Re: Nikon- CL-L2 Ballistic Nylon Lens Case Service Advisory
Paul Furman
> http://www.nikonusa.com/Service-And-Support/Service-Advisories/CL-L2-Service-Advisory.page
>
> See the above web page for photos and return form.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> May 26, 2009
>
> Notice to users of the Semi-soft case CL-L2
> (Supplied with the AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED and sold
> separately)
Off-topic but what would you think of a 600mm f/4 Ai lens? I'm looking
at an old beater for $1,700 which no doubt looks ugly & has minor
scratches but should not have fungus or mechanical failure. Reviews
suggest it is a really excellent lens. Modern VR versions are $10k. It
focuses to 3m and is ED-IF. Seems to be about $3k for one in good shape.
Worst case is send it back (lotsa shipping) or to be serviced ($150 plus
shipping).
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Rich
> http://www.nikonusa.com/Service-And-Support/Service-Advisories/CL-L2-Se
> rvice-Advisory.page
>
> See the above web page for photos and return form.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> +++++++ May 26, 2009
>
> Notice to users of the Semi-soft case CL-L2
> (Supplied with the AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED and sold
> separately)
>
> Nikon Inc.
>
> It has recently come to our attention that select components
> incorporated in some CL-L2 Semi-soft cases may be compromised. This
> may result in cracking of the bottom of the case. In a worst-case
> scenario, the bottom of the case may fail. Should a failure occur, the
> case's contents would be subject to release and possible damage. Nikon
> has studied this issue thoroughly and steps have been taken to
> effectively correct this issue, assuring the quality of CL-L2
> Semi-soft cases going forward.
>
> Recognizing the possible problem that may affect some number of CL-L2
> Semi-soft cases, Nikon will replace cases affected by this issue free
> of charge. In addition, Nikon will take what it has learned from this
> event, applying it to quality assurance measures that will contribute
> to the prevention of similar events in the future.
>
Chinese making the cheap plastic in backyard furnaces? Isn't it time for
another Nikon lens price increase, it's a new week.
Paul Furman
> On Tue, 26 May 2009 14:30:45 -0700, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Paul
> Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>> Off-topic but what would you think of a 600mm f/4 Ai lens? I'm looking
>> at an old beater for $1,700 which no doubt looks ugly & has minor
>> scratches but should not have fungus or mechanical failure. Reviews
>> suggest it is a really excellent lens. Modern VR versions are $10k. It
>> focuses to 3m and is ED-IF. Seems to be about $3k for one in good shape.
>> Worst case is send it back (lotsa shipping) or to be serviced ($150 plus
>> shipping).
>
> fiber one?
Yeah, here's the new lightweight version an acquaintance rented:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/2840973808/
and the meager moon shot he got from that:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sharpshutter/2269020842/in/photostream/
> http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_tele.html
>
> Much depends one your predicted use. The 200-400 f/4 is at the maximum
> range of how I would use a long lens, and I frequently mount a TC-14E-II
> behind it on a D300. I frequently carry this beast for miles and almost
> always shoot handheld. I could not imagine doing such with anything
> larger/heavier, not even getting into thinking about non-stabilized. For my
> use I'm frequently near wide open and at higher iso to even come close to
> getting a shot. I would think you probably are going to want at least 800
> iso if using this handheld for many situations, maybe I'm wrong as
> everyone's use is different. I do love Bjorn's comment about manually
> focussing. I only wish I could see that well to even contemplate doing
> such.
I'm fine with manual though it's very difficult with birds in the air
even at 300mm. I've got a similar lens now (Century 500/4.5 with bad CA
that the 300/2.8 with converters beats) and a suitable tripod, which I
do not use much but maybe if the image quality was a good step better
maybe I would. As you may recall I've been considering upgrading my old
beater Tokina 300/2.8 MF with an AF-S VR but dang those are around $5k
and used doesn't really help with price. There are lots of older
versions but those seem to have flaws and this 600/4 seems to warrant
the price. But if I wasn't cheap I'd get the 300/2.8 VR and use
teleconverters to get the same look this is capable of plus the AF-S &
VR <sigh>. Or your 200-400/4 VR which I've seen and like.
Viperdoc
very sharp, but very heavy. You will need a big tripod to use the lens, and
even then the slightest motion is magnified tremendously. It would be
ponderous and slow to use in the field.
As a result, I use it very rarely, and have never taken it on a trip
anywhere. Most of the time it sits on the floor.
Chris Malcolm
Nikon have (or used to have) a 500mm f8 catadioptric reflex lens,
which gets you the same kind of length at very much lighter weight and
lower price, if you can live with the f8 restriction and the doughnut
bokeh.
