Lens question
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Dudley Hanks on 2 Nov 2009 09:55 "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:021120090951498171%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... > In article <hcmcdu$1foi$4(a)adenine.netfront.net>, No spam please > <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote: > >> A search to find articles about Ryanair in the newspapers will give you >> some >> amusement. >> There's a rumour that they may charge passengers to use the aircraft's >> toilet. > > it was mostly a publicity stunt. they aren't charging to pee. Remember when they tried paid public toilets? What was that? Late '70s? Early '80s? Shall we say the public got so pissed off they had to flush the whole idea? Take Care, Dudley
From: Neil Harrington on 2 Nov 2009 09:58 "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote in message news:874opd25y5.fld(a)apaflo.com... > "No spam please" <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote: >>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote in message >>news:87iqdu1681.fld(a)apaflo.com... >>>> >>>>Hello Floyd. >>>> >>>>People who buy entry-level cameras often rely on the shop's >>>>recommendation. >>>>In small towns there may be only one shop and not a lot of choice. >>>>People >>>>who buy entry-level cameras are often new to SLR photography and don't >>>>always understand specifications. >>> >>> You said "In my experience, my friends who bought >>> entry-level cameras wanted to keep ..." >>> >>> That is the reference point, not some questionable >>> advice from a small town shop. Regardless, I cannot >>> imagine any small town shop advising purchase of a >>> camera that won't work with old lenses if the customer >>> says that is what they want to use. (If for no other >>> reason than it is exactly the excuse the sales person >>> needs to switch to a more expensive camera.) >>> >>> You made up this scenario. It isn't rational. >>> >>>>I haven't used Nikon bodies since the days of film. It wasn't until my >>>>friend bought an entry-level Nikon DSLR that the problem became >>>>apparent. >>>>If >>>>you look around this newsgroup I believe you will see that some Nikon >>>>users >>>>see the old lens / entry-level DSLR as a problem whereas others do not. >>> >>> You are still missing the point. The problem is not >>> with Nikon's camera/lens design. They *do* provide >>> camera bodies that function perfectly with older lenses. >>> (A distinct difference from other manufacturer's who had >>> a less technically advanced lens mount in the 1970's and >>> had no choice but to abandon *all* compatibility.) >>> >>> The "problem" is people making up excuses for doing >>> stupid things. Or, in your case, making up claims of >>> others doing stupid things in order to jusify your own >>> decisions. >>> >>>>As I said, your mileage may vary. >>> >>> So does the honesty and rationality of your articles. >>> >>> -- >>> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> >>> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com >> >>Hello again Floyd. >> >>The shop which sold my friend the D50 didn't ask if she would be buying >>any >>other lenses. She simply wanted a DSLR to use for her work as the cost of >>film and processing was getting quite high. >> >>The kit lens with the D50 was fine for her work. The telephoto lens for >>bird >>photography was an afterthought and, as it wasn't revenue earning, had to >>be >>as cheap as possible. >> >>Hope this clarifies things. > > It does indeed. If you buy the wrong camera for the > right reasons, it is still the *wrong* camera. That > doesn't mean there is something wrong with the camera, > it simply means *you* made a mistake. In this case his friend didn't buy the wrong camera, she just (apparently) bought the wrong second lens for it.
