Biggest mistake with the new D7000

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Sep 19, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Going from slotted eyelets to the old ring-type. These metal on metal
    instead of metal on strap style eyelets wear, especially when you
    carry heavier lenses. The chrome-plated brass ones on my Olympus E-1
    actually almost wore through. The ones on my D300 are down to the
    brass. the cost to replace them (because the camera has to go back to
    the mfg or a repair depot and taken apart) is about $250.00. This
    does not happen with slotted eyelets where the strap is what will
    wear, so you just need to replace the strap from time to time.
    RichA, Sep 19, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "RichA" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Going from slotted eyelets to the old ring-type. These metal on metal
    > instead of metal on strap style eyelets wear, especially when you
    > carry heavier lenses. The chrome-plated brass ones on my Olympus E-1
    > actually almost wore through. The ones on my D300 are down to the
    > brass. the cost to replace them (because the camera has to go back to
    > the mfg or a repair depot and taken apart) is about $250.00. This
    > does not happen with slotted eyelets where the strap is what will
    > wear, so you just need to replace the strap from time to time.


    They should have used plastic.
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Sep 20, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. N <> wrote:
    > "Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message
    > news:...



    > Whereas I much prefer the rotating ring-style connections as are on some of
    > the Sony superzoom cameras. One I have from 8 years ago


    >================================================


    > What do you define as a superzoom? Did Sony really make superzoom cameras 8
    > years ago?


    Wellll, Sony made some superzooms in '98 ... e.g. a 14x (37-518mm)
    0.7MPix
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/mavica_fd91.asp
    or a 10x (40-400mm) 0.3MPix in 99
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_fd73.asp
    or a 10x (37-370mm) 1.9MPix in 2000
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_fd95.asp
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_cd1000.asp
    or a 10x (39-390mm) 1.9MPix in 2001
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_fd97.asp
    or a 8x (41-328mm) 1.2MPix in 2001
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_fd92.asp
    or a 10x (40-400mm) 0.3MPix in 2001
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_fd75.asp

    But *none* in 2002, according to dpreview.com ...


    Our troll saw a 0.3MPix superzoom once in a shop window, when it
    was pushed by in it's stroller. That was 8 years ago. Or maybe
    it found a broken one that was made 8 years ago. It obviously
    never used one. All images it shows are stolen, usually from
    DSLR cameras.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 20, 2010
    #3
  4. RichA

    Ofnuts Guest

    On 20/09/2010 21:19, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > N<> wrote:
    >> "Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message
    >> news:...

    >
    >
    >> Whereas I much prefer the rotating ring-style connections as are on some of
    >> the Sony superzoom cameras. One I have from 8 years ago

    >
    >> ================================================

    >
    >> What do you define as a superzoom? Did Sony really make superzoom cameras 8
    >> years ago?

    >
    > Wellll, Sony made some superzooms in '98 ... e.g. a 14x (37-518mm)
    > 0.7MPix
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/mavica_fd91.asp
    > or a 10x (40-400mm) 0.3MPix in 99
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_fd73.asp
    > or a 10x (37-370mm) 1.9MPix in 2000
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_fd95.asp
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_cd1000.asp
    > or a 10x (39-390mm) 1.9MPix in 2001
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_fd97.asp
    > or a 8x (41-328mm) 1.2MPix in 2001
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_fd92.asp
    > or a 10x (40-400mm) 0.3MPix in 2001
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_fd75.asp
    >
    > But *none* in 2002, according to dpreview.com ...
    >
    >
    > Our troll saw a 0.3MPix superzoom once in a shop window, when it
    > was pushed by in it's stroller. That was 8 years ago. Or maybe
    > it found a broken one that was made 8 years ago. It obviously
    > never used one. All images it shows are stolen, usually from
    > DSLR cameras.


    You can have a 2001 superzoom in 2002... And you missed:
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf707/

    Of course, given their specs, the cameras Supy uses these days are by
    Acme Corp. or "Air".
    --
    Bertrand
    Ofnuts, Sep 20, 2010
    #4
  5. Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 21, 2010
    #5
  6. On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 21:19:09 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    <> wrote:

    > All images it shows are stolen, usually from
    >DSLR cameras.


