Brian

All of these photos were taken with my D700, so you take advantage of what this lens is capabile of. For those Nikon shooters who shoot crop, I would suggest the 10-24mm DX or 12-24 DX. Here is a photo at 14mm where you can see the distortion:

Oh, software tips for a switcher: Purchase CleanMyMac 3 from MacPaw. I use this program weekly and it works well and is easy to use. Coupon codes to exist with a little searching, so try not to pay full price, though it is worth every penny.

Now, I'm sure there are some members here that would like to disagree with me and say their Macs are "fine," they never needed to calibrate, and their prints are just peachy. My response: Screens change over time and monitor profiles can get corrupted. So yes, you need to calibrate. Period. It's like tuning a musical instrument.

Short Answer: Yes. Long Answer: People usually say something like, and I'm having a little fun with this: "Like OMG!! A Mac is #totes #amazeballz out of the box, AND you don't need to calibrate!! Like Ev-ah!! Why waste the money on a calibrator?!?!! It's a Mac, duh!" A Mac runs on the cool side, meaning it's great for watching movies, reading e-mail, wasting time on Facebook, etc. etc. Everything but editing photos out of the box. When I bought my iMac, it was pretty good out of the box and my prints matched pretty well. So I thought (this was Pre-Damien) I wouldn't need one, even though I was told my editing was too "nuclear" color-wise and warm by more than one person. I finally broke down and bought a calibrator. Not only did it warm up my screen to a realistic level, my dynamic range was SO much better. I could finally see all the little gradients in those boxes that you see on websites when you want to check how well your screen performs. I could see the 16 or 32 different blocks, from complete dark to white. In addition, people see colors differently. Your version of _________ (insert color) will look different to my eyes and vice-versa. Only by using an impartial device like a calibration tool that says, "This is "Yellow." This is "Blue." This is "Red," etc. It's almost like a breathalyzer test. You might not think you are too drunk to drive, but your friends are asking for the keys. You think you are "fine." Who is right? Well, that Breathalyzer Machine gives you a impartial reading of 0.09, which is against the law in the states. So yes, you do need to calibrate, monthly if you want accurate and consistent colors OR if you are charging people good money for photography.

Honestly, using a card reader simplifies things. I don't think it's a card issue, I'm thinking a possible update from Adobe could have screwed up the process that talks to the camera. We need to isolate the problem. Is the problem with the import or communication between the computer and camera (via the software.) If we use a card reader, we will find out. If it still screws up importing images with a reader, then it's a software issue and you might have to call Adobe.

Thoughts on the 14-24: You will need practice, moving just a few inches at 14mm changes the distortion dramatically. So you will need to fiddle and learn how to use the lens and watch your sides. It's kinda like a Fender Telecaster, it takes practice and a certain touch to pull great stuff out of that lens. The 24-70 is a Fender Stratocaster, and the 70-200 is like a Gibson Les Paul. Once you figure out the 14-24's personality, it's magic. Downside to the 14-24: The stinking price on the Lee filter gadget so you can use Graduated ND / ND filters and such. Oh, the lens cap is "odd;" it's like a coffee can lid and is really easy to grab (pops off) while your 14-24 demonstrates that gravity is still working when pulling it out of your bag. So watch how you hold/grab it, you don't want to do any "drop tests." I could upload a few photos of mine that I took with the 14-24 if you'd like.

I LOVE-LOVE-LOVE my Nikon 14-24 f/2.8. It's worth every penny. The reason I went with that over the 16-35 f/4, is that I didn't like the Barrel Distortion in the middle of the photo with the 16-35 @ 16mm, and didn't like how the lens performed at 35mm either. Software really didn't correct the shortcomings at 16mm and 35mm, so basically it sucked at the ends. What's cool about the 16-35, is that it takes filters. If you are looking to save money, the Nikon 18-35mm is also decent and I would buy that over the 16-35. But the 14-24....such a sweet and tack-sharp lens. Before Canon came out with their 16-35 f/2.8 update, Canon users would rent a Nikon 14-24 and use an adapter with their Canon bodies. It's that good. Did I say how much I love my 14-24? LOL!!

Have you tried using a card reader to download your photos?

If you would like to save a few hundred, perhaps getting last year's model, the Epson V800? It seems that the V700 is no longer available.

