john_ashby2

I actually did read the review, but I thought it would have enough power to bounce indoors. The SB-800 I have has the power to be useful as a fill flash outdoors, so even with a couple of stops less power the SB-300 sounded like it wasn't too bad for $30. It's got half the guide number of the SB-800, so 2 stops, right? I've only had it a couple of days so I can still return it, but it's just hard to believe it is so bad.

I have a Nikon D90 and an SB-800 flash which I both really like.

 

I saw an SB-300 on sale for $39 Canadian, about $30 US. I figured it would be useful to throw in my pocket when I'm not expecting to need a flash and don't want to carry the SB-800, so I bought it.

 

I first tried using it bounced off an 8 foot ceiling to a subject 6 feet away at ISO 200, F11. The under-exposure light blinked and the picture was severely underexposed. I could not get any useful picture bouncing the light. I tried pointing it straight forward to a subject 6 feet away. The person was well lit, but the direct light was hideous and garish, and it looked like the person was in a cave. Basically every bit as bad as using the pop up flash.

 

So am I missing someone or is the SB-300 a complete piece of junk? I can't see myself ever using it when it's no better than the pop-up flash. It is so cheaply made it doesn't even have a flash test button. If I could at least remote trigger it for CLS it might have some use. $150 Nikon product for $30 and it still feels like a ripoff. What were they thinking?

I printed the color chart sample from DigitalDog and then photographed it with the genuine color chart right next to it so you can see how out the printer is. On my screen, the photo of the card is too brown compared to the card next to it and the photo of the printout is much more brown.

 

Rodeo_Joe: The print files do match the monitor, they just both look tinted too brown. I'm not sure how obviously grey the grey area looks. To me it looks a lot more neutral with the profile turned off.

 

John_Wheeler: I'm using a 2011 Macbook Pro, so the monitor is the built in screen. I don't have any OSD controls besides brightness and the colormunki software suggests the brightness level to use. It looks like that utility is to print their charts? The colormunki prints one standard chart and calculates a second chart based on what it feels needs a more precise look. I don't think I can use any other utility to print it. I could not figure out how to disable all color management on the mac though, which is why I used windows to generate the printer profile.

 

When I use the spot color feature of the colormunki, the sample patches also look too brown on my screen compared to the object I just scanned, but that makes me think the colormunki actually picked up the object correctly and it's showing too brown on my profiled display.

 

Is it possible the colormunki is defective? Maybe the internal calibration tile is discolored? Even though it was advertised as new from the 3rd party amazon seller, the packaging looked a few years old and something about the seals made it feel repackaged. Inside it just felt handled and like everything had been sitting out for years even though it's all clean and in no way looks marked. It's hard to describe, just a vibe. It also includes a colorchecker card which is a nice bonus, but my understanding is that hasn't been bundled with the device for several years. I paid about $100 less than market price for a new unit. Maybe it's new old stock, or maybe its well used and worn out. Part of me thinks I should just return it, but then I'll never know if it was the device or me.

 

DigitalDog: I do know that like most people I keep my display too bright for normal use, but I'm using it as set by colormunki for this effort. The print is not coming out too dark it actually very closely matches the display but both look way off. It's bad enough that I can show the print or screen image to a relative who doesn't know anything about photography and their first comment is why is it so brown. Since your test image seems to have the colorchecker grid which I just happen to have right now, it might be worthwhile to print your it and compare the grid.

 

If it matters, I'm viewing the prints in sunlight from a window.

The web link helps, I wasn't quite sure what to do with the image files.

 

But I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out what to look for from the instructions, probably because my google translate of the PDF isn't very good. At max brightness (not the profiler's brightness) I can just barely make out the 3 squares in the black rectangle, and at no brightness can I see the 3 in the white.

Hi,

I'm using a Pixma Pro9000 MkII printer with a macbook pro. I just bought a colormunki photo with the intention of profiling the printer.

 

I started by using it to profile the monitor and it gave me an unpleasant brown color cast. I tried several times, different versions of the software, positioning the sensor at different angles, etc. All with the same result. I decided to leave that issue aside and move on to the printer.

 

I could not get the mac print driver to not attempt to manage the colors, so I used a windows computer to create the profile which worked well. I copied the profile back to the mac and printed my image. And it came out with a brown cast that perfectly matches the way my display was profiled.

 

The thing is it's image that I've printed through WHCC before and it came back from them looking perfect and very close to my unprofiled display. I used photoshop CS6 autocolor and autocontrast and it looked pretty good without any profiling. The brown cast on my display makes everything including the background of this webpage look tinted. So I don't think it's supposed to be like this and I just have my picture too brown.

