I have not tried their Macro light, but I have been very interested in it. I have used their LED panels and love them. Their macro light, like a number of macro ring lights, allows shading. It has a left and right side that can be adjusted individually to set up lighting ratios. If their LED panels are representative, I think you will be very happy. The LED panels give a pretty light and were well made, well conceived. Since I shoot mostly macro, this is a dangerous conversation. I feel a gas attack coming on. :lol:

To state that tubes do not impact optical performance is not entirely accurate. When lenses are used outside their normal magnifications range for which they were designed, as with extension tubes, you do get optical aberrations. It is my experience that you can get good quality closeup and macro results with either tubes or multi-element diopters. Each has it's pluses and minuses.

From my experience, focal length often determined whether I used tubes or a diopter. I used tubes on shorter focal lengths and diopters on longer lenses. In either case, manual focus was used. As dedicated macro lenses are superior in both quality and convenience I rarely use either these days, except when I want to experiment and play.

Part of the disconnect is that photographers use their images many purposes, some of which require much higher resolution than a medium or even large print viewed at standard viewing distances. In my case, I do a large amount of macro focus stacking of my cacti and succulents because I am interested in seeing the tiny details and structures of my plant. Blowing up the image on my monitor allows me to better see details I am interested.

Also I am not sure of the validity of the concept of a standard viewing distance as a universal measurement. While I do view prints from a standard viewing distance I then look closer, far closer. Where the subject merits it, I want the image with across the room impact plus detail that looks sharp at 16 inches. I like to look at my large prints at about 16 inch distance to look at the details. This not a criticism of of how other Hogs view or use their photography, but only a statement of how I use mine.

Admittedly, some of my images do not benefit from the increased resolution of a 50MP sensor. Others, however, benefit. Bottom line, I am glad to have such a tool in my camera bag.

As the megapixel size of my image increased, so has my card size. I focus a significant amount of my photography on macro and micro botanicals. Many of my shots are focus stacked. The majority of my stacks are between 50-100 images, but a 300+ stack is not uncommon when shooting at higher magnifications. The most effective way to wreck a stack is to move the camera slightly during the stacking process so all the images no longer register exactly. While most of the stacking software theoretically handle small shifts in camera position, in practice.....Therefor I use large cards that I will most likely not have to change during a full day of stacking. I also have a CF slot which I set to handle any overflow. I rotate 2 128GB Lexar SD cards. I have a number of smaller cards, both CF and SD that I just have spread out into a few photography bags, an emergency kit, and the car in case an emergency card is needed. I have only had one card corrupt and that was only after I sent it through a full was and dry cycle.

The major benefits of back button focusing for me are:

1. Metering takes place when I press the shutter instead of at the beginning of the shot when I first start tracking the animal. Say I am following a bird as it moves from the shadows to open sky in servo focusing mode (sorry, I forgot what they call it in Nikonland). I want my exposure metered at the open sky instant I press the shutter button, not when I first initiated focus tracking in the shade by depressing the shutter button 1/2 way.

2. With stationary subjects where I am waiting for a slight change of position or expression, it is easier to focus and then wait (or for that matter focus and recompose) as I do not have to keep the shutter button half way depressed.

They are both excellent macro lenses that can produce razor sharp images. The question is which lens better fits your shooting style. If you shoot without a tripod, by all means use the 100mm for it's image stabilization (which works some for macro, but not as well as for general purpose lenses). If you shoot primarily using a tripod, or if you use flash to freeze movement, then I would use the 150mm for it's longer reach. The 150mm is surprisingly light for it's reach, particularly when compared to the 180mm OS Sigma, my favorite macro.

I don't know if it's the 800 or the 810, but Nikon has electronic first curtain shutter in Live View in some of its newer bodies. What that means (if your model has is) is that you can initiate exposure in live view without either the mirror or the shutter moving. The first mechanical movement is the shutter closing. Many focus stackers use this setting. Sorry, I am a Canon shooter so I don't know which Nikon body intro'd this feature. Lacking the need to freeze motion by strobe, many have now gone to constant lighting.

The difficulty with talking about sharpness is that we are trying to isolate a single element of photography that involves many different concepts, such as camera stability, placement of the point of focus, depth of field, subject movement, lens resolution, the quality and direction of the light, color contrast in the scene, and luminosity contrast in the scene. All of the factors influence the perceived sharpness of an image and many posts pick out the aspects they wish to comment upon. For me, the key question is whether the key elements of the photograph have sufficient detail or is the eye left wanting.

