«

Had $1200 to put on the D7000. Then along comes a snowmobile for $600. I
snatch it. Turns out, it's an '85 Arctic Cat, and somewhat of a very
collectable sled. Stock HP is 85, and they can be tuned and tricked up to
over 100 HP. First year with dual rear shocks, IIRC, and other major
changes. Not the best trail sled, but quite the drag bike, and this one is
in nice shape.

Yesterday, my hot water heater was leaking. Today, while I was in Vegas, my
man came and changed it. $565. So, out of $1200, I have $35.

My neighbor took the sled today up to the mountain, and tried it. He wants
it for $1200. Seems it has a big Barnes or Barnett after market clutch, one
of the main problems with that sled that caused yearly clutch replacement.
We're checking to see if it is pilot-build model, one of fifty made in '85,
and in that case, the price goes up a couple of hundred more.

Long story short, $565 of camera money went to a hot water story. At least
I'm going to collect on the sled tomorrow.

It's always something.

Now, I hope I don't have to go to Cabo so I can order it, and be here when
it gets here.

Steve

On Saturday, January 5, 2013 5:08:49 AM UTC, Steve B wrote:
> Had $1200 to put on the D7000. Then along comes a snowmobile for $600. I
> snatch it. Turns out, it's an '85 Arctic Cat, and somewhat of a very
> collectable sled. Stock HP is 85, and they can be tuned and tricked up to
> over 100 HP. First year with dual rear shocks, IIRC, and other major
> changes. Not the best trail sled, but quite the drag bike, and this one is
> in nice shape.
>
> Yesterday, my hot water heater was leaking. Today, while I was in Vegas, my
> man came and changed it. $565. So, out of $1200, I have $35.
>
> My neighbor took the sled today up to the mountain, and tried it. He wants
> it for $1200. Seems it has a big Barnes or Barnett after market clutch, one
> of the main problems with that sled that caused yearly clutch replacement.

Stay focused, sell the sled and buy the camera. Your bones no longer heal as fast as they used to.

You will enjoy the camera for a lot longer than the sled. Can you use the sled in summer? Can you take it on your holiday? How about in 10 years time?

Sell the sled to you neighbor so you can borrow/rent when you feel like it.

Give up on the 3 cheap lenses and buy good glass with that money.


DanP

On Jan 5, 12:08*am, "Steve B" <ste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Had $1200 to put on the D7000. *Then along comes a snowmobile for $600.*I
> snatch it. *Turns out, it's an '85 Arctic Cat, and somewhat of a very
> collectable sled. *Stock HP is 85, and they can be tuned and tricked upto
> over 100 HP.

People collect...snow mobiles? That's like collecting lawn mowers.

"DanP" <> wrote


>
> Stay focused, sell the sled and buy the camera. Your bones no longer heal
> as fast as they used to.
>
> You will enjoy the camera for a lot longer than the sled. Can you use the
> sled in summer? Can you take it on your holiday? How about in 10 years
> time?
>
> Sell the sled to you neighbor so you can borrow/rent when you feel like
> it.
>
> Give up on the 3 cheap lenses and buy good glass with that money.
>
>
> DanP

Which brings me to the next question. I went to Casey's in Vegas yesterday,
and handled the D7000 with 18-105 VR (?) lens. I guess Canon's equivalent
is image stabilization. Nice hefty camera with lots of readable info.

You made reference to cheap glass. Are the three lens packages on the
Internet for around $1400 cheap glass, or REAL Nikon lenses? They wanted
$1297 for the one at Casey's out the door with the one lens.

How careful do I need to be about bundled lens deals on ebay, and maybe
bhcameras, and the big sellers? Is Nikkor lens a Nikon lens? How do I
recognize a real Nikon, and are there knockoff lenses?

If that 18-105 would do most of the work, I would foresee buying maybe a
fixed length and a bigger telephoto lens, or maybe a converter in the
future. Remote control. Things I could ask Santa for. And could you fill
me in on the use of the 50mm fixed lens that is so common to bundles? What
types of photos are they commonly used for?

Lastly, I like macro work for insects and flowers, and very small stuff.
What is a good focal length for a macro?

Thanks for the help, guys. I'm almost there.

Steve

"RichA" <> wrote in message
news:8fc0c629-e06e-4736-a92c-...
On Jan 5, 12:08 am, "Steve B" <ste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Had $1200 to put on the D7000. Then along comes a snowmobile for $600. I
> snatch it. Turns out, it's an '85 Arctic Cat, and somewhat of a very
> collectable sled. Stock HP is 85, and they can be tuned and tricked up to
> over 100 HP.

People collect...snow mobiles? That's like collecting lawn mowers.

* * * *

Yep. They want to recapture their youth, and will search for a sled they
owned way back when .......... Plus, some of the designs turned out to be
real monsters. Big motors in small frames that were bottle rockets out of
the chute, 100 mph over the ice, and were tamed back in later models after
consumer suits. But still available out there somewhere.

