Nikon Digital SLR guidance

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Neil Jones, Jul 26, 2011.

  1. Neil Jones

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/5/2011 11:36 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 23:05:28 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 8/5/2011 9:16 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 19:41:41 -0400, tony cooper<>
    >>> wrote:
    >>> : On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:55:14 -0400, PeterN
    >>> :<> wrote:
    >>> :
    >>> :>As a consumer I like that policy. It makes it harder for the store to
    >>> :>sell new merchandise as new. (A practice that is not unknown.)
    >>> :
    >>> : You want to re-think that one?
    >>>
    >>> Good catch! ;^)
    >>>
    >>> Bob

    >>
    >> the statement was not untrue. Just obviously not what I meant.

    >
    > I understand that. I've just caught a couple of typos in my posts
    > today. I couldn't resist, though.
    >
    >

    I understood I was being tweaked. Actually, that was a speako, not a typo.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 6, 2011
    #81
    1. Advertising

  2. Neil Jones

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:17:57 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >: >: >Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.
    >: >:
    >: >: You have to know to disclose. Obviously, Bruce didn't know. But, he
    >: >: manned up and called the buyer. He wouldn't have called the buyer if
    >: >: he wasn't willing to make things right for the buyer if the buyer was
    >: >: dissatisfied.
    >: >:
    >: >: If I buy something used and get treated like Bruce treated his buyer,
    >: >: Bruce would have my business for life. I don't expect that a store
    >: >: that takes in trades is going to catch every problem or doesn't make
    >: >: mistakes. A store that calls me and gives me a chance to right a
    >: >: wrong deserves my loyalty, though.
    >: >
    >: >Quite right. Bruce's intentions were honorable, and he made sure the customer
    >: >didn't feel cheated. But sometimes appearances are (for legal or other
    >: >reasons) at least as important as reality. And I'm not sure that what was done
    >: >addressed the appearance issue sufficiently.
    >:
    >: I don't see how a lawyer could be involved in any way. Sales of used
    >: merchandise between private parties, and usually between a store and a
    >: private party, are always "as is" in the US unless there's some
    >: specific warranty or unless there's deliberately fraudulent
    >: representation.
    >
    >Someone has already told us that in New York the seller is responsible for
    >disclosure if he knows or should know of the defect. Under NY law, one
    >suspects that a professional camera salesman "should have known" in this case.
    >It may, of course, be quite different in the UK.


    Remember, though, that this is civil - not criminal - matter. You
    won't get far demanding your money back if the seller doesn't want to
    give you your money back. You can't call a cop and expect him to do
    anything. Since it's a private party sale, you can't report the
    problem to some state authority and expect anything to be done.
    Unless you can claim fraud, there's really not much you can do.

    I suppose you could go to small claims court, but I wouldn't gamble
    the filing fee unless you have some documentation or witness or
    something to buttress your case. I really, really doubt if any lawyer
    would take on the case.

    >: A $10,000 sale of a used automobile between private parties is an "as
    >: is" sale unless there is a specific warranty or fraud.
    >
    >That may be true in Florida, but it isn't true in Massachusetts, which has a
    >"lemon law" that applies to used cars, no matter who the seller is. If you
    >sell something as a "car", rather than as just a pile of parts, it must be
    >able to pass the inspection required for registration in Massachusetts.


    There are restrictions on that even in Mass, and the sale is still "as
    is". You can get your money back if the defect is a safety problem
    or impairs the use of the vehicle, but not for just any problem not
    disclosed. If you buy a used car with what appears to be a high-end
    audio system, and it doesn't work, that's not a safety or drivability
    defect. You should have turned it on before buying.

    >"US law" is far too broad a term to be used in this context. Different states
    >handle such matters differently.


    US laws as opposed to UK laws, in this case.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 6, 2011
    #82
    1. Advertising

