Brian

First, what is your budget? The reason I recommend Dell is that it's easy. If you don't like Dell, that's fine, just find a similar specs on another brand. Basically, you are looking for a low-end gaming machine. i7 CPU - Fastest you can afford 16GB RAM / 32GB Preferred A separate non-integrated video card, with its own dedicated video memory; 2GB - 4GB Video RAM is fine, 6GB - 8GB preferred. The reason is Adobe's products rely on the video card for a performance boost. So if you want PS to run faster, get a beefy video card. It's not just the CPU that determines "how fast" a computer is these days. 1TB Primary HD at a minimum. Bigger is always better. Do NOT be fooled by a 256GB SSD primary drive, even though it's faster; it won't do you any good if its full. As Windows 10 downloads it's new version, it downloads a whole other OS and puts your current OS in a Windows.old folder. In addition, the thing that can can help you when things go wrong, restore points are turned off by default on a smaller drive. If you do get a SSD drive as a primary drive, make sure it's AT LEAST 500GB. Windows 10 Home. I like Windows 10 Pro myself, though I'm more of a power user. For a Display, you are looking for a IPS-based display, that is not glossy, meaning it has an anti-glare coating or has some sort of matte finish.

Nikon offers rebates from time to time. Next one should be around March 2018 or so.

I just saw on Nikon Rumors that on Black Friday the 70-200E lens will have an instant rebate of $200, so the lens will be $2599.99. I know it's still over your budget, just thought I'd give you a head's up.

I take the DXO stuff with a grain of salt. Anyone can make up numbers and say that X is better than Y. You are correct in your assumption that it's between the f/4 & f/2.8 version of the Nikon 70-200. It all boils down to what game you are playing, is it long like a Marathon or a short one like a 400m Dash? The f/4 is obtainable now due to your budget, and is a fine lens, but if you want to purchase it once, then it's the f/2.8 version that's in your future. If you are shooting professionally now or in the near-future, and can recover the cost within 6-8 months, than get the 70-200 f/2.8E FL. If you are still learning then the f/4 might make more sense. The only pain you will feel is when you purchase the 70-200E f-2.8 FL. You won't regret buying it and using it. Honestly, you won't think about it in a year or two. How about saving some more and putting in money from a tax refund? Are there things like headshots that you can do? Make money with what you have? It seems that the 70-200G is sold out everywhere and there is a lot of 70-200 f/4 lenses on the used market in good shape. No doubt from people who have upgraded to a f/2.8 version. LOL! So you might want to try getting a used 70-200 f/4. More than likely you will be selling it in a few years, so why pay full price? Bottom Line: Get the 70-200 f/2.8E FL lens. Ask for gift cards for Christmas or for your Birthday or whatever. Try to get that out-of-pocket cost down as much as possible. Buy it Right, Buy it Once As for renting, as long as you have income covering the cost of the rental AND shipping fees, go for it. if you don't have income to pay for the rental, and rent it three or more times, you are throwing money away and it's better to just buy it. PS: I'm sorry for going on-and-on about your D3000. I misread your original post. You have a D750 and ISOs above 6400 at your disposal. Don't worry about cranking up the ISO.

Well...I sit corrected!! Yeah, come to think of it, I've replaced those VGA cables more than once. The traditional VGA cable isn't meant for today's fancy flat screen displays. I you do have the option to use DVI-D, HDMI, or DisplayPort...always use one of those. You will have better colors and contrast, the display will be sharper since it's a digital and not analog connection.