Don't think Apple hasn't noticed and I actually agree with them, keep tablets and computers SEPARATE. They are at their best when they compliment each other, rather than being a "Jack of all Trades...Specialist at None." Apple has done what's in its best interest for APPLE. Ever since 1984. LOL!! It's Windows that caters to the masses, and you see how that works out. Sure there are lots of computers at different price-points, but you have a bloated OS...Windows...that has to work with ALL of them. With the Mac, all Apple has to do is worry about the Mac. If you want to swim in their pool, you play by their rules. As for neglect, I think it's just the Windows side of things has caught up. Adobe has really made both platforms pretty even, so there isn't THAT much of a difference anymore. That said, in the photo / graphic arts / music world, Apple remains King. I'm curious as to what would you do to a computer? Be like a Surface or something different? We shall see what Apple is going to do. It's hard for me to see them going off-course with something dramatic right now with the iMac line, but then again...it's Apple. I think right now it's large screen iPad Pros that do what the Microsoft Surface is trying to do.

The latest and greatest, the Epson V850. Both Canon and Epson make good stuff when it comes to scanners. It all depends on your budget.

Since you are asking my opinion, here it is: I will pass for now, but keep it on my RADAR. I've read some feed-back from people who own them, and one of the small things that caught my eye was that the USB 3.0 ports aren't powered. Well, they don't have the "Umph" to power things like external HDs and such, so you'll need a Powered USB hub to go along with it. It seems Microsoft cut some corners and put in low-powered USB ports that you find on laptops.

Microsoft's Equivalent:

Microsoft's take on the iMac. They look interesting, and having it be used as a glorified iPad is kinda cool. I'm wondering how easy are they to calibrate, since the touchscreens traditionally are a BITCH to calibrate. (Translation: Have large amounts of Tequila and Aspirin at the ready when trying to calibrate a touch screen.) Also, where do you take it to get it fixed? It's not a "Normal" computer by any means. Best Buy and the like will ship it out to a repair center. If you are fortunate to have a Microsoft Store near you, they could be an option. That said, ALL THOSE FRIGGIN' FINGERPRINTS ON THE DISPLAY. Ugh. I would not want to edit photos on the thing. Yes, I know the advertisement demonstrates "artists" flinging photos around and using the fancy pencil and such, but I think the marketing / advertising agency is really laying it on thick. What I don't like is the price. A tricked out Surface Studio is over $4199. A fully tricked out 27" iMac, with Apple's extremely over-priced RAM configured to 32GB, comes out to $3499. Plus Tax and Shipping. Finally, Microsoft has put out a product that costs more than a similarly equipped 27" iMac. LOL! Fully tricked out iMac, $3499 plus applicable Tax and AppleCare:

YES. Besides, LR has a tendency to get really cranky when the catalog file gets that big. It's good practice to keep it below 3GB at all times. Once you cross that threshold, you start venturing into unknown territory. It's so funny how people get so worked up about having "too many images" on one CF / SD card, but have no issues with having tens-of-thousands of images in a single LR catalog file! Something to think about.

I suspected this. You really don't want your catalog file to get that large. Not only will it make LR slower, if you try to backup your catalog to a Thumb Drive or another device that has a FAT32 Filesystem, it won't copy over or actually could corrupt itself. FAT32 has a 4GB file size limit, but in reality it's more like 3.5GB. You are at 3.6G. NTFS on the other hand, which most of us have these days, goes much higher, just under 256TB. That said, I still wouldn't ever go that high for a single file. In either case, it's one of those "rules" that I stick to, once something gets above 3GB for a single file, I start worrying. Especially a LR catalog. Bad things could happen with a large LR catalog around 4GB.

Didn't see that. So it can be dimmed. But it still doesn't have a diffuser and you really can't control the direction of the light. Of course, you can point the thing at something, it's just the level of control. It's like shooting with an umbrella, where you need a strip softbox with a grid on it. Or vise-versa. Basically, it all depends on what you are shooting. If you are just looking for a light to play with, I'd say either is fine. If you are looking for softly-lit fuzzy-wuzzy sleeping baby photos, a ice light is NOT what you are after. To answer your original question, which one out of the two? The Yongnuo 360. Just be sure to get a couple of battery packs and the AC charger, which are purchased separately.

