joel_blacher

<p>Maybe, but I like what I have; I know what's coming out every time and it still always blows me away.</p>

<p>Well...<br /> 1-Warranty is a good point, but honestly I never had an issue since 2003 or 4...can't remember when exactly...whenever it came out. Great printer the whole time. A warranty wouldn't have helped this.<br /> 2-I have quite a bit of ink, so...not really an issue.<br /> 3-Don't really need better...the prints are never less than perfect.<br /> 4-Drivers always worked fine on XP and Vista (haven't tried 7 yet). If this is a driver issue...it just started out of the blue.<br /> So...I guess I'll see what other ideas float this way and go from there. Thank you for your response though...I do appreciate it.</p>

<p>happened.</p>

<p>I have had the printer since they came out and it has printed on without a hitch. Never more than a cleaning cycle and pattern check.<br /> So...had not printed on this one for about 8 months...<br />-Last week when I started it up, the power light didn't come on...printer did<br />-Printed just fine<br />-Today all of the lights were blinking incl. the cartridge lights inside.<br />-Wouldn't do a nozzle check.<br />-Powered down and restarted...printed a check.<br />-Have to use the monitor from the driver to see which cart. to change as all lights are flashing.<br /> Okay...so...is there some secret reset protocol or has a board or something just gone mad?<br /> Repair it? Is that worthwhile? I love the output from this printer, so there's no need from that perspective, but if it's $300 to fix and people are selling them for less than that or there is a significantly better product...?<br />I am open to all suggestions.<br />Oh...nature and wildlife primarily...nothing smaller than this one would be cool.</p>

<p>I've spent a lot of time with all of the Nikkor 2.8's and I concur with Joeseph...AF-I is the nicest 2.8 optically. The MF mechanism? I'm just so used to it that it doesn't bother me anymore. Takes even the 20eII without a hitch, and focus speed is close enough to the AFS lenses for my purpose. I did not care for the Sigma until it was down to 5.6, and that's not why I use a 300/2.8. I think the Nikkor VR version is also fantastic, but out of the group you asked about...the one I kept is the AF-I lens. I'm shooting wildlife from a tripod with this lens using all three Nikkor tc's.</p>

<p>I've been using TLR Sharpening Scripts for years with CS 3 and I just upgraded to CS 5. It has been a long time since I needed to download and install these, and I am not seeing where they go now? <br />I just tried putting them in >Presets>scripts but they don't show up like they used to in CS 3. There's a "stack" folder and an "event" folder within scripts. I didn't try them in either of those, but rather than screw it up...I'll just ask. I guess after I learn panels I can try those as well.<br />The actions all seemed to go in just fine.</p>

<p>The zoom simply does not have the resolving power and microcontrast of any of the macro lenses out there (of which the 200 is tops...I use (or used to use) almost all of the f-mount macros). You absolutely can get great images from the zoom with the 500D, but they will not be the same. Close enough? I don't know what your output objectives are or what your personal standards are. I sometime shoot the Tamron 70200SP macro and it is the sharpest zoom that I have ever used (including all of the Nikkors in this class). I love using it in certain situations where I need the zoom capability, but if I'm specifically shooting macro...I use a dedicated macro lens. I make a lot of pretty large prints and like to be able to crop if I have to. I feel that I need the highest quality image I can get. I'm sure a lot of people will say that using the zoom is just as good, and there will be a lot of pretty pictures posted. I'm just relaying my personal observations from <em>my</em> perspective. If you want to do occasional macro...the zoom is fine. If you want to explore macrophotography to it's fullest...get a macro lens...better still...get a few : )</p>

<p>Mekei from D-Link. Been using this grip since March of '09; it works great and has stood up to field use very well. I think I paid $60 after using an Ebay coupon. Comes with a AA carrier and an ENeL4 cap. I'm happy with it.</p>

<p>Hold on now. You said, "I am hoping for suggestions to improve my photography." That's what you wanted right? Well, lenses aren't going to do it. Exposure, mastering your depth of field (not necessarily maximizing it), understanding the flow and placement in your composition...those things will improve your photography (based upon what I saw...my opinion of course). If you are happy with what you shoot then that is great because that is all that really matters in the end, and photography is art...not a competition (art "contests" are something I have never understood...but I'm weird and I know it). But...since you're asking for the advice of trained eyes, we will tell you what we think. What you do with that input is up to you, but...you haven't "maxed-out on quality" with your current lenses and new ones won't make you a better photographer, and that's what you indicated you wanted advice about. Incidentally, I do a lot of wildflower/woodland plant photography...I can definitely use your site for ID assistance...thank you...that's cool for me!</p>

<p>The answer is not another lens...it's giving thought to composition, light, and technique. You can buy another lens if you want to, but that won't improve your photography. Don't just "hear"..."listen."</p>

<p>delete</p>

<p>You need to assess why it is that you don't use it. If it's that the size or FL range doesn't fit your style then the new one won't do you any good. </p>

<p>When I can't do something that need to do with what I already have.</p>

<p>Thank you for the response Richard. As with external HD's, there just aren't any out there that don't have reviews like you've given. I think that failure of these types of accessories is just a reality (unfortunately). At least with a hub there's no loss of data, so... I'll have to pick one.</p>

I have several external hard drives (6) along with a printer, wireless keyboard/mouse usb antenna, and a CS5000

scanner. I have need for a hub (or hubs) and I am curious as to which would be best suited to handle this task.