    Thanks for the compliment. Or should I say, the compliment that you are
    paying to all superzoom cameras since you insist they were all shot with
    dslrs. Now, describe just ONE (or more) of them that you claim I stole.
    You're desperately crying out to be revealed for the lying, sniveling, ****
    of a libelous and slanderous pretend-photographer troll that you are. If
    you don't describe at least one of them, then that automatically makes you
    a lying, sniveling, **** of a libelous and slanderous pretend-photographer
    troll.

    LOL!
    Superzooms Still Win, Sep 21, 2010
    #6
  7. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 07:33:05 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
    : Going from slotted eyelets to the old ring-type. These metal on metal
    : instead of metal on strap style eyelets wear, especially when you
    : carry heavier lenses. The chrome-plated brass ones on my Olympus E-1
    : actually almost wore through. The ones on my D300 are down to the
    : brass. the cost to replace them (because the camera has to go back to
    : the mfg or a repair depot and taken apart) is about $250.00. This
    : does not happen with slotted eyelets where the strap is what will
    : wear, so you just need to replace the strap from time to time.

    I never took you for a Canon admirer, Rich, but every Canon we've owned except
    my wife's old S-50 has the kind of strap you favor.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Sep 25, 2010
    #7
  8. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 09:50:05 -0500, Superzooms Still Win <>
    wrote:
    : On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 07:33:05 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    : wrote:
    :
    : >Going from slotted eyelets to the old ring-type. These metal on metal
    : >instead of metal on strap style eyelets wear, especially when you
    : >carry heavier lenses. The chrome-plated brass ones on my Olympus E-1
    : >actually almost wore through. The ones on my D300 are down to the
    : >brass. the cost to replace them (because the camera has to go back to
    : >the mfg or a repair depot and taken apart) is about $250.00. This
    : >does not happen with slotted eyelets where the strap is what will
    : >wear, so you just need to replace the strap from time to time.
    :
    : Whereas I much prefer the rotating ring-style connections as are on some of
    : the Sony superzoom cameras. One I have from 8 years ago has never worn nor
    : broken nor has any strap attached to it ever been strained enough to even
    : show wear. ...
    :
    : Haven't used many, or any, cameras have you. It shows.

    What shows is that the wear that Rich described occurs only if the camera is
    actually used. If the shoe fits, wear it.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Sep 25, 2010
    #8
  9. On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 20:55:24 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 09:50:05 -0500, Superzooms Still Win <>
    >wrote:
    >: On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 07:33:05 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >: wrote:
    >:
    >: >Going from slotted eyelets to the old ring-type. These metal on metal
    >: >instead of metal on strap style eyelets wear, especially when you
    >: >carry heavier lenses. The chrome-plated brass ones on my Olympus E-1
    >: >actually almost wore through. The ones on my D300 are down to the
    >: >brass. the cost to replace them (because the camera has to go back to
    >: >the mfg or a repair depot and taken apart) is about $250.00. This
    >: >does not happen with slotted eyelets where the strap is what will
    >: >wear, so you just need to replace the strap from time to time.
    >:
    >: Whereas I much prefer the rotating ring-style connections as are on some of
    >: the Sony superzoom cameras. One I have from 8 years ago has never worn nor
    >: broken nor has any strap attached to it ever been strained enough to even
    >: show wear. ...
    >:
    >: Haven't used many, or any, cameras have you. It shows.
    >
    >What shows is that the wear that Rich described occurs only if the camera is
    >actually used. If the shoe fits, wear it.
    >
    >Bob


    Now that's an odd lie coming from the usual TROLL. That particular camera
    with the rotating eyelets has over 400,000 photos taken on it so far. It's
    been schlepped from mountain-top to desert to remote steamy swamp and
    everything in between. I have the photos to prove it and have already
    posted some of them to do just that. Even the brand name got worn off of
    the strap, but the strap itself is just fine. The only "repair" its needed
    so far is that some of the body-screws became a little loose from all the
    abuse it's been though. I simple jeweler's screwdriver to the rescue.