 

Is this normal behaviour for a colormunki photo? Is it possible I have a defective unit or I'm missing a setting? I got the device from amazon through a 3rd party fulfilled by amazon, and I'm not that sure it's really a new unit even though it's supposed to be.

 

Also, before I started this little exercise my printer had a strong red tint using non-oem ink. After profiling, as I said, it matches the screen very well using the same non-oem ink. (I know, I know, but the printer has aged to the point where OEM ink has more than doubled in price and it would be more cost effective to scrap the printer and buy a Pro-100 which I will do eventually -- if only I could use that mail in rebate in Canada).

 

Thanks for any help.

<p>Thanks for your responses.</p>

<p>Les, I did that, and the brightness is much better but the picture is still very blurry. It looks more like a blurry scan than a bad negative, I don't see any grain pattern. I'll attach another image. The top is straight out of the scanner this time and the bottom is a 100% crop of the pixels at 2400 dpi.</p>

<p>Allen, I didn't know I could set the histogram in the scanning program. That is very useful. I'm used to doing black and white conversions with the channel mixer but hadn't thought of that for B&W scans. It may be helpful when I get a bit farther.</p>

<p>Mal, No such thing as a dumb question. I did take off the cover. On my Epson scanner, the negative frame is hidden under that cover. The negative frame for my Epson also holds the film a bit above the glass (supposedly at the optimal distance for sharp focus). </p><div></div>

<p>That's a good idea. All my negatives are 20 years old and in my parents basement somewhere so it will probably be a week before I get a chance to dig them up though. I can't think of any i can get my hands on faster.</p>

<p>I am trying to scan a roll of film I just developed and am having trouble getting a useful image. Many years ago, I used to do my own developing and wet printing, but this is my first time trying to scan the film to print digitally.</p>

<p>The film is Ilford HP5+ 35mm, expired in 1995 but kept at a fairly constant -20C the entire time. I bought it fresh back when I did this regularly. The film was exposed for ASA 400, and I processed it in fresh Ilfosol 3 (1:9) and Iflord Rapid Fixer (1:4). Because of the age of the film I increased development time to 9 minutes to compensate for possible decreased sensitivity. The film actually looks slightly overdeveloped but not too bad. The Dev Chart suggests 6.5 minutes for ASA 400 and 13.5 for ASA 800. All liquids were at 21 degrees, I used a big bucket of water for everything to ensure the temperatures never changed between baths.</p>

<p>When I try to scan the film on an Epson V100, it comes out with a very dark negative so there is not much range for the actual image, and what I have is very, very grainy so there is no detail in anything. I'm scanning in transparency mode with the built-in holder, 2400 dpi, color positive mode (I tried all the choices and this was actually the best one).</p>

<p>I'm attaching a sample file. From top to bottom, it shows a full frame as it came from the scanner, the frame inverted to a positive, my effort to correct it, and an actual pixel crop of the 2400 dpi image.</p><div></div>

<p>I looked at the inkpress website and it does say it's "optiminzed for pigmented or dye ink", so if it's fading because dye doesn't play well with the surface, I really should be complaining to Inkpress.</p>

<p>Ivo: You may well be right. I know the swellable paper that I liked so much on my printer is a disaster on pigment printers. But if Inkpress says this paper is for dye printers and these results are typical with dye, it's pretty crappy thing for the company to do. I still have 24 sheets of 13x19 and probably won't get be getting a pigment printer in the next year at least.</p>

<p>Bill C: It's true, the 100 year claim doesn't mean much for pictures in bright light, but when they say 100 years at all, you have to expect better than 2 months no matter what the viewing conditions.</p>

<p>Chad: Thanks for the suggestion. I'll may pick some up to play with, but I really want to find papers I can try out that I can expect to use for a long time if I like them.</p>

<p>Edward: The picture looked great when it was first printed. </p>

<p>Robin: In my original post, I said it was a Pixma Pro 9000 Mk2 with OEM ink and Inkpress Fiber Gloss paper. I'm not sure what more information I could have provided. </p>

<p>Ellis: It's definitely a dye printer. The Pro 9500 was the pigment version.</p>

<p>One thing that's interesting is i've used cheap polaroid branded dollar store glossy paper in this printer for snapshots and playing around with pictures I didn't care much about. And it fades the exact same way. I just figured that was because it was cheap paper. This is $3/sheet paper from a supposedly reputable company. </p>