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris H
<no...@nowhere.com> writes
>Chinese making the cheap plastic in backyard furnaces?
As opposed to what?
The Chinese make some very good quality stuff as do the Taiwanese and
the Japanese...
BTW what American cameras are there? (That is US designed AND
manufactured)?
For real crap we could look at cars like GM and Chrysler used to
make...
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
David J. Littleboy
"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
> BTW what American cameras are there? (That is US designed AND
> manufactured)?
The U2 cameras were US made and frigging amazing. I saw contact prints from
some test shots once, and was able to see instantly why the Russians were so
irritated.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Chris H
Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> writes
>
>"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>
>> BTW what American cameras are there? (That is US designed AND
>> manufactured)?
>
>The U2 cameras were US made and frigging amazing. I saw contact prints from
>some test shots once, and was able to see instantly why the Russians were so
>irritated.
I was thinking more of commercially available cameras.
Frank ess
m...@mine.net wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 2009 22:17:45 +0900, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> BTW what American cameras are there? (That is US designed AND
>>> manufactured)?
>>
>> The U2 cameras were US made and frigging amazing. I saw contact
>> prints from some test shots once, and was able to see instantly
>> why the Russians were so irritated.
>
> Something similar in the news this week:
>
> http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1380/1
>
> which contains the following link:
>
> http://history.nasa.gov/afj/simbaycam/itek-pan-camera.htm
I was a Photo Interpreter and Photogrammetrist in the Air Force,
middle-late 1950s. Some of that U2 stuff was remarkable, much of it
unusable for reasons other than photo-technical-equipment
shortcomings. Atmospheric conditions didn't seem to inhibit the
shutter fingers, but often rendered the 9x9 and 9x18 images obscure as
to detail.
--
Frank ess
Alan Browne
> m...@mine.net wrote:
>> http://www.nikonusa.com/Service-And-Support/Service-Advisories/CL-L2-Service-Advisory.page
>>
>>
>> See the above web page for photos and return form.
>>
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> May 26, 2009
>>
>> Notice to users of the Semi-soft case CL-L2
>> (Supplied with the AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED and sold
>> separately)
>
> Off-topic but what would you think of a 600mm f/4 Ai lens? I'm looking
> at an old beater for $1,700 which no doubt looks ugly & has minor
> scratches but should not have fungus or mechanical failure. Reviews
> suggest it is a really excellent lens. Modern VR versions are $10k. It
> focuses to 3m and is ED-IF. Seems to be about $3k for one in good shape.
> Worst case is send it back (lotsa shipping) or to be serviced ($150 plus
> shipping).
I just sold my Minolta 300 f/2.8 for near $2K (with TC's) and it was in
pretty beat up condition but fine optically.
With the 600mm you are looking at mono/tripod options too. Could be
expensive and heavy.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
frank
Try a 400 5.6, its hand holdable and if you want AF can get one that
does a decent job depending on if your camera can focus fast enough.
If you're shooting stuff where you have time to set up a tripod and
all that, get what your wallet can afford. For stuff on the wing, 400
is way to go.
frank
> In message <iqydnbmH9pgGFoHXnZ2dnUVZ_rxi4...@giganews.com>, Rich
> <n...@nowhere.com> writes
When I lived in Rochester, Kodak was always running out press releases
on how great their cameras were in the $200 range, supposedly best in
the world. There's PR and then there's just absolute BS.
I shoot film and digital, wish I had the franchise for missed shots at
some of the events I'm at when you watch people. Besides the obvious
billions of flashes that show up in rock concert videos.
frank
You couldn't afford a Fairchild Camera. Or the film, or the
processing. Kodak did film part, Bausch & Lomb did some of the optics,
there were some others.
Interestingly, film, camera all that fit into a few cubic feet,
weighed less than 1000 lbs and that's with hundreds of feet of 9inch
or 4.5 inch film. Max weight on the SR-71 sensor bays was less than
2000 lbs. Now that's awesome. Per bay.
frank
A lot of times it was turn camera on at this point, turn it off at
this point. Depending on aircraft, you couldn't see down.
I remember once at Edwards we were trying to slave cameras to RADAR.
So had to get data on where cameras were pointing while RADAR was
guide. Shot thousands of feet, probably tens of thousands of feet of
color motion picture type film. Didn't care if there was an image,
wanted the data off of the side of the film, nothing but blue sky.
They'd put the 400 feet of film on a data reader, lock it down to read
the data on the film and let the thing just run, sounded like an old
printing press clanking away. Read film for days getting data.
David J. Littleboy
>
>>
>>"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> BTW what American cameras are there? (That is US designed AND
>>> manufactured)?
