Lens question
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: George Kerby on 2 Nov 2009 11:58 On 11/2/09 10:19 AM, in article hcn0r8$42v$1(a)qmul, "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > > "George Kerby" <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:C714496A.37B53%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com... >> >> >> > >> "You want to use the restroom? Very well, we have a nominal fee of three >> dollars US per visit and will only accept Master Card, Visa or American >> Express. No cash or checks. Thank you." > > I wonder if they'd accept paypal.... > > or their own system called peepal ;-) > > > > <BFG!>
From: George Kerby on 2 Nov 2009 12:02 On 11/2/09 10:29 AM, in article 2009110208295810672-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > On 2009-11-02 06:31:38 -0800, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> said: > >> >> >> >> On 11/2/09 12:47 AM, in article NfvHm.51193$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$PH1.1085(a)edtnps82>, Dudley Hanks >>>> <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I don't know if all airlines have adopted these practices, but I wouldn't >>>>> be >>>>> surprised. >>>> >>>> you aren't supposed to use electronics during takeoff or landing, but >>>> during cruise it's fine. some airlines prohibit photography of airline >>>> staff but allow pics out the window or of people you're traveling with. >>>> >>>> >>>> what i find amusing is that since there is now inflight wifi internet >>>> for a fee, wireless transmitters are suddenly safe. >>> >>> Isn't that the way it generally works? In the early days of commercial air >>> travel, bringing food on board was probably taboo -- at least until they >>> found a way to charge for it, or to work it into the price of the ticket... >>> >>> Take Care, >>> Dudley >>> >>> >> "You want to use the restroom? Very well, we have a nominal fee of three >> dollars US per visit and will only accept Master Card, Visa or American >> Express. No cash or checks. Thank you." > > Aircraft interiors will really start to smell like the alley behind a > cheap bar. Another reason not to use RyanAir. "Sir! If you insist on utilizing that bag from your seatback compartment, we must charge you a fee of sixty pence. Correct change only, please."
From: Savageduck on 2 Nov 2009 12:10 On 2009-11-02 09:02:15 -0800, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> said: > > > > On 11/2/09 10:29 AM, in article > 2009110208295810672-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck" > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > >> On 2009-11-02 06:31:38 -0800, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> said: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/2/09 12:47 AM, in article NfvHm.51193$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." >> >> Aircraft interiors will really start to smell like the alley behind a >> cheap bar. Another reason not to use RyanAir. > > "Sir! If you insist on utilizing that bag from your seatback compartment, we > must charge you a fee of sixty pence. Correct change only, please." Oh well! I will be checking out the status of Northwestern and KLM at the end of the month. They haven't posted any advisories regarding carrying a few emergency baggies yet. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: No spam please on 2 Nov 2009 11:44 "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message news:eaadnbNzo4OFZHPXnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "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: >>> 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. > Hello again Neil. I phoned my friend to-day. The lens is an autofocus lens but, if I understand things correctly, it needs a body with a focus motor in it and the D50 doesn't have this. She's using the 300mm end to photograph birds about 20 feet away. The photos are more satisfying than she'd get with the D50's kit lens so she's happy for now. Best wishes, Rog.
From: No spam please on 2 Nov 2009 11:50
No spam please" <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote in message news:hcn098$2m11$1(a)adenine.netfront.net... > "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message > news:011120091614355567%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... >> >> *all* autofocus lenses from any lens manufacturer will focus and meter >> with the d50, which means that *every* lens that store carried would >> work. there is *no* issue whatsoever, and it is *exactly* the same >> situation as with canon. >> >> as for cheap telephoto lenses, the 55-200vr is a good choice, or the >> non-vr version for slightly cheaper but the vr lens is a much better >> lens and the difference in price isn't all that much. the 70-300mm vr >> is another option for a little longer reach, but it's more money. none >> are really ideal for bird photography, however. > > Hello again. > > Ah yes - the first telephoto zoom was manual focus. Focussing the lens > wasn't a problem but metering was. Not all the metering modes worked with > the lens. > > Friend has now acquired a new Nikon telephoto zoom so everything works as > expected. > I agree that a 3oomm lens isn't ideal for bird photography. Personally, > I'd love a fast 400mm but the cost, size and weight are beyond me. I'll > try another way - remote controlled camera and a carefully set-up perch > for the birds. > > Best wishes, Rog. Correction - that first telephoto zoom was a Nikon autofocus lens but the AF couldn't be used on the D50. Regards, Rog. |