<p>Thanks for your replies,</p>

<p>I use a dye printer because one of my favourite papers is the metallic one, and metallic papers don't do as well with pigment ink. But not all pictures look good with the metallic effect and I like to try different papers anyway. The best result I ever got was with a swellable paper, a test print I did 3 years ago has been in bright sunlight ever since and a strip I cut off and kept sealed in the dark is very close to a perfect match. But I don't know of any swellable papers currently available. Are there any?</p>

<p>Edward: That's interesting, I hadn't heard that about ceramic coated papers. The fiber gloss does have a squeaky/sticky feel thought I wouldn't have thought to call it that. I also bought some Ilford Gold Fibre Silk that I haven't tried because the instructions in the box said it's not for dye printers. Is this a common trait of fiber papers? What about Baryta papers since I was planning to try one of them?</p>

<p>Don: It is a dye based printer, but Canon says the ink should last 100 years on their paper in an album (I know, huge grain of salt). To get as faded as my picture is in 6 months on display, if that were normal for dye ink, there is no way dye printers would be on the market. That fading is extreme, the picture was unusable within 2 months.</p>

<p>Stephen: I've heard it's the ink not the paper many times, that's why I posted an example. The only difference between those two sample pictures is the paper. Same printer, same ink cartridges, a few days between the printing, even the same icc profile (per the paper manufacturer recommendation for my printer). And very similar display conditions. The only variable is definitely the paper.</p>

<p>6 months ago I printed the same picture on Inkpress Metallic Gloss and Inkpress Fiber Gloss, and had them both displayed unframed bare paper in rooms with bright windows. They were printed a couple of days apart on the same Canon Pixma Pro 9000 Mk2 with the same ink cartridges.</p>

<p>Almost immediately, the Fiber Gloss started fading and the Metallic seems unchanged. The sample pic attached shows both pictures, Fiber Gloss on the left, as they look today. Why did the Fiber Gloss fade so fast? The paper seems completely useless and it was a fairly expensive paper that I still have a lot left of.</p>

<p>It's also embarrassing to give out pictures that fade within a few months, and since this was supposed to be a premium paper, it seems there's no way to know what will or won't fade.</p>

<p>Thanks</p><div></div>

<p>Bill,<br>

I will have to look deeper as you suggest later. But even though it is better it's probably just barely acceptable for an event photo booth. The samples I printed yesterday were from a wedding I shot recently, I'd be embarrassed show the client the prints even with the profile. Maybe I'm expecting too much from the printer and it's just not meant for better than quick and mediocre handouts.</p>

<p>Andrew,<br>

The costco I go to uses a Noritsu 3411, but my point is even a cheap consumer inkjet on dollar-store photo paper with no color profile beats this dye sub "commercial photo printer". I can't find any information about the color gamut of this printer or other dye subs compared to inkjets. They just make a big deal of the continuous tone giving better image quality.<br>

I can choose a profile in an application like photoshop. Most apps don't have such an option (like the hot folder printing utility I'm using). </p>

 

<p>I thought I remembered reading a long time ago dye subs didn't need profiles because it's an ink/paper/printer kit. But I just looked it up and apparently the print driver did install some icc profiles on my system.</p>

<p>I tried printing from photoshop using "photoshop manages colors" with to proper profile and it actually does look a bit better but still not in the same league as costco. But the print driver doesn't appear to have an option to pick a profile. Is it possible it just uses it automatically since there is only one possible paper choice for this printer?</p>

<p>I normally wouldn't print from photoshop with this printer since at an event I use software that goes from camera to printer automatically. And that software doesn't have color management.</p>

<p>I recently bought a Mitsubishi CP-K60DW-S dye sub printer for event photography. I was expecting good quality prints but so far I haven't gotten a usable print out of it.</p>

<p>I have a profiled monitor and when I print the same photos on my inkjet they look great. When I print on the dye sub, the colors are very muted it seems to lack contract and saturation. The actual color accuracy is pretty decent but the pictures are very dull and don't pop. My wife won't even let me print snapshots on it for her because it's so bad, she waits until she can go to the drug store. The glossy clearcoat looks very dull and this model is supposed to have a gloss or matte finish. The difference between the two choices is so minor, it's hard for me to tell which was used.</p>

<p>I've seen dye subs used at events and the results look good. So is this model a bad choice, is the printer (or media kit) defective, or am I doing something wrong?</p>