>>
>>The U2 cameras were US made and frigging amazing. I saw contact prints
>>from
>>some test shots once, and was able to see instantly why the Russians were
>>so
>>irritated.
>
>
> http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1380/1
>
> which contains the following link:
>
> http://history.nasa.gov/afj/simbaycam/itek-pan-camera.htm
I'm pretty sure the U2 photos I saw were at the home of someone who worked
for Itek. This would have been the late 60s, I'd guess.
frank
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle had an interesting article a few
years ago on how satellite cameras were built there, Sept 23, 2007
Eyes in Space Built Here. Available for purchase from their archives.
Seems at the time, AF and CIA declassified a lot of the work, so
people who worked on it could talk about it.
#
#
Eyes in space built here Sunday Sep 23, 2007
Staff writer From space, Rochester looks like a patchwork quilt of
greens, browns and grays. As you click in closer and closer on Web
sites such as Google Maps or Microsoft Virtual Earth, those co...
Matthew Daneman
Paul Furman
I couldn't handle the donut look but yeah that probably does real well
for moon shots, which I enjoy.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Paul Furman
> On 26-05-09 17:30, Paul Furman wrote:
>> m...@mine.net wrote:
>>> http://www.nikonusa.com/Service-And-Support/Service-Advisories/CL-L2-Service-Advisory.page
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> See the above web page for photos and return form.
>>>
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>>
>>> May 26, 2009
>>>
>>> Notice to users of the Semi-soft case CL-L2
>>> (Supplied with the AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED and sold
>>> separately)
>>
>> Off-topic but what would you think of a 600mm f/4 Ai lens? I'm looking
>> at an old beater for $1,700 which no doubt looks ugly & has minor
>> scratches but should not have fungus or mechanical failure. Reviews
>> suggest it is a really excellent lens. Modern VR versions are $10k. It
>> focuses to 3m and is ED-IF. Seems to be about $3k for one in good shape.
>> Worst case is send it back (lotsa shipping) or to be serviced ($150 plus
>> shipping).
>
> I just sold my Minolta 300 f/2.8 for near $2K (with TC's) and it was in
> pretty beat up condition but fine optically.
>
> With the 600mm you are looking at mono/tripod options too. Could be
> expensive and heavy.
I probably would not use it much. I do have a suitable tripod but it's a
bear to haul around. I have used it on road trips. The tripod lives in
my van recently because I hate hauling it up & down the stairs however I
haven't actually used in in the past few weeks it's been there. I carry
my 300/2.8 in my bag on the backup D200 routinely. I really should just
bite the bullet & get a new VR version of that since I know I'll use it
a lot.
There are now two of these old 'bargain' 600mm f/4 AIS Nikkors listed at
KEH. It's hard to even find a price point for them but I guess if anyone
knows, they do.
Paul Furman
> In message <EZidnTkEF8DjoIDX...@giganews.com>, David J.
> Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> writes
>> "Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>> BTW what American cameras are there? (That is US designed AND
>>> manufactured)?
>> The U2 cameras were US made and frigging amazing. I saw contact prints from
>> some test shots once, and was able to see instantly why the Russians were so
>> irritated.
> :-)
>
> I was thinking more of commercially available cameras.
Here's one:
http://www.mainlinephoto.com.au/prod193.htm
What's so special about it?
Neil Ellwood
> Here's one:
> http://www.mainlinephoto.com.au/prod193.htm
>
> What's so special about it?
Rising, tilting and swing lens panel.
Swing, tilt and rotating back.
Double (or even treble) extension.
Interchangeable lenses.
Just to think of a few items.
--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851
Viperdoc
comparison to images from the 600 F4, which is outstanding optically, but
again is very heavy, can't be handheld, and very expensive.
Bruce
>
>I probably would not use it much. I do have a suitable tripod but it's a
>bear to haul around. I have used it on road trips. The tripod lives in
>my van recently because I hate hauling it up & down the stairs however I
>haven't actually used in in the past few weeks it's been there.
You would probably benefit from using a really good monopod, if you
haven't already got one. I use a Swiss-made Monostat with my longer
lenses. It has a patented articulated rubber foot that works at a wide
range of angles. Monostats are very popular with sports shooters.
I also have a Manfrotto which is smaller and lighter and suits anything
up to a 200mm focal length.
Alan Browne
>
> There are now two of these old 'bargain' 600mm f/4 AIS Nikkors listed at
> KEH. It's hard to even find a price point for them but I guess if anyone
> knows, they do.
They sell somewhat dear so a direct owner sale should be somewhat less
(30% or so).