  3. Neil Jones

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 22:45:13 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 8/5/2011 6:19 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:50:49 -0400, PeterN
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 8/5/2011 3:23 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:54:51 -0400, PeterN
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 8/5/2011 11:42 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >>>>>> On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:21:16 -0400, PeterN<>
    >>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>> : On 8/3/2011 5:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
    >>>>>> :> Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>> :>
    >>>>>> :>> ...and that might explain why you had it to sell. Whoever traded it to
    >>>>>> :>> your store had obviously damaged it, and you guys missed that.
    >>>>>> :>> The problem as I see it, is a photo-equipment store which sold a used,
    >>>>>> :>> damaged D70 without a disclosure.
    >>>>>> :>
    >>>>>> :>
    >>>>>> :> No, I missed it, I sold it and I personally take full responsibility
    >>>>>> :> for all used equipment sales. I buy almost all the used stock from
    >>>>>> :> the company's stores and sell it privately - it enables the company to
    >>>>>> :> accept used equipment in part exchange while avoiding the hassle of
    >>>>>> :> selling it on. The only exception is some high value used equipment,
    >>>>>> :> especially Leica gear, which is sold in one store only.
    >>>>>> :>
    >>>>>> :> The buyer is happy, because he got a great deal. The total price was
    >>>>>> :> less than the originally advertised price of the lenses alone. I gave
    >>>>>> :> him a large discount to get rid of some excess stock - I have about a
    >>>>>> :> dozen D70 and D70s bodies to sell.
    >>>>>> :>
    >>>>>> :> He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
    >>>>>> :> didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
    >>>>>> :> work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
    >>>>>> :> and got the camera body free. After we discussed the D70s he placed
    >>>>>> :> an order with us for a D300 replacement (D400?) so he wasn't in any
    >>>>>> :> way unhappy.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Although I suppose it's of no relevance, some US states have "lemon laws" that
    >>>>>> might have forced you to return the camera or get it fixed. In such a case
    >>>>>> you'd have been well advised to trade it for one of your bodies with a
    >>>>>> functioning AF motor; the customer could change his mind later and go to a
    >>>>>> lawyer (especially if there turned out to be something else wrong with the
    >>>>>> camera).
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> :> Of course he did not have the benefit of advice from a clutch of
    >>>>>> :> particularly nasty geriatric barrack-room lawyers posting on Usenet.
    >>>>>> :> If he had, he would no doubt be engaging a lawyer to sue my ass off
    >>>>>> :> for selling his client a faulty camera for nothing. ;-)
    >>>>>> :>
    >>>>>> :
    >>>>>> : Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> To this geriatric non-lawyer, the key disclosure is that Bruce was selling the
    >>>>>> camera privately. If that wasn't disclosed (in writing) and the sale took
    >>>>>> place in or near the store, I suspect that both Bruce and the store could be
    >>>>>> in serious trouble. If it were me, I think I'd immediately exchange that
    >>>>>> camera for my best fully functional D70/s body, whether the customer requested
    >>>>>> it or not.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Bob
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Agreed, almost. While Bruce is an individual, according to him, he is in
    >>>>> the business of selling used cameras. That takes him outside the rule of
    >>>>> a casual sale between laymen.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> In NY the rule is if the seller "knew, or reasonably should have known."
    >>>>> Clearly, Bruce could have taken the trouble to look on the website, but
    >>>>> didn't, for whatever reason. As a consumer I have a right to rely on
    >>>>> experts. An exception is made where the merchandise is clearly marked:
    >>>>> "AS IS," and the bill of sale reflects that fact.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> A few years ago
    >>>>
    >>>> You're a lawyer, right? You should know, but as far as I know there
    >>>> is no requirement to write "as is" on any bill of sale. There is no
    >>>> legal requirement to even *provide* a bill of sale or even a receipt
    >>>> for most items. (Excluding vehicle and real property sales)
    >>>>
    >>>> I know state laws vary considerably, and New York may have some
    >>>> consumer protection laws I'm not aware of, but the sale of used
    >>>> merchandise is generally "as is" without any need for declaration of
    >>>> known problems and including puffery.
    >>>>
    >>>> Fraud is another matter, but that "knew, or reasonably should have
    >>>> known." isn't fraud in and by itself. Fraud is a deliberate action of
    >>>> misrepresentation.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> See UCC article 2. Specifically the sections I cited in another
    >>> response. I don't know whether FL has adopted the UCC, but I think it has.

    >>
    >> I'm not going to pore through the UCC. Does it say "as is" must be
    >> written on the bill of sale? Does it say a bill of sale is required
    >> for the sale of all used merchandise?
    >>
    >>

    >
    >the UCC states @ 2-316(3):
    >
    >(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2)
    >
    >(a) unless the circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties
    >are excluded by expressions like "as is", "with all faults" or other
    >language that in common understanding calls the buyer's attention to the
    >exclusion of warranties, makes plain that there is no implied warranty,
    >and, in a consumer contract evidenced by a record, is set forth
    >conspicuously in the record;
    >
    >(b) if the buyer before entering into the contract has examined the
    >goods or the sample or model as fully as desired or has refused to
    >examine the goods after a demand by the seller there is no implied
    >warranty with regard to defects that an examination in the circumstances
    >should have revealed to the buyer; and
    >
    >(c) an implied warranty may also be excluded or modified by course of
    >dealing or course of performance or usage of trade.
    >
    >(4) Remedies
    >
    >While it need not be stated in the bill of sale, it seems to me that
    >prudence would dictate that a merchant


    A merchant, maybe, but this was a private sale between individuals.

    >seeking to avoid the implied
    >warranty, would provide proof right on the bill of sale, in order to
    >minimize a buyer's remorse claim that the disclaimer was not clear.


    Is the short form answer from (b) then "if the buyer has examined the
    goods as fully as (he) desired...there is no implied warranty" and
    "no bill of sale is required"?

    If so, Bruce's buyer would have no recourse under UCC article 2 if
    the sale took place in the US. We don't have any indication that the
    buyer was denied examination.