<p>I also had it develop a vertical line on every print within the first 50 prints. Cleaning the printhead fixed that but is it normal to need a cleaning that soon? I've put less than 100 prints on the printer so far, and the quality was crap from print 1. I am still on the first media kit, but all the media I bought would be from the same batch anyway.</p>

<p>Can anyone with experience with dye sub printers give me some input?</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

 

<p>I have had very bad success at refilling HP printers, most recently I tried one with the 564 5-cartridge system. It seemed to work perfectly and gave excellent picture quality, but every time I leave the cartridges in over night they're sucked dry the next morning. </p>

<p>I've given up on HP and I've been having great results with a canon printer and third party ink cartridges from eBay. I use a profiled monitor and paper manufacture iccs and the results are close to (but not quite exactly) a perfect match. The Canon OEMs are a tiny bit better at colour fidelity, but if you look at the two prints separately, you can't tell which is which and the non-OEMs are $1.50/cartridge.</p>

<p>In terms of longevity, that's hard to judge because it takes so long to test but I think the paper matters more than the ink, or at least as much. I did some prints about 2 years ago on dollar store paper and non-OEM ink (it cost about 40 cents per 8x10 for ink and paper) and they looked great out of the printer but faded to look like sepia within 6 months. After seeing them fade, I tried a print from the same ink on HP Premium Plus paper (the older swellable version), and then cut a 1/2 inch strip off the edge. I've kept the strip in darkness and the rest of the print in front of a bright south-facing window, and after 18 months, it looks as good as the day I printed it and when I hold the strip I cut off next too it, it looks like there has been no fading at all. I've also printed on Staples supreme photo paper (faded beyond use within 6 months, but not nearly as bad as the dollar store paper), inkpress metallic gloss (still looks great after a year), and inkpress eco matte (noticeably faded after a year but still not too bad).</p>

<p>I would be interesting to try all these papers with OEM Canon inks to see the difference, but I'm probably not going to bother buying the ink and then waiting 2 years to find out.</p>

<p>Marc,<br>

I know how much more difficult a wedding is all too well. I have already mentioned that to several people who saw the pictures. It also was a factor in why I wanted to bail if they couldn't even do an engagement shoot.<br>

Any photographer will give you raw files if you pay enough. I want to find one who is good enough and will sell them at a price I can live with. Personally I'd have no issue selling raw files if the price were right, but as you say, I'm an amateur, I've rarely grossed $1000 in a month from pictures and it is a hobby for me, so I do know my perspective is not the same as someone who takes pictures to eat. Everything you say about raws is right, which means manipulating them myself means I get my own style in the end. As long as the photographer isn't cutting off limbs, giving horrible posing instruction (I actually posed okay doing it my way, my fiancee hates how she looks by following the photographer more closely), and missing the exposure by 4 stops as this one did.</p>

<p>David,<br>

I think the photographer adding $1000 for raws was basically his way of saying no unless he's got a reputation that puts him in demand. In wanting raw files, I don't want to deprive the photographer of income and I'm willing to pay accordingly, but I don't think many photographers make $1000 profit (after editing time and printing costs) on print and album sales very often.<br>

A lot of photographers seem to offer high res jpegs (not raws) at a fair price right on their price lists. The ones that don't, I assume don't get the modern reality where people prefer electronic to prints. And imo they have to be high res to still look good in the future. An iPad screen is already 3mp, and 8mp screens are already entering consumer mainstream. The days of people being happy with prints and 1500x1000 jpegs are over. Selling Raws to someone who's able to make use of them is not a huge stretch as long as they're comfortable I'm not just trying to avoid paying them as much. Yes, I'm going to edit their work, but it's not that big a deal to everyone.</p>

<p>Richard, <br>

I didn't want to be the one trying to manage that circus on my wedding day. Maybe you're right and I have no choice about that to get what I want. $2500 is not exactly cheap in the market I'm in, and don't forget the only "post processing" I was expecting are culling the raw files. <br>

You're right about the issue of what is someone who doesn't know much about photography supposed to do. The main reason I posted was to ask for help not repeating the same mistake (and the answer to that has been very clear throughout the thread), but I also thought it was an interesting issue. That's probably a big factor in why good photographers are suffering; separating yourself from the pretenders out there. I can look at a portfolio, tell what's good, what I like, and why something bad is bad. The average customer can just tell they like or don't like something and not really articulate why. What they showed me was very good work, my mistake was in believing him when he said he hired good people that were consistent in style. They actually used a spray and pray approach, of the pictures they gave me, there was a set of 22 over 46 seconds, and they were all in bursts of 10-15 over a short period. <br>

