Lens question
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: John Navas on 2 Nov 2009 18:44 On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 09:59:54 -0000, "No spam please" <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote in <hcmc8i$1foi$2(a)adenine.netfront.net>: >"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> You know that all the Canon EF film bodies also have digital electronics >> in them? Strictly speaking, they should ban EF film bodies as well. ;^) >Yes, I know the EF film bodies have electronics in them but nothing like as >much as in the EF DSLRs. The difference in degree is much less than the difference in kind. Only non-electronic manual cameras would fit the definition. >I recall reading a book documenting a 747 flight over the pond. When one of >its radio transmitters was used then one of the fuel gauge sensors lost >track of how much fuel was in the tank. I don't see how that is any way relevant. >I know that my cordless landline phone upsets my FM radio - not when I'm >talking over the phone but when it is being charged. Your FM radio is cheap junk compared to aircraft systems. -- Best regards, John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: Dudley Hanks on 2 Nov 2009 18:46 "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:021120091835218310%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... > In article <14que5l8d2v13hg7gkc2f0gvipn8t0jb8l(a)4ax.com>, John Navas > <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> >The difference between SLRs and vehicles is that an SLR is adaptable to >> >the >> >user's changing needs. >> >> On the contrary -- dSLR is non-upgradable and rapidly obsoleted, whereas >> a car can be upgraded and remains close to state-of-the-art throughout >> it's service life. > > huh? > > let's see you upgrade the car's engine, replace a standard transmission > with an automatic or add air conditioning if you opted to not include > it at the time of purchase. let's see you add odb-ii to an older car or > change a 2-wheel drive car into a 4-wheel drive car. it's anywhere from > prohibitively expensive to impossible. > > where do you come up with this stuff? To John, money, practicality and common sense just aren't part of the equation... Take Care, Dudley
From: Ray Fischer on 2 Nov 2009 18:54 John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:11:36 -0000, "No spam please" ><me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote in <hcmc90$1foi$3(a)adenine.netfront.net>: > >>The difference between SLRs and vehicles is that an SLR is adaptable to the >>user's changing needs. > >On the contrary -- dSLR is non-upgradable and rapidly obsoleted, You really are a stupid liar. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 2 Nov 2009 18:55 John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:47:47 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> >wrote in <4aeeff28(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>: > >>-hh wrote: >>> Bob Larter <bobbylar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> John Navas wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:11:24 -0000, "No spam please" >>>> [...] >>>>>> I have no problems using any Canon EF lens on any EF body. >>>>> You've defining the problem away, and in fact some Canon EF lenses won't >>>>> work on some Canon EF bodies. >>>> Really? That's news to me. Which lenses, & which bodies? >>> >>> The EF-S lenses won't work on full frame EOS bodies ... but that's >>> because its an EF-S lens, which is not an EF lens, but rather a lens >>> that's designed to be used on EF-S based EOS bodies, which are >>> compatible with both EF & EF-S lenses. >> >>Exactly. EF-S lenses aren't EF lenses. > >Again, "You've defining the problem away..." Again, you're trying to create a problem in order justify your idiocy. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: tony cooper on 2 Nov 2009 18:57
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:16:23 -0800, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:21:01 -0000, "No spam please" ><me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote in <hcn098$2m11$1(a)adenine.netfront.net>: > >>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. ... > >Panasonic with optically-stabilized Leica super-zoom lens is >inexpensive, compact and light, excellent for birding. Chickens, perhaps. Turkeys, ostriches, emus, and caged birds maybe. Large birds that you can close enough to touch. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |