mark_cassino

<p>Adding my thanks to Steel Chn for this excellent information. I used this driver to setup my LS8000 and Nikonscan v 4.0.03 on a newer PC running 64 bit Windows 10. The process worked as described here except that I had to temporarily disable enforcement of Win 10's policy that only signed drivers can be installed.<br>

The LS8000 is reputed to be finicky regarding Firewire compatibility. I used a Sonnet Tango USB 3.0 / Firewire 800 combo card and a firewire 800 to 400 adapter and it worked fine. I don't know what version firmware is in my LS8000 (and also don't know how to check it) but it was serviced about 5 years ago and I assume was updated then. <br>

Again, thanks to Steel Chn for creating this driver.</p>

I've used an AF220T for TTL macro work with a 100mm lens. It's a nice flash and works OK, and the tilt head is very helpful if you want to mount it on a "butterfly bracket."

However, it's not terribly powerful. When I switched over to the A* 200mm macro, the AF220T did not have enough punch for the longer distances. I switched to a Sunpack MZ440AF and it's worked very well.

- MCC

I wound up buying the PZ-1p because it had features that support macro work (MLU, DOF preview, auto bracketing, high speed (1/250) flash synch). Like the Maxxum 9, the PZ-1p actually has mirror pre-fire, which on occasion is a nuisance in breezy areas. I have not found it to be a major problem, and Klepper�s recent remark about the pre-fire approach suggests that both systems have their advantages and disadvantages. Having not used both, I don�t know.

However � wouldn�t a Nikon user be better off just buying an older model that supports MLU? I don�t know much about Nikons, but a quick internet search shows that the FG had MLU, and is pretty inexpensive used. I suspect that there are several other older models out there that support MLU as well.

I�d like to thank Stanley McManus and Peter May for cuing me in on

this conversation � their Emails were particularly timely, since I

was about to notify my ISP that the hit counter on my page was

malfunctioning...

<p>

I really appreciate the comments in this forum, and would like to add

the following:

<p>

No one is more aware than I that my images are not at the sharpest

out there. I look at professional bird photos and see a huge

difference. However, the photos I took last week are sharper than

those I took last month, which were sharper than those I took last

fall, etc. My equipment places limits on the quality of my images,

but until my technique reaches the limits of my equipment, I�m not

worrying about upgrading. (Though I certainly hope to the to point

where upgrading makes sense!)

<p>

A good case in point concerns film speed. In past updates of my site

I�ve described my unsuccessful efforts to use slower film for

birding. Over the last few weeks I�ve finally had some success using

ISO 100 film for bird photos -- and when I finally get that down pat

I�ll go for still slower film. The photos on my site represent a lot

of compromises that, as a newbie, I make just to get images that I

like. I�m aware of those compromises and work to overcome them

(that�s the fun of this whole thing.)

<p>

I also enjoy getting older equipment and occasionally finding a good

bargain. For example � I had a new Tamron 2x 7 element

teleconverter, but the Kiron 2x I got on Ebay far out performs it.

<p>

As someone noted, the bird shots that I take are common feeder

birds. In taking these shots I leverage the relationship that I�ve

built up with these birds over the last several years. I�ve logged

a lot of hours observing jays, sparrows, and cardinals, long before I

ever picked up a camera. That helps with the photos, because I can

anticipate their behavior and also they know me (bipedal food source)

and let me get fairly close.

<p>

That�s not the same as being able to walk into the woods, read the

habitat, figure out where the birds are, and set up and get the

shots. I have a lot of respect for the people who can do this, and I

don�t claim that my photos represent this kind of activity. I really

consider my bird images to be more garden shots � which is why I

often call these images �garden birds.�

<p>

Lastly � I�ve been particularly intrigued by the observations that I

could do better with the gear that I�m using. If anybody would like

to throw a few clues my way, or point out some useful resources, I�m

all ears. In particular, any suggestions about fill flash would be

appreciated (I�ve looked into this before, but just don�t get it.)

<p>

And thanks for commentary!

<p>

- MC