You are arguing with a bedrock tenet of economics. An item is worth only what a buyer is willing to pay for it. Your original purchase price, emotions, your evaluation of how “like new” your copy of item for sale, etc have little to do with the current value of an item. If you’ve listed your lens at $1,950 and it has not sold in a reasonable time, I’m sorry to tell you that the laws of Econ 101 says the lens is not worth $1,950. This is a fact, the same as the sun is going to rise in the East tomorrow. No amount of arguing, explaining, logic or complaining on your part will change that.

Those who are serious about selling used camera gear (or anything, really) have learned to place an initial selling price you think is appropriate on the item, post the item in the appropriate venue (like UHH for example) and wait for a period of time to gauge reaction. If after waiting and there are no takers, they lower the price until a buyer is willing to spend on the item. I learned early on that waiting and waiting, hoping that someone will give me my price generally meant that I ended up selling the item for far less than I could have gotten as the real “value” of the item kept going down as the market became flooded with the same item. Easy example would be my trying to sell one of my D850’s when it was clear that the Z8 was the latest greatest. I got a good price for it since I was an early convert. 6 months later, put my other D850 up for sale asking the same price. No takers, but I ignored Econ 101 and held fast. 3 months later when I woke up to reality, I sold the 2nd body for less money than I could have originally gotten at first since so many people were unloading 850’s.

Sorry to burst your bubble. Most of us have been in your shoes. Everything sells, if the price is right.

As a matter of fact, yes it is. I’ve been a Nikon shooter for 55 yrs, but the options available on the z8 are so
Varied and so voluminous that I needed help just to understand WHAT was available, let alone how to achieve the set up. It can do things I never imagined. BTW - save your money and look into Steve Perry at Backcountry Gallery.

Hmmm…. Might be true technically, but for times I can’t carry my 400/2.8, my new Z 100-400 produces lots of keepers. I don’t disagree that the prime 400 is sharper, but only noticeable if you look at 2 images in a side by side comparison from both lenses.

I should probably apologize for hijacking the OP’s original question regarding comparison of the 2 zooms he mentioned. Moderator - feel free to move/delete my off topic discussion.

I disagree that zooms are a compromise. Years ago, there was no argument that primes outperformed zooms. No contest. But improved manufacturing processes by virtually all major lens manufacturers have made the distinction irrelevant in real world applications. I need useable images, not test shots of brick walls or 300% pixel peeping examinations. I don’t give a hoot about a theoretical DXO chart. I need images that work when viewed as they will be in actual practice. No way I would swap out my 2.8 zoom lens trilogy for a bagful of primes (although my 85mm/1.4 is often in my bag for times I need the dof.).

I’ve also moved beyond the argument that fast primes are useful in low light situations. In film days, that was true and continued to be in the early days of digital. But gigantic improvements in higher ISO ability of the modern sensors mean I no longer need F1.4 with its often negative limited DOF to successfully shoot in low light.

I do however agree completely that all TC’s are comprises.

Email Topaz. They offer extraordinary customer service. Very quick replies.

Suggest the new PS “remove” tool rather than healing brush. Much better results if one is determined to salvage the pic.

Nicely timed shot and gorgeous critter. But I think he’s from Romania, not from Hungary. You can tell from the angle of his tail. 😎

Yes, for my taste it’s too bright and distracting. Easy to tone it down in PS or other editing software.

And I agree that the white balance is off, rendering the bird too blue.

Incidentally, for those of you with access to PS, there is a beta version available that is testing a new function which allows you to click on the brush tool and just paint over an area you want to adjust without needing to go through masking and/or layers. Played with it a bit and it was pretty amazing.

Boy, I wish I had this 15 yrs ago when I happened to be near the launch pad at night for a shuttle launch. When the rocket ignited, the exposure went from pitch black to surrealistic ultra bright in a nano sec. 99% of my shots were wildly blown out. I may have missed the shot, but the memory of the sight and sound of that launch will never be forgotten. Truly awesome. Speaking of sound, I was several miles from the launch pad and while the intense light was immediate, the deafening roar didn’t hit my ears until quite a few seconds later proving that the speed of light is indeed faster than the speed of sound. Still getting goosebumps as I’m writing this now.

Interesting discussion. At the end of the day, we use what works for us. Regretably, too many members here refuse to accept that their opinion is NOT the gospel. Like “filter/non filter” nonsense.

Pretty impressive flexibility. I had envisioned rigid 3 legs. I admit that ive never tried it, but constantly adjusting heads and legs seem unlikely to work for a sports shooter. I do understand the appeal of the “gimbal” like head for birds and I actually have one (Wimberley) mounted on my stick , but for sports where up and down movement of the lens plane is rather small, more times than not i lock the head and just rock the stick forward and back.


For birding, if im using the stick instead of tripod, i do use the up down motion in the head, but still don’t see three tiny feet working better than one. But would never disagree with others who have used it and love it.

Restating it more clearly, i use the monopod to support the weight of a pro body and say a 400/2.8. Camera shake issues don’t affect me since im usually at 1/2000th sec shutter speed.

Most photographers i know rely on sticks to handle weight, not camera shake. To control camera shake, i rely on tripod. No doubt a monopod will offer some help with camera shake at more “normal” shutter speeds, but to me it best used to support the weight.

No worries Robert. I’m genuinely interested in learning why you prefer the 3 foot attachment rather than just the regular single point. I seldom use a monopod when shooting non action scenes and the few times I have, never tried 3 prong. From reading what others have said, seems like the 3 legs would be unwieldy to use unless ground was flat and/or your subject was at camera level. How do you tilt forward or back if there are 3 contact points? Or sloping ground surface? I do understand that any connection to the ground would help alleviate camera shake at “normal” shutter speeds, but it seems to me that the lack of flexibility in pointing the rig outweighs any gain in stability.

Again - not arguing with you. Just trying to understand how one works without the easy ability to point the lens.

Huh? I think you misread my reply. I use a monopod to support the weight of the rig instead of handholding, not to eliminate camera shake.

Have you ever spent an hour or two or three on the sidelines of a football/soccer/baseball game trying to hold a Z9 and 400/2.8 lens? Camera shake is the last thing I worry about since I’m generally shooting at 1/2000th of a second

You ask about “high quality prints” from iPhone photos. Print quality is most dependent on the quality of the source, not the skill of the printer. GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out. Did you take the pics using a family member’s phone? In my experience, too many iPhone snapshots taken by Aunt Sally or sister Sue are generally awful. Was the phone a new one (iPhone 15 has an extraordinary camera, older versions are less so)? If the image taken isn’t high quality (in a variety of definitions of “high quality”), no printer on the planet will produce a high quality print.

Unless the quality (and resolution) of the original is high, most photo printers will produce passable prints. No sense using high end printers unless, first, the raw material is excellent or, second, if the proud grandmothers won’t recognize high quality printing.

Print size is also an important consideration. At 4x6, most printers will produce good results. Larger prints make flaws more pronounced.

Hope that helps you. The only suggestion I’d make as to which printer is do NOT use Snapfish. Online printers like Shutterfly and MPIX are generally less expensive than printing in house at cvs or Walgreens.

Lastly, if your original files are very good, consider making a photo book of the pics. Grandfolks love photo books.