    Citing the UCC in this situation is kinda like a lawyer bluffing and
    hoping the seller will cave and hand over the money.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 6, 2011
    #83
  4. Neil Jones

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/6/2011 12:10 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 22:45:13 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 8/5/2011 6:19 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:50:49 -0400, PeterN
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 8/5/2011 3:23 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>>>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:54:51 -0400, PeterN
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 8/5/2011 11:42 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >>>>>>> On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:21:16 -0400, PeterN<>
    >>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>> : On 8/3/2011 5:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
    >>>>>>> :> Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>>> :>
    >>>>>>> :>> ...and that might explain why you had it to sell. Whoever traded it to
    >>>>>>> :>> your store had obviously damaged it, and you guys missed that.
    >>>>>>> :>> The problem as I see it, is a photo-equipment store which sold a used,
    >>>>>>> :>> damaged D70 without a disclosure.
    >>>>>>> :>
    >>>>>>> :>
    >>>>>>> :> No, I missed it, I sold it and I personally take full responsibility
    >>>>>>> :> for all used equipment sales. I buy almost all the used stock from
    >>>>>>> :> the company's stores and sell it privately - it enables the company to
    >>>>>>> :> accept used equipment in part exchange while avoiding the hassle of
    >>>>>>> :> selling it on. The only exception is some high value used equipment,
    >>>>>>> :> especially Leica gear, which is sold in one store only.
    >>>>>>> :>
    >>>>>>> :> The buyer is happy, because he got a great deal. The total price was
    >>>>>>> :> less than the originally advertised price of the lenses alone. I gave
    >>>>>>> :> him a large discount to get rid of some excess stock - I have about a
    >>>>>>> :> dozen D70 and D70s bodies to sell.
    >>>>>>> :>
    >>>>>>> :> He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
    >>>>>>> :> didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
    >>>>>>> :> work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
    >>>>>>> :> and got the camera body free. After we discussed the D70s he placed
    >>>>>>> :> an order with us for a D300 replacement (D400?) so he wasn't in any
    >>>>>>> :> way unhappy.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Although I suppose it's of no relevance, some US states have "lemon laws" that
    >>>>>>> might have forced you to return the camera or get it fixed. In such a case
    >>>>>>> you'd have been well advised to trade it for one of your bodies with a
    >>>>>>> functioning AF motor; the customer could change his mind later and go to a
    >>>>>>> lawyer (especially if there turned out to be something else wrong with the
    >>>>>>> camera).
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> :> Of course he did not have the benefit of advice from a clutch of
    >>>>>>> :> particularly nasty geriatric barrack-room lawyers posting on Usenet.
    >>>>>>> :> If he had, he would no doubt be engaging a lawyer to sue my ass off
    >>>>>>> :> for selling his client a faulty camera for nothing. ;-)
    >>>>>>> :>
    >>>>>>> :
    >>>>>>> : Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> To this geriatric non-lawyer, the key disclosure is that Bruce was selling the
    >>>>>>> camera privately. If that wasn't disclosed (in writing) and the sale took
    >>>>>>> place in or near the store, I suspect that both Bruce and the store could be
    >>>>>>> in serious trouble. If it were me, I think I'd immediately exchange that
    >>>>>>> camera for my best fully functional D70/s body, whether the customer requested
    >>>>>>> it or not.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Bob
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Agreed, almost. While Bruce is an individual, according to him, he is in
    >>>>>> the business of selling used cameras. That takes him outside the rule of
    >>>>>> a casual sale between laymen.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> In NY the rule is if the seller "knew, or reasonably should have known."
    >>>>>> Clearly, Bruce could have taken the trouble to look on the website, but
    >>>>>> didn't, for whatever reason. As a consumer I have a right to rely on
    >>>>>> experts. An exception is made where the merchandise is clearly marked:
    >>>>>> "AS IS," and the bill of sale reflects that fact.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> A few years ago
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You're a lawyer, right? You should know, but as far as I know there
    >>>>> is no requirement to write "as is" on any bill of sale. There is no
    >>>>> legal requirement to even *provide* a bill of sale or even a receipt
    >>>>> for most items. (Excluding vehicle and real property sales)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I know state laws vary considerably, and New York may have some
    >>>>> consumer protection laws I'm not aware of, but the sale of used
    >>>>> merchandise is generally "as is" without any need for declaration of
    >>>>> known problems and including puffery.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Fraud is another matter, but that "knew, or reasonably should have
    >>>>> known." isn't fraud in and by itself. Fraud is a deliberate action of
    >>>>> misrepresentation.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> See UCC article 2. Specifically the sections I cited in another
    >>>> response. I don't know whether FL has adopted the UCC, but I think it has.
    >>>
    >>> I'm not going to pore through the UCC. Does it say "as is" must be
    >>> written on the bill of sale? Does it say a bill of sale is required
    >>> for the sale of all used merchandise?
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> the UCC states @ 2-316(3):
    >>
    >> (3) Notwithstanding subsection (2)
    >>
    >> (a) unless the circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties
    >> are excluded by expressions like "as is", "with all faults" or other
    >> language that in common understanding calls the buyer's attention to the
    >> exclusion of warranties, makes plain that there is no implied warranty,
    >> and, in a consumer contract evidenced by a record, is set forth
    >> conspicuously in the record;
    >>
    >> (b) if the buyer before entering into the contract has examined the
    >> goods or the sample or model as fully as desired or has refused to
    >> examine the goods after a demand by the seller there is no implied
    >> warranty with regard to defects that an examination in the circumstances
    >> should have revealed to the buyer; and
    >>
    >> (c) an implied warranty may also be excluded or modified by course of
    >> dealing or course of performance or usage of trade.
    >>
    >> (4) Remedies
    >>
    >> While it need not be stated in the bill of sale, it seems to me that
    >> prudence would dictate that a merchant

    >
    > A merchant, maybe, but this was a private sale between individuals.
    >


    Under the UCC Bruce would be considered a merchant.