    Got something else you want to add? You lousy piece-of-SHIT
    pretend-photographer **** of a TROLL.
    Superzooms Still Win, Sep 25, 2010
    #9
  10. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 21:48:20 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
    <> wrote:

    >Now that's an odd lie coming from the usual TROLL. That particular camera
    >with the rotating eyelets has over 400,000 photos taken on it so far.


    That is truly impressive! There are that many rare moths in your
    backyard? Did any of the 400,000 turn out? All we saw here was the
    one that was either a rare moth or a crumpled up mohair sweater that
    had been left out in the rain.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Sep 25, 2010
    #10
  11. RichA

    LOL! Guest

    On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 23:25:07 -0400, tony cooper
    <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 21:48:20 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>Now that's an odd lie coming from the usual TROLL. That particular camera
    >>with the rotating eyelets has over 400,000 photos taken on it so far.

    >
    >That is truly impressive! There are that many rare moths in your
    >backyard? Did any of the 400,000 turn out? All we saw here was the
    >one that was either a rare moth or a crumpled up mohair sweater that
    >had been left out in the rain.
    >
    >


    Here's your chance! To prove to the world that you are NOT a fuckingly
    pathetic liar and slanderous libelous **** of a TROLL!

    Post PROOF that I EVER CLAIMED to have posted ANY photo of ANY rare moth!

    C'mon! You can do it! Can't you?

    LOL!

    NO, you CAN'T! Because I never posted any photo of any rare moth nor have I
    ever claimed to.

    Prove me WRONG! Until then ... you're nothing but a lying **** of a
    libelous and slanderous fuckhead TROLL. This post PROVES IT!

    LOL!
    LOL!, Sep 25, 2010
    #11
  12. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >
    > N <> wrote:
    > > "Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message
    > > news:...

    >
    > > Whereas I much prefer the rotating ring-style connections as are
    > > on some of the Sony superzoom cameras. One I have from 8 years ago

    >
    > >================================================

    >
    > > What do you define as a superzoom? Did Sony really make superzoom
    > > cameras 8 years ago?

    >
    > Wellll, Sony made some superzooms in '98 ... e.g. a 14x (37-518mm)
    > 0.7MPix
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/mavica_fd91.asp


    Whoa! A 14x >optical zoom< digicam existed, as far back as 1998?

    > or a 10x (40-400mm) 0.3MPix in 99
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_fd73.asp
    > or a 10x (37-370mm) 1.9MPix in 2000
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_fd95.asp
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_cd1000.asp
    > or a 10x (39-390mm) 1.9MPix in 2001
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_fd97.asp
    > or a 8x (41-328mm) 1.2MPix in 2001
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_fd92.asp
    > or a 10x (40-400mm) 0.3MPix in 2001
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_fd75.asp
    >
    > But *none* in 2002, according to dpreview.com ...
    >
    > Our troll saw a 0.3MPix superzoom once in a shop window, when it
    > was pushed by in it's stroller. That was 8 years ago. Or maybe
    > it found a broken one that was made 8 years ago. It obviously
    > never used one. All images it shows are stolen, usually from
    > DSLR cameras.
    >
    > -Wolfgang


    Just Tuesday (September 21, 2010), in a local thrift store, I'd
    stumbled upon a Sony "Mavica" MVC-FD200 (priced at $9.98 USD).
    It was inside a soft, black carrying case (OEM) and in decent
    cosmetic condition -- and even contained an orange, 3.5" floppy
    diskette!

    Naturally, I was able to resist purchasing such a bulky, 2MP (3x
    zoom lens) dinosaur.

    The MVC-FD200 did have some redeeming attributes, though (e.g.,
    sturdy construction & Japanese-made quality).

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
    John Turco, Sep 25, 2010
    #12
  13. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Superzooms Still Win wrote:
    >
    > On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 00:40:02 -0500, John Turco <> wrote:


    <edited for brevity>

    > > Just Tuesday (September 21, 2010), in a local thrift store, I'd
    > > stumbled upon a Sony "Mavica" MVC-FD200 (priced at $9.98 USD).
    > > It was inside a soft, black carrying case (OEM) and in decent
    > > cosmetic condition -- and even contained an orange, 3.5" floppy
    > > diskette!
    > >
    > > Naturally, I was able to resist purchasing such a bulky, 2MP (3x
    > > zoom lens) dinosaur.
    > >
    > > The MVC-FD200 did have some redeeming attributes, though (e.g.,
    > > sturdy construction & Japanese-made quality).

