14III. </p>

<p>Frans, a couple of questions. First (After importing a RAW file, you first have to save it and then import it again." Why/how are you importing it that causes the problem. When I want to open a RAW file I just open it like any other file. <br> Second question - Are you using the windows in the pop menus or are you looking at the full rez photo?<br> I ask these questions as I hate to think that anyone would make a decision on trying it based on your comments without trying the program first.</p>

<p>Sarah, I've done extensive editing on 16bit files without any issues. I can't vouch for every effect but I've used a lot of them and have no complaints. I couldn't care less about the preceding debate about the metadata and really don't think most people do, or would. I find it to be a solid application, I've been using X7 for a couple of months and am still waiting for the first crash.</p>

<p>Dan, the bluebird was taken with a Nikkor 300mm F4. Mary, this was with an android (Nexus 7) tablet, I"ve not noticed a shutter lag. Sometimes they get real close like in this photo (different equipment).</p><div></div>

<p>It's a big help for small birds. I use mine with a nexus 7 tablet, works great.</p><div></div>

<p>It does everything I need to do and does those things quite well. I prefer Capture NX2 for processing RAW files, PSP does handle them quite well but I like the availability of the color control points. I've never understood why so many photogs feel they need photoshop when this package is available. </p>

<p>Here's the instructions from page 89 of the manual. "<br> When two memory cards are inserted in the camera, you can<br />choose one as the primary card using the Primary slot selection<br />item in the shooting menu. Select SD card slot to designate the<br />card in the SD card slot as the primary card, CF card slot to choose<br />the CompactFlash card. The roles played by the primary and<br />secondary cards can be chosen using the Secondary slot<br />function option in the shooting menu. Choose from Overflow<br />(the secondary card is used only when the primary card is full),<br />Backup (each picture is recorded to both the primary and<br />secondary card), and RAW primary, JPEG secondary (as for<br />Backup, except that the NEF/RAW copies of photos recorded at<br />settings of NEF/RAW + JPEG are recorded only to the primary card<br />and the JPEG copies only to the secondary card)."</p>

<p>More important might be the optical resolution, the max youi've listed is for an interpolated resolution, much less important. The Epson has an optical resolution of 6400dpi while the HP is listed at 4800dpi. The other important spec is the optical density, the Epson is listed at 3.4, can't find one for the HP. I have no idea what 96bit contributes to quality.</p>

<p>If that printer uses dye inks that would be the primary reason. Dye based is great looking but not very permanent. Different permanence on different papers is not surprising.</p>

<p>On the KEH site, if you look in the lower right of the first page you'll see the link "KEHclassic.com" which brings up the original site layout (with the same products that are listed on the awful new site).</p>

<p>Jeff's suggestion is hard to beat. Simple, cheap,works good, does lots of other stuff besides displaying your photos, and he's right on sub $150, they're available for much less than that.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I don't think you'll get any opinions yet if the release date of August 28 still holds. I've been looking for opinions also but there just aren't any yet.</p>