Reality bites

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Steve B, Jan 5, 2013.

  1. Steve B

    Steve B Guest

    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
    Steve B, Jan 5, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Steve B

    DanP Guest

    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
    DanP, Jan 5, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Steve B

    RichA Guest

    On Jan 5, 12:08 am, "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 upto
    > over 100 HP.


    People collect...snow mobiles? That's like collecting lawn mowers.
    RichA, Jan 5, 2013
    #3
  4. Steve B

    Steve B Guest

    "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
    Steve B, Jan 5, 2013
    #4
  5. Steve B

    Steve B Guest

    "RichA" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Jan 5, 12:08 am, "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.


    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
    Steve B, Jan 5, 2013
    #5
  6. Steve B

    Tony Cooper Guest

    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
    Tony Cooper, Jan 5, 2013
    #6
  7. Steve B

    DanP Guest

    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
    DanP, Jan 5, 2013
    #7
  8. Steve B

    nospam Guest

    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/2.8).

    > 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.
    nospam, Jan 5, 2013
    #8
  9. Steve B

    Steve B Guest

    "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............
    Steve B, Jan 5, 2013
    #9
  10. Steve B

    DanP Guest

    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
    DanP, Jan 5, 2013
    #10
  11. Steve B

    DanP Guest

    On Saturday, 5 January 2013 21:38:52 UTC, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, Tony Cooper
    > <> wrote:


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

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


    That's not an argument. This is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y


    DanP
    DanP, Jan 5, 2013
    #11
  12. Steve B

    DanP Guest

    On Saturday, 5 January 2013 21:47:15 UTC, Steve B wrote:
    > "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............


    I know that but having the D800 in the original list meant your budget was up to $3000. Since then it was reduced to $1200 and that includes the D7000.


    DanP
    DanP, Jan 5, 2013
    #12
  13. Steve B

    Peter Guest

    On 1/5/2013 4:38 PM, DanP wrote:
    > 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. The 18-55mm 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 using it. 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 close relative 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.
    >


    However, extension tubes allow you to focus in closely, without loss of
    quality. The image below was taken with my 70-200, and is only a small
    portion of the original image.


    <https://www.dropbox.com/s/mea62bb9d6bt1lg/butterfly.jpg>

    original:
    <https://www.dropbox.com/s/rkvhrf7kt1239qt/original%20butterfly.jpg>


    --
    PeterN
    Peter, Jan 5, 2013
    #13
  14. Steve B

    Peter Guest

    On 1/5/2013 4:48 PM, DanP wrote:
    > 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.
    >
    >

    Well learned. There is little substitute for moving to see different
    angles. (both horizontal and vertical.)


    --
    PeterN
    Peter, Jan 5, 2013
    #14
  15. Steve B

    nick c Guest

    On 1/5/2013 10:19 AM, Steve B wrote:
    > "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.


    When it comes to cheap glass vs much better glass, knowledge is good but
    experience is often better. For example, Nikon had a 24-105 variable
    zoom that would be a super lens, according to the spec's. But instead,
    it was a dud (spelled DUD). Now Nikon has redesigned the lens making it
    f4 instead of a variable. Now, it's a heck-of-a-lot better than the old
    24-120mm lens. I generally use the f4 version (in DX mode) with my D300
    and use a 17-35mm Nikon on my D700. I gotta tell ya, podner, I'm a two
    camera man and with a setup like that, I can feel like I'm in photo-city.

    >
    > 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?


    Did you ever think you would be talking to a guy who never bought
    anything on e-bay? Well, I never have. I much prefer to buy my equipment
    (I have lots of equipment) from local stores 'cause local people tend to
    offer more prompt customer service (with no hassling) than I think you
    can get from e-bay.

    >
    > 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?


    You will no doubt be told that prime lenses are generally better than
    variable zoom lenses. That was true, when I was a little boy. Now
    there's zoom lenses, such as the 17-35 f28 Nikon and the 70-200 F2.8
    Canon, etalia, that are better at various focal ranges than the primes
    of equal range would be. Another example of an inexpensive (as in
    cheapy-cheap), yet worthwhile lens for amateurs is the 18-55 DX Nikon,
    which is what I now use with a D90 Nikon to take pictures on beaches,
    near salt water. Besides, I have tons of 52mm filters leftover from the
    old days. If salt spray gets on my lens (shrug), it's a minor loss. Last
    year I bought one for $60 from a guy who was told cheap lenses were no
    good ... yetch ... ptueee; (translation) his loss, my benefit. Recently,
    I bought another one from a same type guy for $25, just in case.

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


    For insects and flowers, I prefer to use a 105mm F2.8 Nikon. It's an old
    lens but it works for me. I even used it for certain types of
    portraiture, that is, when I used to take portraits. Second to the 105mm
    Nikon, I would go for a 85mm lens. A 60mm macro may be A-OK for flowers
    but too close for insects. A 105mm macro is just right for insects (in
    my opinion) and just a tad strong for flowers but it'll do what's wanted
    to be done.

    I found that too many people hope their portraits would somehow make
    them look like movie stars. The system doesn't work that way. For
    example; taking my portrait would never make someone think I was movie
    star material. They couldn't. I've been married to the same woman for
    about 50 years, so for that reason alone (never mind my personal charm)
    I wouldn't qualify.