Oh, I get the weather. I live just outside Harrisburg PA and am waiting for the constant grey to sit above my head within the next few months. Yes, you are correct, most lenses are at their best around one stop down from their widest aperture. You buy a f/1.2 lens to be excellent @ f/1.8. A f/1.4 lens is great at f/2.0 and when it comes to a f/2.8 lens, it's excellent at f/4. That said, the Nikon 70-200 f/4 lens is really really good at f/4. Go figure...I guess there are exceptions for almost every rule. The biggest drawback is your D3000. Pro-Grade f/2.8 lenses are HEAVY. The Nikon 70-200 f/2.8G is 3lbs all by itself and will dwarf that D3000. The D3000 is what is known as a "Bridge Body," meaning it's meant to get you hooked on a DSLR body, but will have enough drawbacks that you feel the need (or force you) to upgrade to a larger body, especially when shooting with larger lenses. If you seriously only want to buy the lens once, I'd set your eyes on a 70-200 f/2.8G lens at the very least, or invest in a larger body. Until you have shot with the true professional-grade Nikon glass, you have no idea on what you are missing out on. I know there are plenty of people out there that will disagree with me and say a "Sigma ART is blah-blah-blah" or a "Tamron is just as good as..." NOPE, I'm not buying it. It just isn't, and you aren't going to convince me otherwise. The difference is in the fine-details, when you go pixel-peeping. The photos taken with Nikon glass just look better to my eyes; it's the overall look, sharpness, color rendering, contrast, dynamic range, Auto Focus response, build quality etc. If all you are doing is posting photos on Instagram or Facebook, get whatever lens you want. If you are really looking for long term and are shooting professionally go straight for Nikon. Period. Even if you have to purchase it used to save some money. Speaking of used, those Tamron lenses? Even though you might spend $1400 on them, you will be LUCKY to get $300 for them if you ever decide to sell. Seriously. 3rd party lenses do not hold their value and having a 5 year warranty is a nice thing to have with Nikon glass. I know this stuff is expensive. I totally get it. I personally thought I would NEVER be able to afford a 70-200 f/2.8G VR II...but strangely enough, I made it happen. It was painful to fork out $2600 for a lens (the cost when I bought it) and I was feeling it for awhile. Took a whole tax return, some savings and had to give up some luxuries in order to afford it. But you know what? I will have that lens for 20+ years. I'm on my 3rd camera body with that same lens!! That 70-200 f/2.8G has made me money and it has paid for itself multiple times. It's my favorite lens and is my go-to lens for practically everything, and I don't worry about focus breathing or if the lens is adding too much red in my photos, which Tamron lenses do A LOT, or if it's sharp enough. I mount it and get to work and don't think twice. I shoot Weddings. I can't afford to worry or "Miss" a shot because I wasted my money on a 3rd party lens. My Nikon 70-200's name is Bertha, and she gets shit done. Now for the f/2.8 vs f/4. Here is the thing when it comes to shooting with a crop body, since the Angle of View is different you can get away with shooting at f/2.8 all the time. I was ALWAYS using f/2.8 on my D300s. Yahoo!!! f/2.8 ALL-THE-THINGS!!! LOL. Then I got a used D700 and started shooting full frame. The Angle of View was different and guess what? f/2.8 is not as forgiving on a FX body. The shallow Depth of Field @ f/2.8 really bites you on a FX sensor. I usually stop down to f/3.2, which is more forgiving than f/2.8 on a FX body. That's why I'm at f/4 a lot. The results are what I experienced when shooting with my D300s. So yes, having one-stop more light is a good thing to have. Just remember that things are different on a DX body if you ever do decide to upgrade to FX, like a Nikon D700 from Keh.com, it will take some getting used to. Oh, one more thing, the newest version of the Nikon 70-200, the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR Lens will not work with your D3000. The focusing system is not compatible with your D3000. The older 70-200 f/2.8G VR II, the one I own, will work fine with your D3000.

For those wondering, Some laptops have a heat-sink that contains fluid in them that acts similar to a radiator in a car. The fluid circulates from the CPU chip area to where the fan is located. Every once-in-awhile, these type of heat-sinks develop a small crack or pin-hole and the fluid evaporates. Then the CPU overheats, which results in shutting down unexpectedly.

How old is your computer? I have a sneaky suspicion that you have bad (Poofy) capacitors on the motherboard. I've seen this problem that you are describing over the years and it's due to either faulty capacitors (bad motherboard,) or if it's a laptop, a clogged fan or faulty heat-sink. I think a trip to the repair shop is in order. Let me know what they find.

