Reality bites

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

  1. Steve B

    nick c Guest

    On 1/5/2013 10:05 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
    > 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.
    >
    >
    >


    How about hearing from an amateur experienced photographer. If you
    accept that then color you surprised. :)

    I planned buying my D700 and D300 using full frame FX type lenses.
    Reason being I thought it would be cheaper in the long run to buy a few
    lenses to do multitasking rather than spend a lot more money buying a
    bunch of different type specialty lenses. I later bought a D90 and a G12
    Canon camera 'cause at the time I thought it was a good idea to buy them
    and they do fit into my scheme of things.

    In the end, the joke was on me, my plan sort of backfired. I eventually
    ended up buying a bunch of full frame FX type lenses anyway. But ....
    even after time had past, I've never later wished I had bought a
    different make or type camera after I had bought each of the ones I
    have. My D700, D300, D90 and G12 are still my favorites and I make use
    of them, when I can. At least the D700, D300 and D90 use the same type
    battery. Each camera has their own grips and I use two batteries in each
    camera; plus, I have backups of those.

    However ..... when it comes to tripods or monopods, I sure have a mess
    of them. My favorite tripod is a wooden one made by Bromwell.
     
    nick c, Jan 6, 2013
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. Steve B

    RichA Guest

    On Jan 5, 1:21 pm, "Steve B" <> wrote:
    > "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 tobe
    > real monsters.  Big motors in small frames that were bottle rockets outof
    > the chute, 100 mph over the ice, and were tamed back in later models after
    > consumer suits.  But still available out there somewhere.
    >
    > Steve


    Over ice or pack snow, I can see doing that. But through the woods or
    fields in powder just invites hitting a buried log.
     
    RichA, Jan 6, 2013
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. Steve B

    RichA Guest

    On Jan 5, 3:58 pm, Tony Cooper <> wrote:
    > 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.


    I'd suggest people test for this. At f/8.0, sure. But wide open, an
    f/1.8 prime is likely not going to be as sharp as an f/3.5 kit lens,
    but you have to compare. Also, buying some of the older designed
    fast, pricey zooms often results in a lens no better than a slower and
    much less expensive kit lens or other zoom.
     
    RichA, Jan 6, 2013
    #23
  4. Steve B

    Steve B Guest

    "RichA" <> wrote

    > 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


    Over ice or pack snow, I can see doing that. But through the woods or
    fields in powder just invites hitting a buried log.

    * * * *

    Well, my neighbor took it today for $1200, so now I'm dead even after the
    ceremony for my recently deceased water heater. At least it wasn't a total
    loss. Plus, I got him to throw in $200 in future ATV repair work. But no
    help in reaching the goal of the cost of the camera and goodies.

    As you say, the sled was a little bit of a rocket, and I will be poking
    through the woods on a curvy road. This was made for full throttle flat out
    straight line travel.

    Hope nothing else takes a dump any time soon. Have some other items for
    sale, maybe one of them will move. It's like at the grocery store, they
    seem to know how much money you have.

    Steve
     
    Steve B, Jan 6, 2013
    #24
  5. Steve B

    Guest

    On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 01:44:57 -0800 (PST), RichA <> 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.


    Don't laugh. Old lawn mowers are worth quite a bit these days.

    http://www.oldlawnmowerclub.co.uk/
     
    , Jan 7, 2013
    #25
  6. Steve B

    otter Guest

    On Jan 6, 4:50 pm, "Steve B" <> wrote:
    > "RichA" <> wrote
    >
    > > 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

    >
    > Over ice or pack snow, I can see doing that.  But through the woods or
    > fields in powder just invites hitting a buried log.
    >
    > * * * *
    >
    > Well, my neighbor took it today for $1200, so now I'm dead even after the
    > ceremony for my recently deceased water heater.  At least it wasn't a total
    > loss.  Plus, I got him to throw in $200 in future ATV repair work.  But no
    > help in reaching the goal of the cost of the camera and goodies.



    I'm confused by your math. You should have $1235 now, unless there
    were other expenses I missed.
    Sell your wife's car, and you are in camera land.
     
    otter, Jan 7, 2013
    #26
  7. Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:

    [snip]

    > Oh... focus with your feet is a fallacy of ignorance.


    > Think about this... perspective distortion is not
    > affected at all by focal length, it is absolutely a
    > function of your location.