    § 2-104. Definitions: "Merchant"; "Between Merchants"; "Financing
    Agency".

    (1) "Merchant" means a person that deals in goods of the kind or
    otherwise holds itself out by occupation as having knowledge or skill
    peculiar to the practices or goods involved in the transaction or to
    which the knowledge or skill may be attributed by the person's
    employment of an agent or broker or other intermediary that holds itself
    out by occupation as having the knowledge or skill.



    >> seeking to avoid the implied
    >> warranty, would provide proof right on the bill of sale, in order to
    >> minimize a buyer's remorse claim that the disclaimer was not clear.

    >
    > Is the short form answer from (b) then "if the buyer has examined the
    > goods as fully as (he) desired...there is no implied warranty" and
    > "no bill of sale is required"?


    In NY the defect here would be considered a hidden defect. If the glass
    on a lens was cracked and the buyer should have easily seen it the
    implied warranty would have been waived. Courts generally examine
    consumer contracts more closely than between merchants. In NY I think
    that a bill of sale would be required, and since the defect was not the
    type that would normally be uncovered in a cursory examination, the sale
    would be subject to rescission by the buyer.

    >
    > If so, Bruce's buyer would have no recourse under UCC article 2 if
    > the sale took place in the US. We don't have any indication that the
    > buyer was denied examination.
    >
    > Citing the UCC in this situation is kinda like a lawyer bluffing and
    > hoping the seller will cave and hand over the money.
    >
    >



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 6, 2011
    #84
  5. Neil Jones

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/7/2011 11:59 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:


    <snip>

    >
    > Because the conversion means losing real lens interchangeability, as I
    > recall their literature. They adjust focus to work with a particular lens.
    >


    I am old enough to remember manual focus. Also, unless you are doing
    critical close up work, you will be covered by the hyperfocal distance.

    > But it's not costing you anything sitting there, still serves as a
    > "lifeboat" if you should ever need it (which it would no longer do once
    > converted to IR), could be useful as a second body if you should ever want
    > to keep a particular lens on one body, -- and the conversion is a relatively
    > expensive thing to do, in my opinion.
    >
    > But I'd agree it depends on how important IR photography is to you. If you
    > really do a lot of IR, or intend to do a lot of it, and don't mind limiting
    > yourself to the particular lens the focus is adjusted for, then I suppose
    > the D70 conversion probably does make sense.
    >


    Personal choice. is what it is about. I see little reason to disparage
    anyone's choice of working medium.

    >
    > Well, the focus adjustment information is taken directly from the sensor in
    > such cameras, is it not?
    >


    I had no such issue with my 8800 conversion.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 7, 2011
    #85
  6. Neil Jones

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 07 Aug 2011 13:29:13 -0400, PeterN <>
    wrote:
    : On 8/7/2011 11:59 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    :
    : <snip>
    :
    : >
    : > Because the conversion means losing real lens interchangeability, as
    : > I recall their literature. They adjust focus to work with a particular
    : > lens.
    :
    : I am old enough to remember manual focus. Also, unless you are doing
    : critical close up work, you will be covered by the hyperfocal distance.

    You can't focus an IR image manually, because you can't see it. The best you
    can do manually is focus in visible light, then apply the IR correction,
    hoping that the IR mark is accurate enough to fool your lying eyes.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Aug 7, 2011
    #86
  7. Neil Jones

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Robert Coe
    <> wrote:

    > You can't focus an IR image manually, because you can't see it.


    you can if the camera has live view.
     
    nospam, Aug 7, 2011
    #87
  8. Neil Jones

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 07 Aug 2011 13:28:02 -0700, nospam <> wrote:
    : In article <>, Robert Coe
    : <> wrote:
    :
    : > You can't focus an IR image manually, because you can't see it.
    :
    : you can if the camera has live view.

    Yeah, I guess you could. (Someone did mention that earlier, didn't they?)
    Which brings us back to the suggestion to convert a P&S, since few would
    sacrifice a DSLR recent enough to have live view.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Aug 7, 2011
    #88
  9. Neil Jones

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/7/2011 4:21 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Sun, 07 Aug 2011 13:29:13 -0400, PeterN<>
    > wrote:
    > : On 8/7/2011 11:59 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    > :
    > :<snip>
    > :
    > :>
    > :> Because the conversion means losing real lens interchangeability, as
    > :> I recall their literature. They adjust focus to work with a particular
    > :> lens.
    > :
    > : I am old enough to remember manual focus. Also, unless you are doing
    > : critical close up work, you will be covered by the hyperfocal distance.
    >
    > You can't focus an IR image manually, because you can't see it. The best you
    > can do manually is focus in visible light, then apply the IR correction,
    > hoping that the IR mark is accurate enough to fool your lying eyes.


