jdsuttonphotography

<p>It is called a "preset focus ring lock" by Nikon. It's use is to limit the range over which you can focus if you want to speed up focusing.<br>

Directly from the instruction sheet: "When you want to refocus rapidly to a specific object distance, preset the focused distance. Loosen the preset focus ring lock screw and turn the ring in either direction until it clicks. Turn the focusing ring to set the desired distance. Tighten the preset focus ring lock screw."</p>

<p>I've been very happy with the Vuescan software too, having bought is as necessary when I went to 64 bit computing, which does not work with the Nikon software. The Vuescan works with both my Coolscan 4000 and my Epson 4990 flatbed. And with the film scanner, does not have the Kodachrome and BW film limitations of digital ice that the Nikon software had. Bonus!</p>

<p>Thanks Bjorn; that solves it.</p>

<p>I recently had a situation where this lens appeared to seize up, not allowing me to focus because it was stuck

on the minimum aperture, and the camera (a D300 and a D700) could not make it open up. Has anyone else had t

his issue?</p>�

<p>Sorry, I forgot to address another issue that some have addressed. It is certainly true, in my experience that if you have such a lens, you must be prepared to address the "paparazzi" issue, and curiosity from people who notice you and what you are doing. It has not been an undue problem for me so far, but it is a bit of an issue.</p>

<p>I do a lot of "business travel" where photography is a secondary thing. Still, my standard kit is the 14-24, the 24-70, the 70-200 and a 1.4 converter, along with a Gitzo 1550T tripod and Epson 4000 hard drive, plus spare batteries and chargers. This all fits in a modest Tamrac bag which itself fits into my carry-on along with my other business stuff. I don't find the weight excessive, even on all day outings (I'm 61, and no special physical specimen).<br>

Bottom line: why would you not consider it if you can afford it and you need the speed?</p>

<p>My experience upgrading to 64 bit (HP machine with 8 Gb of ram, quadcore) is generally positive; all of my peripherals, including a fairly old Wacom tablet work fine by downloading updated drivers, except my webcam and my Nikon LS4000 scanner. The webcam is of no concern, easily replaceable and when my scanner comes back from repair, I am hopeful that advice I received here will let me use it with Vuescan software instead of Nikon.<br>

I do have a concern regarding some software: most is OK, even if only in emulation, but I find that system type software, like registry mechanic and norton system tools do not work. Seems they can't emulate I guess.<br>

But the speed increase with Lightroom and Photoshop (CS3) is amazing; no delays at all. The CS3 browser opens instantly whereas it used to take some time.<br>

Short answer, I'd recommend it.</p>

<p>Wow Doug,<br>

Thanks so much for that! I had not even thought of that solution, and it works like a charm. Totally solves my problem. And makes this scanner a useful tool while I wait for my Nikon to come back from repair (and who knows, even longer, eg, for batch scans for large projects). Really appreciated!</p>

<p>Thanks<br>

I have sent the Nikon 4000 for repair and downloaded the Vuescan software; looking forward to using the 4000 on my 64 bit computer.<br>

Regarding the Epson, doing a prescan doesn't seem to help me; even that scan is clipped so there is no cropping assistance available.</p>

<p>Thanks Steve, I'll check it out.</p>

<p>I am currently using an Epson 4990 flatbed to scan 35 mm slides while I debate whether to pay to have my Nikon Coolscan 4000 fixed. Not to mention that I cannot use the Nikon with my 64 bit Vista operating system, so must retain an old 32 bit system just to accomodate the Nikon scanner.<br>

My problem is with the cutting off of a fairly significant part of the image in the resulting 4990 scan - like the old days of having 8x10 prints made from a 35 mm slide and losing some off each end.<br>

Does anyone have an explanation, or better yet a solution for this problem?<br>

Most of the old posts I reviewed deal with scanning larger film on this scanner.<br>

Thanks</p>

I can also confirm that the RRS L plate for the D200 +MB200 does not work on the D300 +MB300; not even close.

My experience is exactly as Mr Pelpel's. Could not have said it better. Would only add that I am using the combos on a DX2 and D200.

Right Stephen,

and at 150 watts (unless they're flourescent, which does not seem likely looking at the photo), they won't be really that hot (in the physical sense) say compared to 500 watts which are really hot. Nor will they be bright enough to work with 100 or 200 ISO film in all likelihood. I use 500 watt hotlights and often have to set my ISO to 400 with a 2 light set up.

Jim

Well this is my first post to a thread:

But it is a fascinating, if somewhat difficult topic. As a relatively recent poster of photos, I am surprised by the range of scores. On the other hand, I do this because I am looking for a larger audience; the 10 photos in my Master portfolio each earned me at least 26 of 30 from 3 independent expert judges (that is, e.g., at least 2x9's and an 8 or 2 x 8's and a 10 by each of the 3 judges); so it is enlightening (if not discouraging) to see such low scores here - but still interesting because I want to factor in the larger audience. And of course some allowance has to be made for the loss in translating to digital; but still ...

I want that input.

But I am offended by marks of 1 from people who have no photos posted, so I cannot see how relevant their criticism is.

I would like to see more comment, though I am guilty of not commenting enough; which takes me to the notion of how much is put up; I don't enjoy looking through a long series of ordinary travel shots for example, and tend not to rate them.

I suspect that I am like many others, and rate only those that have an impact on me, primarily positive.

Anyway, I generally like the idea of ratings, but think something can be done to improve it; ditch the highest and lowest ratings for example.

I don't agree that you must post photos to rate; why shouldn't the person (non-photographer) who paid several hundred dollars for one of my photos be able to rate it highly?

If the idea of disregarding highest and lowest is adapted, it shouldn't matter if self evaluation is permitted; though having done it once and abandoned it, I can't imagine who would have the gall to do it now that others can see that you've done it.

Thanks for asking; keep up the good work.