From: Andrew Templeman on 2 Nov 2009 10:05 George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 11/2/09 12:47 AM, in article NfvHm.51193$PH1.40481(a)edtnps82, "Dudley > Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: > > > > > "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message > > news:021120090122566686%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... > >> In article <5CuHm.51192$PH1.1085(a)edtnps82>, Dudley Hanks > >> <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: > >> > >>> I don't know if all airlines have adopted these practices, but I wouldn't > >>> be > >>> surprised. > >> > >> you aren't supposed to use electronics during takeoff or landing, but > >> during cruise it's fine. some airlines prohibit photography of airline > >> staff but allow pics out the window or of people you're traveling with. > >> > >> > >> what i find amusing is that since there is now inflight wifi internet > >> for a fee, wireless transmitters are suddenly safe. > > > > Isn't that the way it generally works? In the early days of commercial air > > travel, bringing food on board was probably taboo -- at least until they > > found a way to charge for it, or to work it into the price of the ticket... > > > > Take Care, > > Dudley > > > > > "You want to use the restroom? Very well, we have a nominal fee of three > dollars US per visit and will only accept Master Card, Visa or American > Express. No cash or checks. Thank you." <http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/blog/europeinsight/archives/2009/ 02/ryanair_conside.html> You thought that you were joking. :-) -- Andy Templeman <http://www.templeman.org.uk/>
From: Neil Harrington on 2 Nov 2009 10:22 "No spam please" <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote in message news:hcmc90$1foi$3(a)adenine.netfront.net... > "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote in message > news:874opd25y5.fld(a)apaflo.com... >> "No spam please" <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote: > >>> >>>Hello again Floyd. >>> >>>The shop which sold my friend the D50 didn't ask if she would be buying >>>any >>>other lenses. She simply wanted a DSLR to use for her work as the cost of >>>film and processing was getting quite high. >>> >>>The kit lens with the D50 was fine for her work. The telephoto lens for >>>bird >>>photography was an afterthought and, as it wasn't revenue earning, had to >>>be >>>as cheap as possible. >>> >>>Hope this clarifies things. >> >> It does indeed. If you buy the wrong camera for the >> right reasons, it is still the *wrong* camera. That >> doesn't mean there is something wrong with the camera, >> it simply means *you* made a mistake. >> >> If you buy a 2-door sedan today thinking it will allow >> you to drive to work, is it the dealer or the >> manufacturer's fault if it turns out a month later that >> you now have a need for something that will haul all 6 >> kids on your block to a soccer game every weekend? They >> do make and sell vans, you know... >> >> -- >> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> >> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com > > Hello again Floyd. > Thanks ever so much for your postings. I appreciate and enjoy your > comments. > > The D50 met my friend's needs for her work photography. > > The difference between SLRs and vehicles is that an SLR is adaptable to > the user's changing needs. > > In my part of the UK, many families have a sedan for leisure and a 4x4 to > take the kids to school. > I doubt many people would buy an SLR with a wide-angle lens for work and > another SLR with a telephoto lens for bird shots. > > Best wishes from a very sunny UK, > Rog. Rog, it probably hasn't been all a waste for your friend, since she has learned something from buying the wrong lens anyway. If (as you mentioned in a much earlier post) the D50 only works in certain modes with that lens, I assume it is not an autofocus lens since I believe that camera should work fully and properly with any autofocus Nikon-mount lens. It would help a lot to know exactly what sort of lens she bought. Since you indicate that she was primarily interested in keeping the cost down, that suggests that what she *probably* bought was one of the many older medium-range zoom lenses, presumably not autofocis ( ? ) since such lenses are widely available and relatively cheap. If that is the sort of lens she bought, then she has probably discovered that it is not only not fully functional on her camera, but also that it isn't really long enough for birding anyway. People who are not used to cameras and lenses often have a very exaggerated notion of what a zoom lens will do. Unless she can get pretty close to the bird (or it is pretty large bird), she most likely needs something a good deal longer than the typical zoom lens. That may well be out of her price range.
From: J. Clarke on 2 Nov 2009 10:13
nospam wrote: > In article <hcmc8g$1foi$1(a)adenine.netfront.net>, No spam please > <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote: > >> A friend used to operate the radio at a local airfield. When she >> went on a commercial flight she switched on her airband radio >> receiver to listen to ATC ... and it upset some of the aircraft's >> systems. > > how did she know? and if so, what proof is there that the radio was > the cause of the problem? > > the leakage from the radio is not only far from the avionics in the > cockpit, That may be but the antennas for those avionics are _not_ in the cockpit. > but more importantly, the plane encounters *far* stronger > sources of interference such as flying over a city with commercial > broadcast towers which pump out thousands of watts of radio and tv as > well as cellphone towers, public safety two-way radios, etc. And how many of those sources are two feet from an antenna on the airplane? > if there actually was a risk, all electronics would be banned. Can you prove that there is not a risk? Are you willing to pay the lawsuit and write the letters to the families of the dead if it turns out that you are wrong? |