    Of course. Which is why I stated what I did. In most landscapes the IR
    focusing should be within the hyperfocal range. If it is not, then you
    will have bracket the focus.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 8, 2011
    #89
  10. PeterN <> wrote:
    > On 7/28/2011 3:25 PM, nospam wrote:
    >> In article<4e31b63e$0$12493$-secrets.com>, PeterN


    >>> If I want closer focus I use extension tubes.


    >> that also degrades things, since the lens was probably not designed for
    >> an extension (some lenses might be though).


    > It should have little noticeable effect on the resolution. If I am
    > wrong, I would like proof.


    Extension tubes increase the distance between the lens and the
    sensor. Unless you've got a telecentric lens (one where the
    rays already leave the lens perfectly parallel --- and where an
    extension tube therefore has zero effect) the rays are spreading
    out to the sensor. Increasing said distance causes the rays to
    spread more (and hit a wider area than the sensor covers).

    This does magnify some lens defects (say fringing). It also
    magnifies the image, which in turn means the lens has to deliver
    a higher resolution for the same resolution at the sensor.

    If your sensor can resolve enough to be worthy of the lens without
    extension tube, it'll now see a worse performance. If however the
    sensor is usually challenged to resolve what the lens delivers,
    extension tubes might have no effect (depending on how long
    they are).


    If you want to play, measure the resolving power of your lens &
    sensor at, say, wide open (so the system is limited by the lens),
    and at wide open with lots of extension tube in between.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 8, 2011
    #90
  11. Neil Jones

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/7/2011 10:08 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    > PeterN wrote:
    >> On 8/7/2011 11:59 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Because the conversion means losing real lens interchangeability, as
    >>> I recall their literature. They adjust focus to work with a
    >>> particular lens.

    >>
    >> I am old enough to remember manual focus.

    >
    > So am I (old enough and then some), but manual focus without the viewfinder
    > focusing aids that came in virtually all SLRs after 1960 or so is not much
    > fun -- assuming it works at all with a D70 conversion.
    >
    >> Also, unless you are doing
    >> critical close up work, you will be covered by the hyperfocal
    >> distance.

    >
    > Only at apertures so small you wouldn't want to use them in the first place.
    > Do you really depend on being "covered by the hyperfocal distance" in your
    > photography? I think most of us here have moved well beyond box cameras.


    Unless I am shooting wildlife in motion, I use a decoupled autofocus and
    manually focus, relying on hyperfocal distance. I don't recommend it for
    anyone who doesn't understand exactly what they are doing. I will also
    shoot at high ISO.


    >
    >>
    >>> But it's not costing you anything sitting there, still serves as a
    >>> "lifeboat" if you should ever need it (which it would no longer do
    >>> once converted to IR), could be useful as a second body if you
    >>> should ever want to keep a particular lens on one body, -- and the
    >>> conversion is a relatively expensive thing to do, in my opinion.
    >>>
    >>> But I'd agree it depends on how important IR photography is to you.
    >>> If you really do a lot of IR, or intend to do a lot of it, and don't
    >>> mind limiting yourself to the particular lens the focus is adjusted
    >>> for, then I suppose the D70 conversion probably does make sense.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Personal choice. is what it is about. I see little reason to disparage
    >> anyone's choice of working medium.

    >
    > This is a discussion. Did you not understand that? It has nothing to do with
    > disparaging "anyone's choice of working medium."


    I am happy you feel that way. Some here tend to get very personal.

    >
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Well, the focus adjustment information is taken directly from the
    >>> sensor in such cameras, is it not?
    >>>

    >>
    >> I had no such issue with my 8800 conversion.

    >
    > There *is* "no such issue" with an IR conversion on an EVF camera, is what I
    > said. Conversion of an 8400 (or an 8800, of course) is exactly what I
    > suggested as preferable to a D70 conversion.
    >
    >

    Since I have not made any comparisons I cannot respond. Right now I am
    thinking of converting my D200.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 9, 2011
    #91
  12. Neil Jones

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/8/2011 4:35 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > PeterN<> wrote:
    >> On 7/28/2011 3:25 PM, nospam wrote:
    >>> In article<4e31b63e$0$12493$-secrets.com>, PeterN

    >
    >>>> If I want closer focus I use extension tubes.

    >
    >>> that also degrades things, since the lens was probably not designed for
    >>> an extension (some lenses might be though).

    >
    >> It should have little noticeable effect on the resolution. If I am
    >> wrong, I would like proof.

    >
    > Extension tubes increase the distance between the lens and the
    > sensor. Unless you've got a telecentric lens (one where the
    > rays already leave the lens perfectly parallel --- and where an
    > extension tube therefore has zero effect) the rays are spreading
    > out to the sensor. Increasing said distance causes the rays to
    > spread more (and hit a wider area than the sensor covers).
    >
    > This does magnify some lens defects (say fringing). It also
    > magnifies the image, which in turn means the lens has to deliver
    > a higher resolution for the same resolution at the sensor.
    >
    > If your sensor can resolve enough to be worthy of the lens without
    > extension tube, it'll now see a worse performance. If however the
    > sensor is usually challenged to resolve what the lens delivers,
    > extension tubes might have no effect (depending on how long
    > they are).
    >
    >
    > If you want to play, measure the resolving power of your lens&
    > sensor at, say, wide open (so the system is limited by the lens),
    > and at wide open with lots of extension tube in between.
    >


    I blow up images to 12 x 18 and have not noticed any difference. Perhaps
    if I was doing scientific documentation, rather than abstracts, I would
    notice the difference.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 9, 2011
    #92
  13. On Aug 3, 4:21 pm, PeterN <> wrote:
    > On 8/3/2011 5:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>  wrote:

    >
    > >> ...and that might explain why you had it to sell. Whoever traded it to
    > >> your store had obviously damaged it, and you guys missed that.
    > >> The problem as I see it, is a photo-equipment store which sold a used,
    > >> damaged D70 without a disclosure.