    Perspective distortion is a vague and often misused term. Distorted
    from what? I like to take it to mean distorted from what a viewer of
    the final image would take to be a normal visual perspective of the
    thing photographed. In that sense persepctive distortion is a function
    of the combination of viewer expected perspective and what they see in
    the photograph.

    Thus the so-called "wide angle distortion" is created by using a short
    focal length with a wide angle of view and then viewing it from a
    "normal" distance, such as a 18" for an A4 print. The wide angle
    distortion disappears when the viewer moves his eyes close to tthe
    print that the angle of view is the same as that of the lens with
    which the shot was taken.

    But viewer expectations are both personal and cultural. We're getting
    more used to wide angle distortion, and find more of it acceptable
    than we used to. Many of us also prefer to see the verticals of tall
    buildings almost parallel. We think it more natural, less distorted,
    than the converging verticals we actually saw when we were there and
    took the photograph without using a wide angle lens. We prefer what is
    in effect the cropped view from a pretty wide angle lens because in
    that case we think the wide angle distortion is a less distorted
    representation.

    Then there's the preferred portrait focal length. The shorter the
    focal length the more the size of the nose in a frontal view is
    exaggerated by the perspective. In the West we tend to prefer 85mm on
    full 35mm frame. The nose is still a bit exaggerated compared to 500mm
    but we tend to prefer it that way. It conforms to our idea of a normal
    view of a face. Whereas the Japanese tend to prefer 135mm. Because
    they have a cultural distaste for larger noses and like flatter faces?
    Because they prefer larger formal interpersonal distances? The simple
    fact is that preferences and ideas of normal perspectives vary.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 7, 2013
    #27
  8. Steve B

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Chris Malcolm
    <> wrote:

    > Thus the so-called "wide angle distortion" is created by using a short
    > focal length with a wide angle of view and then viewing it from a
    > "normal" distance, such as a 18" for an A4 print. The wide angle
    > distortion disappears when the viewer moves his eyes close to tthe
    > print that the angle of view is the same as that of the lens with
    > which the shot was taken.


    no. wide angle distortion is caused by being very close to the subject.

    if you use the same wide angle lens but step back, the so called wide
    angle distortion goes away.

    > Then there's the preferred portrait focal length. The shorter the
    > focal length the more the size of the nose in a frontal view is
    > exaggerated by the perspective.


    again, how far away you are from the subject is what determines this,
    *not* the focal length.

    > In the West we tend to prefer 85mm on
    > full 35mm frame.


    actually, that's considered a bit short for portrait work.

    > The nose is still a bit exaggerated compared to 500mm
    > but we tend to prefer it that way.


    only because if you use a 500mm, you have to be much further away,
    which changes perspective.
     
    nospam, Jan 7, 2013
    #28
  9. Steve B

    Steve B Guest

    "otter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Jan 6, 4:50 pm, "Steve B" <> wrote:
    > "RichA" <> wrote
    >
    > > 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

    >
    > Over ice or pack snow, I can see doing that. But through the woods or
    > fields in powder just invites hitting a buried log.
    >
    > * * * *
    >
    > Well, my neighbor took it today for $1200, so now I'm dead even after the
    > ceremony for my recently deceased water heater. At least it wasn't a total
    > loss. Plus, I got him to throw in $200 in future ATV repair work. But no
    > help in reaching the goal of the cost of the camera and goodies.



    I'm confused by your math. You should have $1235 now, unless there
    were other expenses I missed.
    Sell your wife's car, and you are in camera land.

    * * * *

    My math is inaccurate, I admit. And I am very good at mathematics. I was
    just rounding numbers.

    My wife just got a 2005 T Bird last year. The 50th Anniversary Special
    Edition. A 1955 was her first car, and our Pathfinder was getting really
    long in the tooth, so we got one last treat to go out on. Besides, I think
    more of my wife than to do that. I have enough toys, and things to work on
    in my life that I can wait a bit for anything, and not miss it.

    I like to investigate big purchases before I get them, and then I tend to
    own them for a long time. Like guns.

    Steve
     
    Steve B, Jan 7, 2013
    #29
    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:
    489
    Mike T.
    Oct 8, 2004
  2. HJB

    AVG Bites the Dust

    HJB, Jul 13, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    980
    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:
    770
    Ronald Cole
    Dec 31, 2003
  4. Doug MacLean
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    602
    Doug MacLean
    Mar 4, 2004
  5. Jinx Frondie

    Blockbuster Online bites!

    Jinx Frondie, Sep 10, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    435
    One-Shot Scot
    Sep 11, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page