Approaching it from a slightly different perspective, as photographers, we chose what to reveal and what to conceal, what to emphasize and what to deemphasize. Detail is one of the major tools we have to control eye movement across our images and control what the viewer focuses upon. Ultimately it is a subjective question. I suspect that on the great majority of shots, we would reach a concensus as to sharpness. There are other instance where the clarity of the detail at the points of interest is sufficient for some of us, but not for others. For my eyes, where I want to see detail, I want SHARP detail. To get my details sharp, I try to use the best optics I can afford, a high resolution camera, optimize my lighting, use the best techniques I can muster, and rely on my artistic judgment.

As a general rule, I don't think sharpness is given too much importance. It is a key tool in composing a compelling image. Of course there are some images that don't require tack sharp detail such as fog enshrouded scenes, intentional motion blur, etc. But if we are talking about a lack of critical sharpness due to failure to carry a tripod, too slow a shutter speed, misplaced point of focus, or poor optics, I think sharpness is not given enough emphasis. Ultimately the test is how the perceived sharpness works with the other components of the image, and whether the lack of sharpness detracts from the quality of the image.

Inadvertent key press, please remove

You will love the clarity and detail of the images. I use it primarily for macro. I particularly love the rendering of focus stacked images. I have used the camera for general, hand held work also. The results have been stellar, but I would expect them to be. Using image stabilized lenses, and goosing the ISO (when I need to) consistently sharp images are possible even hand held, except in very low light. That said, a tripod is still the best sharpness insurance.

I do not claim any expertise in intellectual property law, but i practiced trial law before I retired. As legal analysis is rarely worth more than you paid for it, you can ignore this at your pleasure.

The author (photographer) owns the copyright. Your daughter framed the picture and then pushed the shutter. She is the photographer. In your situation, it appears that she chose the exact position and point of view, she determined how to frame the image, she decided when to take the photo. Moreover she was the one who actually did the made the physical effort of hopping the fence where you chose otherwise. She is the author/photographer.

Under the facts you gave, there was no work for hire. She received no compensation; she was not an employee; there was no express agreement(neither written nor oral agreement). It was just not discussed. Lastly, minors lack the capacity to contract. Therefor contracts with minors are unenforceable. I have a hard time believing that a court would imply a contract under these circumstances.

I will leave it to intellectual property specialists to opine on whether your degree of collaboration was sufficient to claim co-ownership of the copyright.

With regard to your hypothetical tripod mounted, preset camera, she is still the photographer. In group portraits, timing is everything. In a millisecond, expressions can change from smile to frown. Open eyes can close or squint. Pressing the shutter is a choice regarding timing. She owns the copyright.

As to the contest rules and the morality of entering the work under your name, I'll leave that to your judgment.

The camera is not intended as a general use camera for high ISO work. It is a more limited use camera for studio and good lighting. These days a segmented marketing approach that offers different cameras with different strengths has been adopted by both Nikon and Canon. The D4 can't compete with the 810 in resolution, but the higher frames per second rate make it a better option for sports photography. If you are looking for resolution in the studio or for landscape work, The 5Dr is excellent If you want high ISO performance, you are looking at the wrong camera; but, that says more about your intended use of the camera than the how well the camera performs when used as intended.

The DXO tests are objective, but are they always significant? The DXO rating ignores resolution. Rating a sensor without considering resolution seems ridiculous to me. We look at the resolution of our lenses, but we ignore the ability of the sensor to capture the information presented by the lens? Back in the film days, when I wanted to maximize detail in my black and white images, I shot Tech Pan because it held more detail. Now that the sensor performs the the image recording function, instead of film, sensor resolution can be important.

An essential test for me would be to shoot a super sharp lens, such as the Zeiss Otus line or the Sigma 180 macro, and then measure the results. Failing to consider resolution differences makes no more sense than failing to measure the dynamic range of the sensor.

Having used the camera the past two weeks, I can say that I am excited about the quality of the images produced. This is not because I spent a bunch of money on something and now need to justify it to myself. I have spent far greater sums and been displeased with the expenditure. It's just my considered professional judgment.

As I said, the choice is individual. Although you can do panoramas in PS they are not done the same. In LR, panos can be produced in a raw file form. Is that important to you? Some hogs will say yes, some will say no. Of course PS is not the only imaging program and their are alternatives Hogs don't have alternative software to run and the option to purchase additional software is another factor in their decision to weigh in their decision to subscribe.