    >
    > > No, I missed it, I sold it and I personally take full responsibility
    > > for all used equipment sales.  I buy almost all the used stock from
    > > the company's stores and sell it privately - it enables the company to
    > > accept used equipment in part exchange while avoiding the hassle of
    > > selling it on.  The only exception is some high value used equipment,
    > > especially Leica gear, which is sold in one store only.

    >
    > > The buyer is happy, because he got a great deal.  The total price was
    > > less than the originally advertised price of the lenses alone.  I gave
    > > him a large discount to get rid of some excess stock - I have about a
    > > dozen D70 and D70s bodies to sell.

    >
    > > He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
    > > didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
    > > work.  He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
    > > and got the camera body free.  After we discussed the D70s he placed
    > > an order with us for a D300 replacement (D400?) so he wasn't in any
    > > way unhappy.

    >
    > > Of course he did not have the benefit of advice from a clutch of
    > > particularly nasty geriatric barrack-room lawyers posting on Usenet.
    > > If he had, he would no doubt be engaging a lawyer to sue my ass off
    > > for selling his client a faulty camera for nothing.  ;-)

    >
    > Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.


    He was ignorant, he missed the problem, he's admitted that
    and accepted responsibility. He called the buyer and
    disclosed the situation once he knew. This seems to
    be highly ethical behavior.

    (Yeah, we don't know anything except his version of the
    story, but so what? If you want to accuse him of acting
    in bad faith in a transaction you only know about because
    he told us about it, I guess you can, but what does it
    accomplish?)
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Aug 10, 2011
    #93
  14. Neil Jones

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/10/2011 4:45 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > On Aug 3, 4:21 pm, PeterN<> wrote:
    >> On 8/3/2011 5:15 PM, Bruce wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >>
    >>>> ...and that might explain why you had it to sell. Whoever traded it to
    >>>> your store had obviously damaged it, and you guys missed that.
    >>>> The problem as I see it, is a photo-equipment store which sold a used,
    >>>> damaged D70 without a disclosure.

    >>
    >>> No, I missed it, I sold it and I personally take full responsibility
    >>> for all used equipment sales. I buy almost all the used stock from
    >>> the company's stores and sell it privately - it enables the company to
    >>> accept used equipment in part exchange while avoiding the hassle of
    >>> selling it on. The only exception is some high value used equipment,
    >>> especially Leica gear, which is sold in one store only.

    >>
    >>> The buyer is happy, because he got a great deal. The total price was
    >>> less than the originally advertised price of the lenses alone. I gave
    >>> him a large discount to get rid of some excess stock - I have about a
    >>> dozen D70 and D70s bodies to sell.

    >>
    >>> He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
    >>> didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
    >>> work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
    >>> and got the camera body free. After we discussed the D70s he placed
    >>> an order with us for a D300 replacement (D400?) so he wasn't in any
    >>> way unhappy.

    >>
    >>> Of course he did not have the benefit of advice from a clutch of
    >>> particularly nasty geriatric barrack-room lawyers posting on Usenet.
    >>> If he had, he would no doubt be engaging a lawyer to sue my ass off
    >>> for selling his client a faulty camera for nothing. ;-)

    >>
    >> Doesn't matter if the price was one Euro. Disclosure is the key.

    >
    > He was ignorant, he missed the problem, he's admitted that
    > and accepted responsibility. He called the buyer and
    > disclosed the situation once he knew. This seems to
    > be highly ethical behavior.
    >
    > (Yeah, we don't know anything except his version of the
    > story, but so what? If you want to accuse him of acting
    > in bad faith in a transaction you only know about because
    > he told us about it, I guess you can, but what does it
    > accomplish?)


    My comment wasn't about what Bruce did, or didn't do. It was about his
    obligations under NY law. No more, no less.

    BTW: I may have misread Bruce's narrative, so I failed so see where it
    said in essence that upon learning of my error I contacted the customer.
    His narrative is repeated below:
    "> The buyer is happy, because he got a great deal. The total price was
    > less than the originally advertised price of the lenses alone. I gave
    > him a large discount to get rid of some excess stock - I have about a
    > dozen D70 and D70s bodies to sell.
    > He knew all about the fault and was quite amused when I admitted I
    > didn't know the camera had an AF motor, let alone one that didn't
    > work. He said that, from his point of view, he paid for two lenses
    > and got the camera body free. After we discussed the D70s he placed
    > an order with us for a D300 replacement (D400?) so he wasn't in any
    > way unhappy."

