fred_bonnett2

Russ - For the last 23 years I have sold pictures for a living. However, my clients require more than OK 8x10's. So, I guess your lucky to have such forgiving customers.

 

As for the lens - the one I tested was snapshot quality - good 4x6's and 5x7's for your album but hardly anything to get excited about. It really is a chunk of plastic that is loosely put together and at closer distances it's focal range is 20 to 135 mm.

 

If that kind of lens profile fits your needs - go for it. For most applications a P&S would do the same job and be a lot more convenient.

 

Happy shooting.

Bruce Said: "Corner crops showed some weakness but enlargements up to 8x10 generally look okay"

 

 

Bruce - My point is that the final picture size determines the quality of the equipment you take to the shoot. For 8x10 prints shot at f8 it doesn't matter whether you use an 70-200 f.2.8 or your 18-200 or a good 8MP P&S - the results will be indistinguishable. In fact I've gotten great 8x10's from a Canon 4MP G3.

 

Please forgive if I'm wrong, but the above quote tells me that your happy with "OK" 8x10's. If so why hang a great chunk of wobbly plastic on the front of a rather heavy body and carry it around all day. To me it makes more sense to buy a P&S for the same money as the lens - it is lighter more compact and can have the same zoom ratio. As for the quality of the results, it doesn't take much to meet the 18-200 lens' quality.

 

So, if OK 8x10's are the standard, why not the more convenient camera.

Bruce - My point is that if all you require is 8x10's of acceptable quality and that you want one lens that goes from wide angle to telephoto (such as the 18-200) why bother with a D80 and a Nikkor lens. Take your snapshots with a snapshot camera. The results will be just as good as from the Nikkor super zoom and the camera will be ever so much lighter and more convenient.

 

If you want larger prints and are serious about what they look like, then you should definitely get one of the D cameras and a couple of good Nikkor or other manufacturer's lenses and forget about super-zooms.

Erik - I'm refering to the type III cards - I ended up with 100 or so images where the top half of the image was fine and the bottom half were just a series of lines. The images were taken rapidly in the NEF format with a D200. That card worked fine before and after this problem.

 

I never followed up with testing but, attributed that isolated problem to using a CF card formatted in a D70s in a D200.

For real convenience at the same price why not get one of those "point and shoot" cameras with an 11:1 zoom ratio. Much lighter and smaller with the same quality of results?

I lost all the pictures on a Sandisk card that was formatted in a D70s and then used in a D200. Now, I always keep the cards seperated.

 

Shun - There's no switch on the current Sandisk Extreme III 4.0GB cards. The 4GB card now looks just like your picture of the 2GB card.

Nothing looks sharp - surely, the lens can do better than this example?

Geoff Sobering - I never used a D40 or GIMP but, my understanding is that the D40 has a 10MP sensor not a 6 to 8 MP sensor. So a Nef image would be 16 to 17 MB and the corresponding tiff would be 58 to 60 MB. After short work on such a tiff the resulting image file can easily be 150MB.

 

Neophytes to digital photography often forget that the computer is an integral part of the "camera outfit". I'll stick with my original assertion - you need a pretty good computer with 2 to 4 GB of RAM.RAM.

For scanning slides I don't know - but, for scanning color negs on my 8000ED it makes a difference --- including the white or clear borders will sometimes cause the scanner to introduce a series of fine vertical lines across the image.

I've never seen a Nikkor metal flange break --- even after years of intensive use. Don't you think that a premier name like Nikon's should not be associated with crap lens mounts?

You've left one thing out. You need a pretty good computer with 2 to 4 GB of memory.

Very nice review. The main problem with the lens is that 8x10's are as large as you can confidently shoot for. Great lens for vacation snapshots.

 

One of those point and shoot cameras with an 11:1 zoom ratio would be even more convenient.

In Windows XP: go to "Control Panel" then "Scanners and Cameras" --- there you can remove your unwanted scanner.

Dust in the lens won't show --- the iris doesn't show-right. I bought my f3.5 new in the late 60's --- at that time it was the sharpest 35mm lens "Modern Photography" had tested. It's still a great lens.