I'm looking at 7 port hubs from Belkin, D-Link, and Targus. Some have their own ac power sources and others

(Belkin for one) do not. Is one type preferable (another brand perhaps)? How many of these can I run? Any

input would be appreciated.

<p>Hair drier...no/low heat. Dry in two minutes or less.</p>

<p>I will agree that the AF difference is a factor between the 17 and 14, but I will respectfully disagree that there is an IQ difference that is significant and that the difference between 420 and 510 isn't significant. I have images wide-open with the 17 that are close in IQ to the lone prime and with post...no difference (with reference to large prints...not 100% crops...which are still impressive). Technique is much more of a factor with these combos than IQ. I've also had a couple of 50500HSM's and they were nowhere close to the Nikkor prime/tc combos. When I had the Sigma's I was very happy with them, but when I added the Nikkor and was able to compare... Anyway, I'm not "bashing" the Sigma...the Nikkor prime is simply that good.</p>

<p>Polarizers perform a specific task. Good coatings don't replace polarizers.</p>

<p>In my estimation it its. I have used the Sigma's (150 and 180), the Tamron 180 (and most of the other F-mount macros...but we're not discussing those focal lengths) for many years. I favor the 200 for it's image quality from wide to closed, it's bokeh, build and handling. Now I will say that if I had to do the same things with the Sigma 150, it is the one lens that I feel comes closest. Still...there is a clarity to images that I capture with the Nikkor that is just different. Perhaps part of it is that using that lens just feels like an extension of my body because I am so comfortable with it. I also shoot from a tripod (just about always), and this lens has a quality of inertia that renders it vibration free at almost any orientation (I have an RRS rail plate on it and I use it on a G1325/M20 combo and a Vel630/M10 combo). To be clear, "best" macro lenses are tough to advocate for because they are all so very good. I do have a few favorites though...this is number one for me.</p>

<p>I've never used it for anything other than macro work. I that capacity I find it to be the finest macro lens ever made for Nikon SLR/DSLR's. As a general purpose lens it that range I would not recommend this lens. The Sigma 150 is very close in performance (please don't quote photozone testing...I'm using both of these in the field currently, and my observations are based upon thousands of images). It is less expensive and AF's much faster (as does the 180...a shade less sharp at wider f's). They are better choices for general use. The 200 is a highly specialized piece of equipment and expensive. For macro exclusively it would be my recommendation, but not for GP. Even better for what you seem to be trying shoot would be the 300 f4 AFS, which is great optically even with tc's, has fast AF, and gets exceptional closeup performance. I carry these three with me almost always and the 300 gets used a lot. You can photograph a bird and turn around and capture a flower without changing lenses. As I've stated in the past...that is a very powerful tool.</p>

<p>Just read this thread...like I said...you're better off trying it yourself cuz evaluations are all over the place. I didn't follow that advice when I went down that road...my mistake. There's another site that has posters from time to time who claim that the 70300VR has IQ that is equal to a 300 f4 prime. That's the kind of statement that pretty much dashes your credibility among experienced photographers. Unfortunately there are inexperienced shooters trying to learn, and some of them listen to advice like that. You really can't know if someone's personal criteria is anywhere near what yours is. Get one try it...can't lose that way.</p>

<p>next post plase : )</p>

<p>I should add that my experience is strictly DX with this lens.</p>

<p>This is one lens that I would strongly recommend trying for yourself. Either people who love it lack objectivity; I'm extremely unlucky with this particular lens; or it has the widest range of QC tolerances of any lens I've heard of. I read about it, and looked at webshots, and decided to give it a try...no good for what I was doing...then another (people told me about the "good copy/bad copy deal)...same thing. To date I've had three of them and did not care for the output above 250mm and/or wider than 7.1 for large prints (>8x10ish). It's also terribly behaved on a tripod (of any size), which in its defense...it's not designed for. If my applications were different I would have enjoyed keeping it, and I may try another some day. It is easily portable, well-made, and has decent AF speed. I thought I could replace a 2.8 zoom with one...I couldn't. Anyway, try one and you may love it. If not, it should be cake to sell because it is a very popular consumer lens.</p>

<p>I've seen so many images (print and web) from enough DLSR's shot at high ISO's that most people complain give "terrible" results to conclude that much of the "terrible" is exposure and post processing competance...not all of it...but a lot.</p>

<p>I shoot a 2.8 and I wouldn't sell/trade the f4AFS. One of the finest lenses that Nikon has produced in my experience. The Kirk collar is indispensable to me for tripod shooting, but if it weren't available...I'd find a way...it's that good. That, of course is my opinion as a nature photographer...I'll not speak for anyone else.</p>