You have the latest stand alone version of PS. Therefore you can receive ACR updates. Hogs with prior version of PS will need to upgrade when they get a new camera to shoot raw. Updates to ACR are not available to them. Similarly, they will need to upgrade to use lens correction features on new lens.

I understand that you chose not to subscribe because you feel the expense is not merited in your case. I also understand that you are reasonably happy with your current software and that you feel that there is no additional available functionality to be gained by subscribing that will be worthwhile to your photography. I respect that decision and would guess many Hogs would agree with that result for their own situations. I have no quibble with your choice nor was I trying to convince your to change. If it is good for your photography....

The flip side is that many Hogs will find the subscription meets their needs better. For them I have the same refrain. If it is good for your photography.....

My point is that this forum embraces a group with and divergent range of different photographic interests, equipment kits, and skill sets and the best choice depends upon the individual's need. This is not a cut and dried matter. It is a question upon which reasonable minds do differ based upon their individual photographic approaches. I am not attacking your position or individual decision. I am not seeking to act as the marketing arm of Adobe either. Although we reached different conclusions for our own work, I suspect that if we sat down over few beers, we would find we don't disagree all that much. Our photographic needs, interest, workflow, equipment, skill-sets, and approach are a just a bit different.

As a retired trial lawyer, I have a cynical view about arguments (particularly arguments that occur in photo forums.) The only way to win such an argument is to get paid for making it. Since I'm not being paid, there is no reason to let this degenerate into an argument.

As a last note, I would like to apologize for my inability to quote the entire post. I meant to but screwed up and don't know how to fix it.

As I said, the choice is individual. Although you can do panoramas in PS they are not done the same. In LR, panos can be produced in a raw file form. Is that important to you? Some hogs will say yes, some will say no.

You have the latest stand alone version of PS. Therefore you can receive ACR updates. Hogs with prior version of PS will need to upgrade when they get a new camera to shoot raw. Updates to ACR are not available to them. Similarly, they will need to upgrade to use lens correction features on new lens.

I understand that you chose not to subscribe because you feel the expense is not merited in your case. I also understand that you are happy with your current software and that you feel that there is no additional available functionality that will be worthwhile to your photography. I respect that and would guess many Hogs would agree with that result for their own situations. I have no quibble with your choice nor was I trying to convince your to change. If it is good for your photography....

The flip side is that many Hogs will find the subscription meets their needs better. For them I have the same refrain. If it is good for your photography.....

My point is that this forum embraces a group with and divergent range of different photographic interests, equipment kits, and skill sets and the best choice depends upon the individual's need. This is not a cut and dried matter. It is a question upon which reasonable minds do differ based upon their differing photographic approaches. I am not attacking your position or individual decision. I am not seeking to act as the marketing arm of Adobe either. Although we reached different conclusions, I suspect that if we sat down over few beers, we would find we don't disagree all that much. Our photographic needs, interest, workflow, equipment, skill-sets, and approach are a just a bit different.

As a retired trial lawyer, I have a cynical view about arguments (particularly arguments that occur in photo forums.) The only way to win such an argument is to get paid for making it. Since I'm not being paid, there is no reason to let this degenerate into an argument.

The decision the subscribe, is of course an individual one dependent upon our individual shooting methods. For example, do you shout raw or jpeg? If you shoot raw and buy a new camera, you will need the most current version of Photoshop and Lightroom. If you use the lens correction feature to remove chromatic aberrations or other lens distortions, you will need to upgrade as you upgrade your lens kit. Are there features, improvements, enhancements to the program that impact your images, such as the ability to do panoramas in Lightroom? If you run a high speed computer with a top end graphics card, you may want to take advantage of most current programs.

With regard to my shooting, I am constantly pushing the the boundaries of my technique, equipment, and software. A subscription to my two most used programs, Lightroom and Photoshop for $10/month is reasonable in view of the prior upgrade costs for both programs, given my equipment upgrade practices, my use of new features, etc. Sure I wish I could buy a lifetime subscription with upgrades, like I did with my third most used software, Zerene Stacker.

A high end pro who shoots with an extreme megapixel cameras and professional 2.8 aperture zooms probably has a different set of expectations and demands than somebody shooting consumer lenses on older bodies. I hope this forum has room for this wide range of photographers.