Steve

On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 11:19:03 -0700, "Steve B" <> wrote:

>> Give up on the 3 cheap lenses and buy good glass with that money.
>
>Which brings me to the next question. I went to Casey's in Vegas yesterday,
>and handled the D7000 with 18-105 VR (?) lens. I guess Canon's equivalent
>is image stabilization. Nice hefty camera with lots of readable info.
>
>You made reference to cheap glass. Are the three lens packages on the
>Internet for around $1400 cheap glass, or REAL Nikon lenses? They wanted
>$1297 for the one at Casey's out the door with the one lens.
>
It's not so much a matter of cheap glass. Some of Nikon's lenses are
better than other Nikon lenses, but the not-better ones are not cheap
glass.

The Nikon kit lenses, or package lenses, are not as good as some of
Nikon's other lenses, but you only get a premium lens if you pay a
premium price.

Lenses with fewer elements tend produce sharper images than lenses
with more elements. There are more elements in an 18-105 than there
are in an 18-55. The images will be less sharp at the 105 end, but
whether or not that will be noticeable to you depends on what you're
shooting.

The sharpest Nikon lenses are the prime lenses, but they are less
adaptable in composing the image. You have to compose with your feet.
The wider the range of zoom, the easier it is to compose unanticipated
shots, but you might not get the tack-sharp image you want.

>How careful do I need to be about bundled lens deals on ebay, and maybe
>bhcameras, and the big sellers?

Be careful of the big internet sellers. B&H and Adorama are reputable
dealers, but many of the others are not. They'll force you buy
over-priced accessories or they'll cancel the sale.

>Is Nikkor lens a Nikon lens?
Yes.
>How do I recognize a real Nikon, and are there knockoff lenses?

I haven't heard about sales of fake Nikon lenses, but if there are
they would internet sales direct from China or over there somewhere.

There are gray market lenses that are genuine Nikon lenses, but not
distributed by Nikon USA and not warranted by Nikon USA. The selling
dealer may warrant them, though. B&H does.

>And could you fill me in on the use of the 50mm fixed lens that is so common to bundles?

>What types of photos are they commonly used for?

That's a prime lens. No zoom factor. Compose with your feet. Great
portrait lens if you are shooting people, especially the head and
shoulder shot.

Do you understand "compose with your feet"? To fill the frame with
the subject when using a prime lens, you move closer to or further
from the subject. To compose the same image with a zoom lens (18-55,
18-105, or 18-270) you zoom in or out without having to move.

I carry a prime lens for use when I see something photographable where
I have the time and the physical space to compose with my feet. I
also carry an 18-270 Tamron lens that allows me to snap off a photo
from where I am. I take more unplanned shots than I do planned shots
because I mostly shoot candid shots of people, but a person who does
more landscape or architecture shots will shoot more planned shots.

Their subject doesn't move away. Mine does.





--
Tony Cooper, Orlando FL

On Saturday, 5 January 2013 18:19:03 UTC, Steve B wrote:

> You made reference to cheap glass. Are the three lens packages on the
> Internet for around $1400 cheap glass, or REAL Nikon lenses? They wanted
> $1297 for the one at Casey's out the door with the one lens.

18-105mm is a kit lens, cheap one. If you buy it you will make a loss if you sell it. The only lens worse than it is the 18-55mm.

Forget what I said about cheap lenses, your budget is tight. At the time I said that you were considering the D800.

Nikkor lenses are made by Nikon. There are a limited number of brands, Nikkor(Nikon), Sigma, Tokina and Tamron. There is also a single lens made by Samyang the 8mm manual focus.

>
> How careful do I need to be about bundled lens deals on ebay, and maybe
> bhcameras, and the big sellers? Is Nikkor lens a Nikon lens? How do I
> recognize a real Nikon, and are there knockoff lenses?
>

There are no counterfit lenses AFAIK. Bundle deals include cheap lenses.
Prime lenses (non zoom) although cheap offer good quality for money.

> If that 18-105 would do most of the work, I would foresee buying maybe a
> fixed length and a bigger telephoto lens, or maybe a converter in the
> future. Remote control. Things I could ask Santa for. And could you fill
> me in on the use of the 50mm fixed lens that is so common to bundles? What
> types of photos are they commonly used for?
>

18-105mm would cover you well. I have a 18-55mm, a 50mm and a 55-250mm. The18-55mm is a kit and I use it most. 50mm I use it indoors and for portraits, it is clearly sharp and gives me shallow depth of filed and I love usingit. 55-250mm I bought it cause I thought I need a long zoom but it turns out I don't as I rarely use it. I got the 55-250mm second hand well under the original price, seller ended up with 2 after ordering 1 on net.

I will upgrade one day and I know I would not get a good price for my zoom lenses but at least I did not cost me much, £200 for both.

Leave the teleconverter and remote control for now, consider a Lowepro slingbag.

>
> Lastly, I like macro work for insects and flowers, and very small stuff.
> What is a good focal length for a macro?