    >
    > Funny you mention that. I friend handed me a MVC-FD88 the other day. Got it
    > in a box of stuff he bought at an auction for $1. Works perfectly fine too.
    > I modified the included charger by clipping a few plastic-stops to charge
    > up some other models of Li-Ions I have for other Sony cameras and IR
    > floods. Too bad there's no easy way to go from 3.5" floppy to computers
    > these days. But that's okay. At best resolution you can get 3-5 images on
    > a disc. Or 15 seconds of video.


    Thankfully, the MVC-FD200's storage capability wasn't limited to floppies.
    It had a slot for Sony's proprietary "Memory Stick" cards, also.

    > To think these 1.3 megapixel cameras originally sold for $999.00 too.


    I've gathered (via Google) that the MVC-FD200 carried a suggested retail
    price of $499.00 USD, upon its 2001 introduction.

    > I think they were made obsolete before they even hit the shelves. A fun
    > relic (in electronics terms) to have in my collection. There's a nice
    > hefty black nylon and leather (Minolta) strap with nice blue stitching
    > and logo, and swivel-snaps attached to it that's worth far more than
    > that $1 he spent. I'll probably make use of that. Though the two bands
    > for 35mm film canisters will take some creativity to find a use for those.
    > Maybe a 35mm can with a micro-fiber cloth tucked into it. Another holding
    > an emergency shot of rum. :)


    If nothing else, such a ponderous camera could be used as a bludgeon, in
    the event one becomes the victim of a mugging.

    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
    John Turco, Oct 31, 2010
    #13
  14. RichA

    Don Wiss Guest

    On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 02:52:06 -0500, John Turco <> wrote:

    >Superzooms Still Win wrote:
    >> To think these 1.3 megapixel cameras originally sold for $999.00 too.

    >
    >I've gathered (via Google) that the MVC-FD200 carried a suggested retail
    >price of $499.00 USD, upon its 2001 introduction.


    I used a borrowed Sony Mavica in the Spring of 1999. It cost the fellow
    more than $499. If that model came out in 2001, then this was an earlier
    model, possibly with less than a 1.3 MP resolution.

    I just put MVC-FD100 in Google (a logical guess as to what the previous
    model might be) and Amazon claims it came out in 2002 and I find $799 on
    ZDNet. This is what I recall my friend paid for whatever Mavica it was.

    Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
    Don Wiss, Nov 1, 2010
    #14
  15. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    Don Wiss wrote:
    >
    > On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 02:52:06 -0500, John Turco <> wrote:
    >
    > >Superzooms Still Win wrote:
    > >> To think these 1.3 megapixel cameras originally sold for $999.00 too.

    > >
    > >I've gathered (via Google) that the MVC-FD200 carried a suggested retail
    > >price of $499.00 USD, upon its 2001 introduction.

    >
    > I used a borrowed Sony Mavica in the Spring of 1999. It cost the fellow
    > more than $499. If that model came out in 2001, then this was an earlier
    > model, possibly with less than a 1.3 MP resolution.
    >
    > I just put MVC-FD100 in Google (a logical guess as to what the previous
    > model might be) and Amazon claims it came out in 2002 and I find $799 on
    > ZDNet. This is what I recall my friend paid for whatever Mavica it was.
    >
    > Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).



    In any case, Mavicas were overpriced and underwhelming.

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
    John Turco, Nov 28, 2010
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bruce

    The Nikon D90 is dead. Long live the Nikon D7000!

    Bruce, Sep 15, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    634
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Sep 27, 2010
  2. George Paleologopoulos

    D7000

    George Paleologopoulos, Oct 27, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    596
    Bruce
    Nov 1, 2010
  3. Eddy

    Nikon D7000 first pics

    Eddy, Nov 6, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    372
  4. George Paleologopoulos

    D7000 sensor tests

    George Paleologopoulos, Nov 8, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,014
    Bruce
    Nov 12, 2010
  5. RichA

    D7000 before you buy it, try it in your hand

    RichA, Dec 5, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    548
    peter
    Dec 7, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page