OH! You are the LR thread. LOL!! Yeah, you have problems. I'm thinking your Hard Drive might actually have bad sectors and you have more than just "corrupted software." At this point, I wouldn't worry about your recycle bin, I'd worry about backing things like passwords/logins, e-mail settings, browser favorites, document files, LR catalogs, etc. Just in case your HD suffers from a complete crash. Because I have a sneaky suspicion you are headed that way...a format and re-load of everything or a new HD and re-load of everything.

Honestly, if you were asking for my opinion, I'd say neither.

Will you be working with an assistant or will your camera be mounted on a tripod and you would trigger it remotely? What are you actually going to be photographing and where? What I like about the YN360, it has a screw mount so you can mount it to a tripod, mono-pod, etc. What I don't like about the YN360, is you have pure LED light, there isn't a diffuser for it. That will make for some contrasty shadows. The Polaroid Brightsaber Pro has a built in Diffuser as well as a Tungsten Filter. What I don't like is no tripod mount and the batteries don't seem to last that long, so if you do go the Polaroid Route, actually BOTH routes, get the "complete package / buy all three" so you get the charger and extra batteries. What I don't like for both is you can't control the light, it's all or nothing and it spills everywhere. It's also FULL POWER or nothing, it doesn't have a dimmer bulb. In addition, there isn't an option for a Barn Door Modifier, like for the actual Westcott IceLight, you'll have to rig something up yourself, which will involve Gaffers Tape at some point. LOL! Have you seen this video?

I'm curious, just how large is your corrupted catalog file? Right-Click and do a properties on the catalog.

If it were up to me, I'd have a traditional HD and a non-retina 5000k display. Apple has made it so we don't have a choice.

FYI: 80% in LR is equal to "10" in PS. 100% in LR is equal to "12" in PS. Adobe's ratings are based on a 1 --> 12 method. "11" in PS would be "90%" in LR, "9" would be "70%," and so on.

You are headed to Prime Land and I don't think you will ever be 100% happy with a 24-70. A 35mm is probably the lens you are after, and from the looks of things, a Sigma 35mm ART. The 24-70 is great if you want to run-and-gun, like I do during weddings. Mine is pretty sharp and am quite happy with it. You could do things with a 35, 50 and 85. That's typically the focal lengths that you use the majority of the time when it comes to photographing people. Something wide, something long and something in the middle. Bottom Line: Return it.

Here's the thing, the Nikon 24-70 is not #amazeballz sharp, and is at its weakest at both 24mm and 70mm. This is normal, and I'm sure within Nikon's tolerances. Remember, it's a zoom, not a prime. Doing what I call the "Measurebator Tests" will just frustrate you. Virtually ALL digital photographs need some sort of sharpening. See: Damien's Sharpening Class. What I would do is take your camera and new lens for a workout. Photograph things of all types, near and far. Pixel-Peep. Rinse and Repeat. Figure out which focal range works best, and which ones need a bit more finesse on your part. Figure out how far away your subject is so that the lens performs at its best. Use a tape measure and figure this out. The reason I say this, is say you put AF Fine Tune at +17, what happens when you are at 56mm? Or 35mm? Or 42mm? Or 60mm? You are going to have out-of-focus photos, then the next stop I will see you in is the Focus Checks Section on AD, banging your head against the wall. Life is difficult as it is. If you find the lens doesn't perform to your expectations after pixel-peeping, then I'd return it and try to purchase a brand new 24-70. Even then I feel that that AF Fine Tune software will find something wrong. In addition, your D750 Auto Focus system needs to be ABSOLUTELY PERFECT in order for those tests to be accurate. Actually, your camera & lens needs to be in a lab, under controlled conditions to really be calibrated together, not on a dining room table. LOL! I've seem a few photographers who have send ALL of their gear to Nikon to have it calibrated together and guess what? They still were not happy when they got it back. Most lenses like the 24-70 and 17-55 (The DX version of the 24-70,) are at their best when the subject is within 5 and 15 feet from you. If you are really looking for TACK SHARP photos, skip zooms and get primes. I'd say get the new Nikon 105mm f/1.4E, the Nikon 58mm f/1.4G and the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G or the Nikon 24mm f/1.4G. Whatever you do, skip the AF-S 50mm f/1.4G, that lens is a piece of sh*t. Of course, going this route is going to be very expensive compared to your used 24-70. I really think you need to skip all this calibration stuff and GO OUT AND SHOOT. Again, @24mm and @70mm the Nikon 24-70 isn't at it's best. Many zoom lenses suffer the same fate, but I think you will find is that it's not that bad.