For macro work get a lens labelled as macro. Macro means it can focus closerelative to its focal length. The longer the focal length the longer the minimum focus distance so go for the longer focal length and use it as a telephoto as well. On a tight budget get the cheap Tamron 70-300 F4-5.6 macro (cheap, you are on a tight budget).

Stay away from any macro adaptors, although cheap they are a waste of time.

See what the 50mm f/1.8 can do http://goo.gl/yM44m

If I had the money and had to buy again I would go for a Tokina 11-16mm f/2..8, 28mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2.8 macro instead of what I have.


DanP

In article <>, Tony Cooper
<> wrote:

> >> Give up on the 3 cheap lenses and buy good glass with that money.
> >
> >Which brings me to the next question. I went to Casey's in Vegas yesterday,
> >and handled the D7000 with 18-105 VR (?) lens. I guess Canon's equivalent
> >is image stabilization. Nice hefty camera with lots of readable info.
> >
> >You made reference to cheap glass. Are the three lens packages on the
> >Internet for around $1400 cheap glass, or REAL Nikon lenses? They wanted
> >$1297 for the one at Casey's out the door with the one lens.
>
> It's not so much a matter of cheap glass. Some of Nikon's lenses are
> better than other Nikon lenses, but the not-better ones are not cheap
> glass.

some are.

> The Nikon kit lenses, or package lenses, are not as good as some of
> Nikon's other lenses, but you only get a premium lens if you pay a
> premium price.

obviously.

> Lenses with fewer elements tend produce sharper images than lenses
> with more elements.

wrong. *some* might, others might not. it depends on the lenses.

a better metric is cost. expensive lenses tend to produce sharper
images than cheaper lenses. that's one reason why they're expensive.

> There are more elements in an 18-105 than there
> are in an 18-55. The images will be less sharp at the 105 end, but
> whether or not that will be noticeable to you depends on what you're
> shooting.

are you seriously comparing 105mm from one lens to a lens that stops at
55mm??? seriously?

anyway, both of those are kit lenses that are designed for a price
point more than quality.

> The sharpest Nikon lenses are the prime lenses,

also false. the nikon 14-24mm zoom lens is sharper than any fixed focal
length nikon lens in that range (nikon's claim and tests bear that
out).

> but they are less
> adaptable in composing the image. You have to compose with your feet.
> The wider the range of zoom, the easier it is to compose unanticipated
> shots, but you might not get the tack-sharp image you want.

again, it depends on the lens.

> >How careful do I need to be about bundled lens deals on ebay, and maybe
> >bhcameras, and the big sellers?
>
> Be careful of the big internet sellers. B&H and Adorama are reputable
> dealers, but many of the others are not. They'll force you buy
> over-priced accessories or they'll cancel the sale.

some are scum, but it's not hard to figure out which ones they are. if
it's too good to be true it probably is.

<http://www.resellerratings.com/>

however, he was mainly asking about ebay. for ebay, read the auction
*very* carefully, ask questions and check the seller's feedback. know
what the item is worth, both new and used, and bid accordingly. there's
no point in bidding close to what you can buy one new in a store. there
are some very good deals on ebay but you do have to be smart about it.
ebay also offers their own protection in the unlikely event you get
screwed.

> >And could you fill me in on the use of the 50mm fixed lens that is so common
> >to bundles?
>
> >What types of photos are they commonly used for?
>
> That's a prime lens. No zoom factor. Compose with your feet. Great
> portrait lens if you are shooting people, especially the head and
> shoulder shot.

actually, a 50mm isn't that great for portraits. on a full frame camera
it's much too short and on a crop sensor camera (which he has), it's
75mm effective, which is better but still on the short side.

the main advantage of a 50mm is its speed, f/1.8 or f/1.4. that's quite
a bit faster than any kit zoom lens (f/4-5.6) and a bit faster than the
pro zooms (f/2..

> Do you understand "compose with your feet"? To fill the frame with
> the subject when using a prime lens, you move closer to or further
> from the subject. To compose the same image with a zoom lens (18-55,
> 18-105, or 18-270) you zoom in or out without having to move.

composing with your feet changes perspective. zooming does not.
changing the perspective might matter or it might not, depending on the
subject. for a portrait, it almost always will.

"DanP" <> wrote

Forget what I said about cheap lenses, your budget is tight. At the time I
said that you were considering the D800.

No, the D7000. I have that narrowed down now. Unless you confuse me again,
and suggest something bigger/better............

On Saturday, 5 January 2013 20:58:32 UTC, Tony Cooper wrote:

>
> Do you understand "compose with your feet"? To fill the frame with
> the subject when using a prime lens, you move closer to or further
> from the subject. To compose the same image with a zoom lens (18-55,
> 18-105, or 18-270) you zoom in or out without having to move.

After I got my prime lens I was forced to zoom with my feet. That was good because it made me move and since I was moving I was trying other angles.

Then after using the zoom lens again I have kept the good habit of searching for better angles.

Before that I was doing what novices do, stand where I was and turning the zoom ring to frame the shot.


DanP