Lens question
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Dudley Hanks on 2 Nov 2009 19:00 "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message news:4aef716e$0$1582$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:47:47 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> >>wrote in <4aeeff28(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>: >> >>>-hh wrote: >>>> Bob Larter <bobbylar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> John Navas wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:11:24 -0000, "No spam please" >>>>> [...] >>>>>>> I have no problems using any Canon EF lens on any EF body. >>>>>> You've defining the problem away, and in fact some Canon EF lenses >>>>>> won't >>>>>> work on some Canon EF bodies. >>>>> Really? That's news to me. Which lenses, & which bodies? >>>> >>>> The EF-S lenses won't work on full frame EOS bodies ... but that's >>>> because its an EF-S lens, which is not an EF lens, but rather a lens >>>> that's designed to be used on EF-S based EOS bodies, which are >>>> compatible with both EF & EF-S lenses. >>> >>>Exactly. EF-S lenses aren't EF lenses. >> >>Again, "You've defining the problem away..." > > Again, you're trying to create a problem in order justify your idiocy. > > -- > Ray Fischer > rfischer(a)sonic.net > Sometimes, I think John can't read. As long as there is an "F" in the designation, it's all the same to him. Take Care, Dudley
From: George Kerby on 2 Nov 2009 19:59 On 11/2/09 11:05 AM, in article hcnke1$vmm$2(a)adenine.netfront.net, "No spam please" <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote: > "George Kerby" <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:C7144D6A.37B56%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com... >>> What about the crew usig their PCs while on autopilot, resulting in >> overshooting their destination by 150 miles? >> > > The NTSB said they wouldn't check the laptops as the crew already said > they'd been using them. > > What would be the conclusion if the laptops were examined and found not to > have been in use during the overshoot. > Let's not guess what the flight crew had actually been doing. > > Regards, Rog. > > For sure.
From: George Kerby on 2 Nov 2009 20:04 On 11/2/09 11:07 AM, in article hcnkef$vmm$3(a)adenine.netfront.net, "No spam please" <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote: > "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message > news:Q2CHm.50238$Db2.18755(a)edtnps83... >> >> ">> "Mister, at this time you are required to turn off your pacemaker. >>> When we reach 10,000 feet, you may re-start it. Thank you." >>> >> >> George, that's about as good a way of encapsulating the issue as I've >> read... :) >> >> Take Care, >> Dudley >> >> > Hi guys. > > Nice analogy but the wrong way round. When you visit a radar site or > broadcast site you should see signs warning those with pacemakers not to > enter. Pacemaker is the victim, not the perpetrator. > An acquaintance of mine works in the world of radio but can't accept site > visits to broadcast sites because of his pacemaker. > > Best wishes, Rog. > > Nice info, but my tongue was "cheekin' it"...
From: George Kerby on 2 Nov 2009 20:04 On 11/2/09 4:16 PM, in article RSIHm.50288$Db2.19440(a)edtnps83, "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: > > "No spam please" <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote in message > news:hcnkef$vmm$3(a)adenine.netfront.net... >> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message >> news:Q2CHm.50238$Db2.18755(a)edtnps83... >>> >>> ">> "Mister, at this time you are required to turn off your pacemaker. >>>> When we reach 10,000 feet, you may re-start it. Thank you." >>>> >>> >>> George, that's about as good a way of encapsulating the issue as I've >>> read... :) >>> >>> Take Care, >>> Dudley >>> >>> >> Hi guys. >> >> Nice analogy but the wrong way round. When you visit a radar site or >> broadcast site you should see signs warning those with pacemakers not to >> enter. Pacemaker is the victim, not the perpetrator. >> An acquaintance of mine works in the world of radio but can't accept site >> visits to broadcast sites because of his pacemaker. >> >> Best wishes, Rog. >> > > Not really, I think George was lampooning the practice of turning off ALL > electrical devices during take-off and landing. Followed too strictly, > nasty things would happen... :) > > Take Care, > Dudley > > Tank ye, sir.
From: George Kerby on 2 Nov 2009 20:07
On 11/2/09 5:46 PM, in article bbKHm.50296$Db2.3395(a)edtnps83, "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: > > "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 > > To NavASS, equations are non-existent. What a fool... |