Craig,<br>

I did cut and run, it ended up costing me $322, but I guess in the grand scheme I should consider myself lucky. </p>

<p> I did consider pros and cons of a bigger company vs a 1-man show. The 1-man show has its own risks, if he gets sick that day he's less likely to have a fall back, he'll call up a friend who may or may not be up for it, he's less established, harder to find reviews unless it's someone who's been doing it for ages, and why eliminate a guy who's only done 20 weddings in the past 3 years just because he doesn't have a lot of reviews? <br>

One photographer I rejected was someone in his 60's who said it he'd been doing it for 30 years. I believed him based on the work he showed me, and what he composed and captured looked great as far as getting what's important, but his pictures had some major issues that looked like he didn't know how to use his modern gear. (Scenes mostly lit by tungsten with a hint of flash and white balanced for flash for example). He said he shot jpeg and didn't do any processing on a computer because he didn't know anything about computers. I got the impression in film days he would just have the film processed and printed by whatever lab, and in the digital days, the jpegs straight out of the camera were his end product he could have printed. <br>

At least the larger studio I had the bad experience with said they make sure their people know what they're doing in terms of modern photography.<br>

The fact that I don't want someone who's just a shoot and burn type, but who will sell me the raw files is actually very limiting on my options.</p>

<p>Shawn,<br>

I joked it would be easier to find a 'stunt double' for the groom and let me shoot the wedding. Luckily the wedding isn't cancelled after that ;).</p>

<p>Anthony, <br>

The thing with a large studio is they have plenty of good weddings they have done as a company and I trusted the owner when he said his people are up to his standards. I actually spent a lot of time discussing his portfolio with him, so he knew the level I was expecting. Going with a single person makes it harder when I want 2 shooters and a 3rd person running a photo booth as well as 2 videographers (the prices I mentioned were just for the actual wedding photo part though). It may still be better to go for the smaller business, I'm just saying why I went with the big studio.</p>

<p>Michael,<br>

You're right and attorneys and physicians have certain qualifications and professional organizations to make sure they do have the qualifications. There are plenty of fantastic wedding photographers on here, and yet there's a lot of really bad ones too. There has to be some way to know what you're dealing with or any slick sales person with a cheap dSLR will put the good photographers out of business. The guy I dealt with never stopped insisting his images were amazing work and the problem was obviously that I didn't know what I wanted.</p>

<p> I suppose even though I paid for the shoot, I'm not allowed to post some samples here because it's not my work?</p>

 

<p>I joined this site years ago as a photographer and have recently had a very bad experience trying to hire a wedding photographer. My portfolio here is pretty out of date, I've done quite a few engagement shoots for friends of friends in the past few years with good results and I've been lurking in this forum for ages, so I think I have an interesting perspective trying to be a customer.</p>

<p>I went with a larger company because I spent a lot of time speaking with the owner he really understands the craft, showed excellent samples, talked about how he maintains consistency among his photographers and is an impressive sales person. His prices are quite high, about $2500 for an 11 hour day, $300 more for a 90 minute engagement session. He's pretty clear he's making his money there, his enlargement and album prices are quite reasonable. He also agreed to sell me a DVD of raw images from all the non-culls for an additional $200 because I shared my own level of experience and made it clear I wanted to do my own editing.</p>

<p>So we did the shower shoot about a month ago. I'd expected the turnaround to be about a week given they just had to do some culling. It took three weekend and a few emails from me to get the pictures, which turned out to be low-res jpgs, because they forgot I was supposed to get the raw, which they promised to get to me soon. They made a comment that the shoot went well because they're giving me over 300 pictures instead of the usual 75-80 for an engagement shoot.</p>

<p>The pictures are absolutely awful. It looks like they were grossly over-exposed and pulled back down from the RAW file the highlights and most of the mid-tones were completely blown. We were outdoors near noon in bright full sunlight, and they were shooting with the camera in manual, iso 800, f5.6 at 1/200 - 1/800, so that explains why the look the way they do.</p>

<p>Besides that, the framing is awful, the photographer cut half way through our feet, vertical along arms, missing elbows, etc. There's pictures with flags and things growing out of heads, etc. In all there's nothing usable. They included obvious culls, shots with eyes closed (they claim that's in case I can use elements to edit another shot)</p>

<p>The camera angles, posing, etc is bad too, They look like candid snapshots which caught us at our worst (they claim this is a photojournalistic approach rather than "fine art" meaning posed shots), but they really are incredibly unflattering. My fiancee won't even show them to her friends or family.</p>