I'm not familiar with a LG read/write disk drive. Is this an external DVD burner? The simply way is to use the Finder and not the desktop. Simply put in the disc, open the finder and you should see it pop up in the left column. You can rename it, but I would keep it to 8 letters or less. Then drag the files from your HD to the disk, or a folder containing the files on the HD and drag them to the disc within the finder. If you still are having issues, you might want to try a free burning to disc program. Burn is a no-frills burning program and I personally use a program called Disco, which is no longer being updated / supported, so I have no idea if it will work with the newest MacOS or not. It works fine using Mavericks. In case if you have a pop-up blocker on your browser, this is the code that you use to install the program:

Here is a shot that I took with my 70-200 f/2.8. I was using my D300s and should give you an idea of what to expect with a 70-200 lens on a crop body. I was standing near 3rd base, about 90 feet away from home plate. Nikon D300s | 70 - 200 f/2.8G VR II @ 150mm | 1/1600th | f/4 | ISO 400

Here is the resulting photo. Notice how the compression from 170mm really sucked in the background, which was a few hundred feet away: Nikon D3s | 70 - 200 f/2.8G VR II @ 170mm | 1/250th | f/4 | ISO 200

Now for a more recent photo of mine. The first is a pull-back taken with my 24-70 @ 38mm. This should give you an idea of just how far away that barn was in the background. I circled where the Bride & Groom where standing: The couple was on the green patch and I was standing a good 10-15 feet from them.

Here is a photo taken YEARS ago, when my youngest was little and all I had was a Nikon D40 and 55-200VR lens. This was at f/5.6 and the focal length was 200mm. See how the grass behind him is blurred? I was standing on top of a picnic table shooting down. It's the compression that you get at 200mm that blurs out the background, if you do it correctly.

Personally? I would skip all of your three options and go for a Nikon 70-200 f/4G VR lens. It's within your budget and the quality is MUCH better than the 3rd party options. You can use it for both portraits and soccer tournaments. The only regret with going with Nikon glass is you will see the difference in the details, resulting in expensive lens purchases and your wallet will be crying out in pain. Trust me on this. LOL! I'm sure the next question is, "...but what about f/2.8? Won't I need the wider aperture for portraits?" Ah, my friend...let me introduce you to the world of COMPRESSION. At 135mm or 200mm, you can really blur the background if you position yourself correctly in front of your subject. Believe it or not, I typically shoot at f/4 with my 70-200 f/2.8. In the next comment, I'm going to post some examples on how compression can work for you. Oh, by the way... The Nikon 50mm f/1.4G is one of Nikon's worst lenses. Focus is so hit and miss with that lens as any Nikon D700 owner will tell you, it back-focuses, A LOT. So if you have a bunch of "off" photos that just don't look right, it's the stupid lens, NOT you. The Nikon 50mm f/1.8G is MUCH better, as is the more expensive 58mm f/1.4G. Honestly, I'd tell you to get a Sigma 50mm ART lens before telling you to purchase a Nikon 50mm f/1.4G lens, and I'm a Nikon OEM snob. I hate that stupid lens, so if you sell it, you won't be getting tears from me.

Dell UltraSharp 27 InfinityEdge Monitor: U2717D Between those two. Reason? Better resolution. For a 27" monitor, it's better to have 2560 x 1440 resolution. It gives a 27" display decent "real estate," without the 4K effect of making everything so tiny on the display. I realize that there is a few hundred difference, but I'm all for "Buy it Right - Buy It Once" philosophy.

Try this: Hit the Windows Key + W and just start typing Power Options, then click on "Power Options." Windows 8 is kinda foggy, but you want to change the Power Plan to HIGH PERFORMANCE and not something like "Balanced" or whatever. It is possible that something is wrong with the computer, a fan is clogged and it's overheating, but lets dork-around with the power settings first.

In times like this, I LOVE being proven wrong.

