New DSLR lenses from Nikon
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Problem solved:
Next: ARGUS - DARPA's All-Seeing Eye
From: tony cooper on 9 Feb 2010 23:59 On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:12:40 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >I knew there was going to be a problem when I had lenders lined up >telling me my home, which I bought in 1993 for $125K was valued at over >$400K and I should benefit from some of that equity. How you doing on Homeowner's Insurance? I've been with State Farm for the 28 years I've been in this house (and also with them on my previous homes). State Farm has announced a 15% increase for this next year (starting March 15, for me) and they are petitioning the legislature for considerably larger increases in the future. They are also trying to pull out of Florida because of hurricane losses. I've got bids from four other insurers, and all of them value my home at least double what I could sell it for. The rates are based on the replacement cost and not what the house would bring on the market. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Paul Furman on 10 Feb 2010 00:21 On 2/9/2010 10:30 AM, Bruce wrote: > Nikon has announced the following new lenses: > > AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR > Full frame (FX) format, image stabilised wide angle zoom lens. > http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020902nikon16mm35mm.asp > US $ 1259.95 > Euro 1199.00 > GBP 1049.99 Nice. f/4 should be cheaper though I'd have thought. That's the price the old 17-25 is selling for on ebay. AF-S & VR probably aren't needed, they could have saved money there. Nobody in their right mind will buy this for an entry level DX body that needs AF-S. VR ... we'll see if that's really useful. Maybe. > AF-S Nikkor 24mm F/1.4G ED > Full frame (FX) format, ultra-fast wide angle fixed focal length lens. > http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020901nikon24mmf14.asp > US $ 2199.95 > Euro 2149.00 > GBP 1949.99 Exotic game of catch up with Canon. This sounds fun but really is very specialized. Samples from the Canon version: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=317311
From: Savageduck on 10 Feb 2010 00:46 On 2010-02-09 20:59:48 -0800, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said: > On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:12:40 -0800, Savageduck > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > >> I knew there was going to be a problem when I had lenders lined up >> telling me my home, which I bought in 1993 for $125K was valued at over >> $400K and I should benefit from some of that equity. > > How you doing on Homeowner's Insurance? I've been with State Farm for > the 28 years I've been in this house (and also with them on my > previous homes). State Farm has announced a 15% increase for this > next year (starting March 15, for me) and they are petitioning the > legislature for considerably larger increases in the future. They are > also trying to pull out of Florida because of hurricane losses. > > I've got bids from four other insurers, and all of them value my home > at least double what I could sell it for. The rates are based on the > replacement cost and not what the house would bring on the market. I have been with Allstate since September 1993 for both my Homeowners Insurance, and that uniquely Californian policy, Earthquake Insurance which is separate. Fortunately I am not in a flood, or slide zone, so that is a risk which is minimized for me. I am also insured for replacement value, and there have been some reasonable bumps over the years which seem to be in line with replacement costs, but no notices of any rate increases for this year. Phew! The same policy covers liability at my rented boat slip at our lake marina. Fortunately with the rain we have had over the last few weeks those docks are afloat again, after being high and dry since the end of August. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Ray Fischer on 10 Feb 2010 00:48 Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >On 2010-02-09 20:59:48 -0800, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said: > >> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:12:40 -0800, Savageduck >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >> >>> I knew there was going to be a problem when I had lenders lined up >>> telling me my home, which I bought in 1993 for $125K was valued at over >>> $400K and I should benefit from some of that equity. >> >> How you doing on Homeowner's Insurance? I've been with State Farm for >> the 28 years I've been in this house (and also with them on my >> previous homes). State Farm has announced a 15% increase for this >> next year (starting March 15, for me) and they are petitioning the >> legislature for considerably larger increases in the future. They are >> also trying to pull out of Florida because of hurricane losses. >> >> I've got bids from four other insurers, and all of them value my home >> at least double what I could sell it for. The rates are based on the >> replacement cost and not what the house would bring on the market. > >I have been with Allstate since September 1993 for both my Homeowners >Insurance, and that uniquely Californian policy, Earthquake Insurance >which is separate. Fortunately I am not in a flood, or slide zone, so >that is a risk which is minimized for me. How did you justify the earthquake insurance? To me it seems way overpriced for what you get. That 15% deductable was the deal breaker for me. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Savageduck on 10 Feb 2010 01:11
On 2010-02-09 21:48:54 -0800, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said: > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >> On 2010-02-09 20:59:48 -0800, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said: >> >>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:12:40 -0800, Savageduck >>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I knew there was going to be a problem when I had lenders lined up >>>> telling me my home, which I bought in 1993 for $125K was valued at over >>>> $400K and I should benefit from some of that equity. >>> >>> How you doing on Homeowner's Insurance? I've been with State Farm for >>> the 28 years I've been in this house (and also with them on my >>> previous homes). State Farm has announced a 15% increase for this >>> next year (starting March 15, for me) and they are petitioning the >>> legislature for considerably larger increases in the future. They are >>> also trying to pull out of Florida because of hurricane losses. >>> >>> I've got bids from four other insurers, and all of them value my home >>> at least double what I could sell it for. The rates are based on the >>> replacement cost and not what the house would bring on the market. >> >> I have been with Allstate since September 1993 for both my Homeowners >> Insurance, and that uniquely Californian policy, Earthquake Insurance >> which is separate. Fortunately I am not in a flood, or slide zone, so >> that is a risk which is minimized for me. > > How did you justify the earthquake insurance? To me it seems way > overpriced for what you get. That 15% deductable was the deal breaker > for me. Once my equity exceeded the deductible, and knowing my comprehensive Homeowner's policy would not cover earthquake damage, the annual premium was not unreasonable. If not I would only have possible assistance to repair or rebuild if FEMA came into play with a disaster declaration, and there is no consistent guarantee of that happening. I was lucky with our 6.5 earthquake in December 2003. The epicenter was about 20 miles from us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_San_Simeon_earthquake It felt as though a truck had run into the house. With all the shaking I couldn't even take the initial move of getting out of the house, as I was knocked off my feet. There was only some dry wall crack damage, and the stove pipe for my wood stove got shaken loose. Two women in Paso Robles weren't so lucky when a building collapsed on them. So as long as I am living between the Oceanic fault zone in the Santa Lucia mountains and the Coastal ranges and the faults they harbor, and the San Andreas Fault, 30 miles to the East, I think I can justify the cost of Earthquake insurance. -- Regards, Savageduck |