<p>The photographer offered to refund my deposit minus $320 for the engagement shoot since that service was performed and walk away. That was interesting too since up front they said the engagement shoot is a trial run for the wedding and if we don't like it they'll do a free reshoot with another photographer to see if we click better. At this point I'm tempted to take it since there is no way I want them at my wedding. I don't like that idea either because it acknowledges the pictures have some value. I guess I should consider myself lucky they didn't do this with my wedding photos. </p>

<p>I did bring my camera with and after the engagement shoot, my fiancee and I took some pictures of each other, these came out quite nicely but of course there's no shots of both of us which kind of defeats the purpose.</p>

<p>I see so many threads here complaining about the craigslist hack for $500 taking away their business. Photographers are wondering how they can convince the client of the quality they offer over some guy with a camera. I'm in the opposite position, I know good photograph from badMy question is how do you separate the good salesperson with no photography skills like i ended up with from the great photographer who may or may not have sales skills? </p>

<p>Thanks for taking the time to read this long posting.</p>

<p>Andrew, I agree, I have no issue with software activation. But this software is basically a glorified driver. And since it is useless without the hardware, the hardware is the best security dongle ever.</p>

<p>I wouldn't buy a monitor or a camera that required software activation to use either.</p>

<p>I bought a Spyder4Pro on the weekend, and was very shocked to see it has a very strict activation policy requiring my name and email. I've searched and found no mention of this very strange requirement.</p>

<p>My concerns are that I thought I was buying a piece of hardware, not software or a service. They say I can calibrate computers at one location and up to 5 laptops. This is fine for my needs anyway, but when I buy the hardware from them, why should they care if I go up and down the street offering free calibration for everyone? My dad doesn't really have any interested in a colormanaged workflow, but why can't I calibrate his display to show him the difference, it could even have resulted in another sale.</p>

<p>For that matter, I gave them money for a product. What right to they have to my name and contact information.</p>

<p>What if I want to resell the device once it's activated in my name?</p>

<p>What happens when the company goes bankrupt and there's no activation sever anymore. Is this just a product rental for the life of the company? What if they decide next month they no longer want to support this model and you need to pay a per calibration fee, there's nothing to stop them from doing that. </p>

<p>Obviously the product is not for me and it's going back to the store (clearly opened because of the packaging design so now the store has to eat a loss), but why doesn't anyone else seem to have any issues with this. I realize there's a lot of people who won't care, but there is just no mention I can find.</p>

<p>I've found the big sheet of cardboard to be great for hair but not too useful for clothing. I've never found a fan to be helpful. A leaf blower sounds interesting if it's not so strong it makes the skin look unnatural.</p>

<p>Matthew, that list was great, exactly what I was looking for, thanks. I think I'll print your post and bring it with.</p>

<p>Jim, I was aware of the vignetting at some point but it had slipped my mind now. I'll be using the lens with a crop sensor for now but I'm definitely looking towards going full frame which is one reason I want to buy this lens. Actually I was surprised that the VR2 isn't much better.</p>

<p>This thread has kind of widened the price range but I suppose if I'm buying locally I have to factor in local market conditions. The $1300 one doesn't seem all that cheap anymore though :),</p>

<p>Michael, I guess thieves who break into a house can grab the boxes too. I just think most gear is stolen when people take it out to use it and then they wouldn't have the packaging with them. I also agree with Elliot that owners who keep boxes tend to take more pride in their gear and treat it more gently. Just an impression, but I am willing to pay more with a box and that's another reason why. The fact that there are people who think like me is all the more reason it's just worthwhile to keep boxes even if you don't value it yourself.</p>

<p>Keh.com is very overpriced, if I were going to pay them $18-1900, I'd rather just buy a VR2 new locally. </p>

<p>I'm thinking of buying a used 70-200 2.8 VR1 lens. I'm hoping I can get some advice on what to look for to make sure there's no problems with the lens before I buy. I can bring my camera body and play with the lens, but besides testing the autofocus and making sure it looks like the VR motor is at least humming and seems to stabilize the picture, I don't know what to test out. Can anyone tell me what to look for?</p>

<p>Also, the price in my local market seems to range from around $1300 - $1600. What's a reasonable price to pay? For $1300 there's no accessories. At the upper end it's complete even with the box, which I'd rather have because it makes me more confident I'm not buying a stolen lens, but I don't want to pay $300 for a cloth bag and cardboard box. </p>

<p>Thanks.</p>