    Possibly it is there by implication I really don't care either way.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 10, 2011
    #94
  15. Neil Jones

    Bruce Guest

    "Neil Harrington" <> wrote:
    >
    >No matter who called whom, Bruce did discuss it with the buyer after the
    >sale and made it clear that he didn't know about the in-body motor one way
    >or the other. He's been completely open and straightforward in his
    >discussion of the whole thing here, and there's not the slightest reason to
    >think he was any less so with the customer. I don't even know why it has
    >generated all this discussion.



    Because PeterN never misses an opportunity to express his malice?

    He appears as a bitter, twisted old man whose copious contributions
    here are almost entirely negative. Imagine what he could achieve if
    he concentrated on the positive, as most people do. He could
    potentially make a very strong contribution to constructive debate.

    But no, he chooses malice. A sad and pathetic man, which is why he is
    a permanent fixture in my kill file.
     
    Bruce, Aug 11, 2011
    #95
  16. Neil Jones

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/11/2011 7:18 AM, Bruce wrote:
    > "Neil Harrington"<> wrote:
    >>
    >> No matter who called whom, Bruce did discuss it with the buyer after the
    >> sale and made it clear that he didn't know about the in-body motor one way
    >> or the other. He's been completely open and straightforward in his
    >> discussion of the whole thing here, and there's not the slightest reason to
    >> think he was any less so with the customer. I don't even know why it has
    >> generated all this discussion.

    >
    >
    > Because PeterN never misses an opportunity to express his malice?
    >
    > He appears as a bitter, twisted old man whose copious contributions
    > here are almost entirely negative. Imagine what he could achieve if
    > he concentrated on the positive, as most people do. He could
    > potentially make a very strong contribution to constructive debate.
    >
    > But no, he chooses malice. A sad and pathetic man, which is why he is
    > a permanent fixture in my kill file.
    >


    Anybody who challenges Brucie ends up in his kill file. It would be
    interesting if Brucie could show exactly where I expressed malice in my
    posting. But Brucie hides behind a convenient claim of kill filed. He
    never accepts certified mail. Yup, Sure.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 11, 2011
    #96
  17. Neil Jones

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:18:12 +0100, Bruce <>
    wrote:

    >"Neil Harrington" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>No matter who called whom, Bruce did discuss it with the buyer after the
    >>sale and made it clear that he didn't know about the in-body motor one way
    >>or the other. He's been completely open and straightforward in his
    >>discussion of the whole thing here, and there's not the slightest reason to
    >>think he was any less so with the customer. I don't even know why it has
    >>generated all this discussion.

    >
    >
    >Because PeterN never misses an opportunity to express his malice?
    >
    >He appears as a bitter, twisted old man whose copious contributions
    >here are almost entirely negative. Imagine what he could achieve if
    >he concentrated on the positive, as most people do. He could
    >potentially make a very strong contribution to constructive debate.
    >
    >But no, he chooses malice. A sad and pathetic man, which is why he is
    >a permanent fixture in my kill file.


    I was defensive of you because I've seen nothing in your posts to
    indicate the negative comments were deserved. And, I'll be defensive
    of PeterN here because I've seen nothing in his posts that reflect
    your comments above. Other than his comments to and about you, I've
    seen nothing particularly negative about his posts.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 11, 2011
    #97
  18. Neil Jones

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:37:36 -0400, tony cooper <>
    wrote:
    : On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:18:12 +0100, Bruce <>
    : wrote:
    :
    : >"Neil Harrington" <> wrote:
    : >>
    : >>No matter who called whom, Bruce did discuss it with the buyer after the
    : >>sale and made it clear that he didn't know about the in-body motor one way
    : >>or the other. He's been completely open and straightforward in his
    : >>discussion of the whole thing here, and there's not the slightest reason to
    : >>think he was any less so with the customer. I don't even know why it has
    : >>generated all this discussion.
    : >
    : >
    : >Because PeterN never misses an opportunity to express his malice?
    : >
    : >He appears as a bitter, twisted old man whose copious contributions
    : >here are almost entirely negative. Imagine what he could achieve if
    : >he concentrated on the positive, as most people do. He could
    : >potentially make a very strong contribution to constructive debate.
    : >
    : >But no, he chooses malice. A sad and pathetic man, which is why he is
    : >a permanent fixture in my kill file.
    :
    : I was defensive of you because I've seen nothing in your posts to
    : indicate the negative comments were deserved. And, I'll be defensive
    : of PeterN here because I've seen nothing in his posts that reflect
    : your comments above. Other than his comments to and about you, I've
    : seen nothing particularly negative about his posts.