    In my opinion (chest puffing and pulling on my suspenders), the so
    called prime lenses are best used for studio work while zoom type lenses
    are best used for field work. There are many places where prime lens
    leg-work just won't do what the books tell you can be done.

    >
    > Thanks for the help, guys. I'm almost there.
    >
    > Steve
    >
    >
    nick c, Jan 5, 2013
    #15
  16. Steve B

    Peter Guest

    On 1/5/2013 9:01 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > "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.

    >
    > Ignore two responses, that from Tony Cooper and that
    > from PeterN.


    And exactly what advice of mine should he ignore?
    Please be specific when you give your reason.
    We anxiously await your answer

    <snip>
    --
    PeterN
    Peter, Jan 6, 2013
    #16
  17. Steve B

    Peter Guest

    On 1/5/2013 9:51 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > Peter <> wrote:
    >> On 1/5/2013 9:01 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >>> "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.
    >>>
    >>> Ignore two responses, that from Tony Cooper and that
    >>> from PeterN.

    >>
    >> And exactly what advice of mine should he ignore?
    >> Please be specific when you give your reason.
    >> We anxiously await your answer
    >>
    >> <snip>

    >
    > You posted two messages. The part to ignore is the part that is
    > not valid logically or factually. Start with the first word of
    > each message's body of text, and ignore until the beginning the
    > signature.
    >


    that's about as clear a statement as I expected. I'm gratified that you
    gave an intellectually sound reason.

    --
    PeterN
    Peter, Jan 6, 2013
    #17
  18. Steve B

    Peter Guest

    On 1/5/2013 10:45 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-01-05 19:43:51 -0800, Peter <> said:
    >
    >> On 1/5/2013 9:51 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >>> Peter <> wrote:
    >>>> On 1/5/2013 9:01 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >>>>> "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.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Ignore two responses, that from Tony Cooper and that
    >>>>> from PeterN.
    >>>>
    >>>> And exactly what advice of mine should he ignore?
    >>>> Please be specific when you give your reason.
    >>>> We anxiously await your answer
    >>>>
    >>>> <snip>
    >>>
    >>> You posted two messages. The part to ignore is the part that is
    >>> not valid logically or factually. Start with the first word of
    >>> each message's body of text, and ignore until the beginning the
    >>> signature.
    >>>

    >>
    >> that's about as clear a statement as I expected. I'm gratified that
    >> you gave an intellectually sound reason.

    >
    > < http://db.tt/rIePxlMn >
    >



    <G>

    --
    PeterN
    Peter, Jan 6, 2013
    #18
  19. Steve B

    Steve B Guest

    > Its amusing reading the conflicting advice you are receiving. One
    > thing is certain, no matter what you do, in a years time you will
    > decide you should have done something else. :)


    Well, at least my confusion is recognized. There IS a very wide choice of
    cameras out there, and a very high number of these are fantastic cameras
    when compared to the average camera used by the public. When you get into
    all the nuances, it becomes an infinite number of variables. And a matter
    of choice, a la Chevy vs. Ford.

    I really would like this to be my last camera, I am 64, and would just like
    something that will work for a long time, and that I won't outgrow. Had I
    pooled all the money I have spent on cameras in the last ten or twenty
    years, I could have had a succession of at least two very good cameras.

    Anyone want an old AE-1 film camera and lenses?

    Steve
    Steve B, Jan 6, 2013
    #19
  20. Steve B

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 22:07:46 -0700, "Steve B" <> wrote:

    >> Its amusing reading the conflicting advice you are receiving. One
    >> thing is certain, no matter what you do, in a years time you will
    >> decide you should have done something else. :)

    >
    >Well, at least my confusion is recognized. There IS a very wide choice of
    >cameras out there, and a very high number of these are fantastic cameras
    >when compared to the average camera used by the public. When you get into
    >all the nuances, it becomes an infinite number of variables. And a matter
    >of choice, a la Chevy vs. Ford.
    >
    >I really would like this to be my last camera, I am 64, and would just like
    >something that will work for a long time, and that I won't outgrow. Had I
    >pooled all the money I have spent on cameras in the last ten or twenty
    >years, I could have had a succession of at least two very good cameras.
    >
    >Anyone want an old AE-1 film camera and lenses?
    >

    I would be very surprised if any experienced photographer in this
    group hasn't purchased at least one camera and wished later that he'd
    bought a different one. Not that the person felt that he made a bad
    decision or was very unsatisfied with a camera he bought, but that
    some time down the road he regretted not opting for a different one.


    --
    Tony Cooper, Orlando FL
    Tony Cooper, Jan 6, 2013
    #20
    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. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Frisbee=AE?=

    Somewhat OT: Br@indumper bites dust

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Frisbee=AE?=, Oct 7, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    476
    Mike T.
    Oct 8, 2004
  2. HJB

    AVG Bites the Dust

    HJB, Jul 13, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    966
    mhicaoidh
    Jul 14, 2004
  3. Adrian S. Kuiper

    Another classic wish-lister bites the dust:

    Adrian S. Kuiper, Dec 29, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    755
    Ronald Cole
    Dec 31, 2003
  4. Doug MacLean
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    592
    Doug MacLean
    Mar 4, 2004
  5. Jinx Frondie

    Blockbuster Online bites!

    Jinx Frondie, Sep 10, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    425
    One-Shot Scot
    Sep 11, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page