I scanned Hassy negs for 8 years (last scanner = 8000 ED) before switching to digital 2.5 years ago. The scanned Hassy stuff is better than my Nikon D200 with prints larger than 16x20. For prints smaller than 16x20 the D200 output actually looks better.

 

Note that scanning is a time consuming pain in the...!

Merel - one more thought - make sure you've cleanly pulled the tape off the top of each cartridge - the tape needs to be cleanly removed so that the exposed channel can let air in as the ink is used - a partially clogged channel could cause a flow restriction that would show after the printer had run for that first half inch.

Merel - If you've run the clean routine at least 10 times and if the nozzel check is coming out fine then my next step would be to replace all the cartridges (you might have a cartridge that has a flow constriction). I would call Epson support and describe the problem (USA 562-276-7296) - tell them your a professional and they will probably drop-ship you a new machine and set of cartridges. You might also go to Epson support at http:/support.epson.com.

 

I had a similiar looking problem a couple of years ago - it arose from a color negative scanning problem in a Nikon 8000 scanner. Do you get they same lines regardless of the sorce of the image (camera type or scanner)? Can you see the lines on your screen? Do you get the lines when printing color images?

 

On the second page of the Epson driver you should chose "best photo" and uncheck the boxes "high speed" and "edge smoothing".

 

Best of luck - keep us posted

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Frans - You mustn't believe everything you read - the heads dry out if the R2400 is left on. I've proved it more times than I care to remember. A friend of mine owns and runs a couple of "old time" portrait studios. The kind, in resort towns, that has people dress-up in old time costumes and produces finished photos on-the-spot. He had constant clogging problems till he trained the employees to turn off the Epson printers during slack times and at night. BTW I live and work in the semi-desert region.

Frans - I've have and have had more than 10 high-end Epson printers and print more than 150 8.5x11 and larger prints per month. On every Epson printer you should definitely turn the machine OFF when not in use. Clogging invariably follows leaving the machine turned on for long periods of non-use. Either turn it off or figure you'll throw away $5 to $10 worth of ink unglogging it.

 

Merel - just do as Tyler suggested - you may have to run the cleaning cycle many, many times.

I think Tyler is right. If you are not going to use the printer for an hour or so - turn it off. The 2400 will clogg if left on and unused for long periods of time.

In the lab the Zeiss lens is the winner but, in the feild the Nikkor produces equal or slightly better results.

Try doing hue/saturation without an adjustment layer (image>adjustment>hue/saturation). You may have had some sort of selection when you created the layer.

Dave - Have you checked the Epson software to make sure of all the settings? Check both the opening page and the advanced page. BTW in the advanced page under brightness is where you can adjust the printer to your calibrated monitor.

 

You've probably already checked this but, are you printing on the correct side of the paper?

 

One last thing - you can remove the excess green by increasing magenta - do this also on the advanced page.

Ray - When you tried the Sigma 12-24 something went terribly wrong - that lens shows no vinetting at 12mm with Nikon sensors and almost none with FF film. Did you have a thick filter or a misplaced sunshade in place? Perhaps you just took off the 72mm lens cap instead of removing the entire slide-on lens cap.

 

For speedy lenses I like both the 35mm 2.0 and the 50 1.8. Both are critically sharp wide open and are light, well built optics.

Nick: Your original choices are fine - I know the 10-20 and the 70-300VR will yeild superb professional results. I chose the Nikkor 18-70 for the mid range.

 

I keep a small "grab-it" bag with those 3 lenses plus a 50 1.8, a 35 2.0 and a 10.5.

 

You can compare the sharpness and contrast od the Nikkor 18-70 and the Sigma 17-70 at the following sites:

 

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3315&navigator=6

 

http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/dx/af-s_dx_zoom18-70mmf_35-45g_if/index.htm

 

They are both fine lenses with the Nikkor slightly better at the wide end and the Sigma slightly better at the long end.

As of a couple of years ago Epson's "Professional Media Photo Paper" was manufactured by Hammermill under the lable "Hammermill Super Gloss". It cost less than half of Epson's price but had to be bought in lots of 1000 sheets.