    I've never understood why Bruce and Peter hate each other so much. I've always
    assumed that it dates back to something that happened before I came in. If I
    were interested enough, I might have asked somebody. But I'm not.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Aug 12, 2011
    #98
  19. Neil Jones

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/12/2011 4:20 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:37:36 -0400, tony cooper<>
    > wrote:
    > : On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:18:12 +0100, Bruce<>
    > : wrote:
    > :
    > :>"Neil Harrington"<> wrote:
    > :>>
    > :>>No matter who called whom, Bruce did discuss it with the buyer after the
    > :>>sale and made it clear that he didn't know about the in-body motor one way
    > :>>or the other. He's been completely open and straightforward in his
    > :>>discussion of the whole thing here, and there's not the slightest reason to
    > :>>think he was any less so with the customer. I don't even know why it has
    > :>>generated all this discussion.
    > :>
    > :>
    > :>Because PeterN never misses an opportunity to express his malice?
    > :>
    > :>He appears as a bitter, twisted old man whose copious contributions
    > :>here are almost entirely negative. Imagine what he could achieve if
    > :>he concentrated on the positive, as most people do. He could
    > :>potentially make a very strong contribution to constructive debate.
    > :>
    > :>But no, he chooses malice. A sad and pathetic man, which is why he is
    > :>a permanent fixture in my kill file.
    > :
    > : I was defensive of you because I've seen nothing in your posts to
    > : indicate the negative comments were deserved. And, I'll be defensive
    > : of PeterN here because I've seen nothing in his posts that reflect
    > : your comments above. Other than his comments to and about you, I've
    > : seen nothing particularly negative about his posts.
    >
    > I've never understood why Bruce and Peter hate each other so much. I've always
    > assumed that it dates back to something that happened before I came in. If I
    > were interested enough, I might have asked somebody. But I'm not.
    >


    No, I don't hatred Bruce. I don't even know him and at my age I have
    little time for hate. I also have little patience for didactic posting,
    whit no facts to back it up. So I call him on it. IIRC He stated if I
    said something, whatever it as, again, he would killifle me.
    Of course you know what I did.
    Also, I don't believe Bruce killfiled me. Just recently, he made a
    statement abut me, that was almost a verbatim about something I said
    about the moth man. I guess claiming I am killfiled is a good way not to
    answer my sometimes pointed questions. RichA tries avoidance, and Bruce
    claims I am killfiled. Meanwhile life goes on hopefully for all of us,
    in good health for a long time.
    No I


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 12, 2011
    #99
  20. Neil Jones

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 17:31:55 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 8/12/2011 4:20 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >> On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:37:36 -0400, tony cooper<>
    >> wrote:
    >> : On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:18:12 +0100, Bruce<>
    >> : wrote:
    >> :
    >> :>"Neil Harrington"<> wrote:
    >> :>>
    >> :>>No matter who called whom, Bruce did discuss it with the buyer after the
    >> :>>sale and made it clear that he didn't know about the in-body motor one way
    >> :>>or the other. He's been completely open and straightforward in his
    >> :>>discussion of the whole thing here, and there's not the slightest reason to
    >> :>>think he was any less so with the customer. I don't even know why it has
    >> :>>generated all this discussion.
    >> :>
    >> :>
    >> :>Because PeterN never misses an opportunity to express his malice?
    >> :>
    >> :>He appears as a bitter, twisted old man whose copious contributions
    >> :>here are almost entirely negative. Imagine what he could achieve if
    >> :>he concentrated on the positive, as most people do. He could
    >> :>potentially make a very strong contribution to constructive debate.
    >> :>
    >> :>But no, he chooses malice. A sad and pathetic man, which is why he is
    >> :>a permanent fixture in my kill file.
    >> :
    >> : I was defensive of you because I've seen nothing in your posts to
    >> : indicate the negative comments were deserved. And, I'll be defensive
    >> : of PeterN here because I've seen nothing in his posts that reflect
    >> : your comments above. Other than his comments to and about you, I've
    >> : seen nothing particularly negative about his posts.
    >>
    >> I've never understood why Bruce and Peter hate each other so much. I've always
    >> assumed that it dates back to something that happened before I came in. If I
    >> were interested enough, I might have asked somebody. But I'm not.
    >>

    >
    >No, I don't hatred Bruce. I don't even know him and at my age I have
    >little time for hate. I also have little patience for didactic posting,
    >whit no facts to back it up. So I call him on it. IIRC He stated if I
    >said something, whatever it as, again, he would killifle me.
    >Of course you know what I did.
    >Also, I don't believe Bruce killfiled me. Just recently, he made a
    >statement abut me, that was almost a verbatim about something I said
    >about the moth man. I guess claiming I am killfiled is a good way not to
    >answer my sometimes pointed questions. RichA tries avoidance, and Bruce
    >claims I am killfiled. Meanwhile life goes on hopefully for all of us,
    >in good health for a long time.
    >No I


    You do understand that if you have someone killfiled good and proper
    that you can still read and respond to what they say when someone you
    don't have killfiled responds to him?

    This exchange of "I don't hate him" makes me think of a possible
    future exchange when I write "I don't think nospam is a complete
    idiot".


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 12, 2011
    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. Andy Munnis

    Guidance on a buying a new digital camera

    Andy Munnis, Oct 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    839
    Michael Geary
    Oct 6, 2003
  2. Lionel
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    804
    Ken Tough
    Sep 17, 2004
  3. Newsgroups
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    474
    ASAAR
    Jun 1, 2005
  4. alex

    Film SLR Flash unit on a Digital SLR - Possible?

    alex, Jun 18, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,048
  5. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    446
Loading...

Share This Page