Time for a new calibrator with the most current calibration software. It's the Sierra MacOS that's tripping you up. Apple is forcing all applications to be 64-bit with the current Operating Systems. So if the software is 32-bit, you are SOL. In addition, if you are on the new Apple File System, APFS, that definitely will push software to be 64-bit. Even older programs like PS CS5, won't work with the new APFS.

I use this forum, though crickets chirp most days. So it might be a day or two if I'm busy for a reply. Funny thing is, as I'm thinking about getting a Windows machine again and I'm trying to AVOID a 4K display. Things are just too tiny at the 4K resolution. I'm about to head to a down server call, so I will look at some video cards for you. But first, what make model is your computer and how big is the P/S? Meaning how many watts is the output. 500 Watts? 300 Watts? If you want a fast and beefy video card, we will need a motherboard with the correct slot and a P/S that has enough horsepower to support it.

Is this a laptop or desktop? What version of Windows are you running?

First, what is your budget? The reason I recommend Dell is that it's easy. If you don't like Dell, that's fine, just find a similar specs on another brand. Basically, you are looking for a low-end gaming machine. i7 CPU - Fastest you can afford 16GB RAM / 32GB Preferred A separate non-integrated video card, with its own video memory. 2GB - 4GB Video RAM, 6GB - 8GB preferred. The reason is Adobe's products rely on the video card for a performance boost. So if you want PS to run faster, get a beefy video card. It's not just the CPU that determines speed these days. 1TB Primary HD. Bigger is always better. Do NOT be fooled by a 256GB SSD drive, even though it's faster, it won't do you any good if its full. As Windows downloads it's new version, it downloads a whole other OS and puts your current OS in a Windows.old folder. In addition, the thing that can can help you when things go wrong, restore points are turned off by default on a smaller drive. If you do get a SSD drive as a primary drive, make sure it's AT LEAST 500GB. Windows 10 Home. I like Windows 10 Pro myself, though I'm more of a power user.

From the specs that I've read, it seems fine. I'm not sure how easy BenQ displays calibrate, that's more of Damien's thing. I'd say go for it.

I personally haven't run those home tests, but i will say this... 97% of the time when shooting at f/1.2, you will blow the shot. Especially if you are close to your subject. The other 3% of the time that you shoot at 1.2 and nail it, a Chorus of Angels will sing. What most people don't realize is you buy a f/1.2 lens to be sharp about one stop down from the widest aperture. So in this case that would be f/1.8. For f/1.4 lenses, that's f/2.0. The reason has to to more with a Depth of Field problem than a focus problem. So could you post some examples of what you are experiencing?

I wrote this a long time ago and it still applies today: ND filters may be either solid or graduated. Solid ND filters will reduce the light hitting the sensor overall. (For example, if you need to use a large aperture for shallow DOF on a bright day, or if you want to do a very long exposure to capture motion, and you can't stop down far enough.) Graduated ND filters are used for situations in which part of the scene is considerably brighter than other parts, a graduated neutral density filter can be used — for example, to prevent the sky from being overexposed in landscape photography. Graduated ND filters are usually square filters which are inserted into a filter holder, and may be either hard- or soft-edged, indicating either a sharp transition between the darkened area and the area, or a smooth one. Cost-wise, ND filters are a slippery slope due to all the options. You can spend a little, or A LOT when it comes to ND. I'm looking at ND filter systems myself, and the price points start at around $400 and go up. LOL!! If you are looking to keep costs down, as I mentioned above, I'd start with a B+W 82mm MRC 102M Solid Neutral Density 0.6 Filter (2 Stop). Be sure to get the "MRC" or "M" version that I linked to, as it has better coatings to help cut down on flare and it's easier to clean. A 2-stop (or -0.6) is the easiest ND filter to learn on and will work well in conjunction with a CP filter. You simply mount the ND filter first, then attach the CP to the ND. If you do plan on stacking filters, try to get the ones that are marked as "Slim" or some sort of low-profile so it will keep vignetting to a minimum. I'd start with the CP filter first, then get a ND filter.

A Circular Polarizer is what I would start with. If you look at my stuff, if you see water, there is a 99.999999% chance I have my CP mounted.