Paul Furman
> On Wed, 27 May 2009 20:37:00 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:
>
>> Here's one:
>> http://www.mainlinephoto.com.au/prod193.htm
>>
>> What's so special about it?
>
> Rising, tilting and swing lens panel.
> Swing, tilt and rotating back.
> Double (or even treble) extension.
> Interchangeable lenses.
>
> Just to think of a few items.
That would be fun. It appears to be quite compact.
David J. Littleboy
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> Chris H wrote:
>> In message <EZidnTkEF8DjoIDX...@giganews.com>, David J.
>> Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> writes
>>> "Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>> BTW what American cameras are there? (That is US designed AND
>>>> manufactured)?
>>> The U2 cameras were US made and frigging amazing. I saw contact prints
>>> from
>>> some test shots once, and was able to see instantly why the Russians
>>> were so
>>> irritated.
>> :-)
>>
>> I was thinking more of commercially available cameras.
>
> Here's one:
> http://www.mainlinephoto.com.au/prod193.htm
>
> What's so special about it?
That it's made in Japan?
Really. I go bowling in the Itabashi section of Tokyo, and can assure you
that Itabashi is in Japan<g>.
"Ebony Co., Ltd. in Itabashi-ku, Tokyo, manufactures handmade wood view
cameras. These are the masterwork cameras that professional photographers
yearn for, and 55% of the total number manufactured by the company is
exported overseas. Most of the camera body is made of ebony, with other
parts made of titanium. When the skills of the sashimono (wood joinery)
artisan are combined with the skills of assembling precision machines the
result is an extension of the photographer's hand, a camera that transcends
the domain of tools and ventures into the realm of artwork."
I wouldn't mind having an Ebony SV23 with a 35 or 38mm lens...
Paul Furman
> On 27-05-09 23:28, Paul Furman wrote:
>
>>
>> There are now two of these old 'bargain' 600mm f/4 AIS Nikkors listed at
>> KEH. It's hard to even find a price point for them but I guess if anyone
>> knows, they do.
>
> They sell somewhat dear so a direct owner sale should be somewhat less
> (30% or so).
There are none of these recently sold on ebay or listed used anywhere
else. I agree KEH aren't cheap, they gotta make money but these days
ebay is usually overpriced and craigslist too, where people will set a
price a few percent below similar KEH listings. I can only guess these
samples look really beat up. One older AF version sold on ebay for $4k.
Paul Furman
> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>> I probably would not use it much. I do have a suitable tripod but it's a
>> bear to haul around. I have used it on road trips. The tripod lives in
>> my van recently because I hate hauling it up & down the stairs however I
>> haven't actually used in in the past few weeks it's been there.
>
>
> You would probably benefit from using a really good monopod,
Not a bad idea. For wildlife on the mega-tripod the head has to be loose
to pan around anyways, it has big rubber grips for pan/tilt. Those
gimbel heads cost a fortune!
> if you
> haven't already got one. I use a Swiss-made Monostat with my longer
> lenses. It has a patented articulated rubber foot that works at a wide
> range of angles. Monostats are very popular with sports shooters.
>
> I also have a Manfrotto which is smaller and lighter and suits anything
> up to a 200mm focal length.
>
Paul Furman
I can put the 1.4x on the 300/2.8 & get 420mm f/4 with good quality or a
2x or stack them both, at which point the quality is poor but I get the
feel of what those focal lengths are like. I guess what's tempting about
this is it would be a whole other step ahead in terms of capability.
F//4 is darn fast for such a long lens, the closest focus work should be
really something special, a whole new look. And it appears to be a
better lens than my 300, sharper, less CA, less flare, quite close
focusing. I've got a bellows to hang on the back and make spectacular
closeups of bees & the like. Pop some teleconverters on & get some crazy
compressed perspective landscapes. Shoot portraits with a bullhorn from
100 feet away <grin> and I'd think better moon shots which I enjoy.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Paul Furman
Sounds drool-worthy! :-)
Apparently that $4,500.00 AU used price doesn't include a lens.
The official Ebony focusing cloth is $300 AU:
http://www.mainlinephoto.com.au/category16_1.htm
Watching The Parade Of Fools
wrote:
>Bruce wrote:
>> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>> I probably would not use it much. I do have a suitable tripod but it's a
>>> bear to haul around. I have used it on road trips. The tripod lives in
>>> my van recently because I hate hauling it up & down the stairs however I
>>> haven't actually used in in the past few weeks it's been there.
>>
>>
>> You would probably benefit from using a really good monopod,
>
>Not a bad idea. For wildlife on the mega-tripod the head has to be loose
>to pan around anyways, it has big rubber grips for pan/tilt. Those
>gimbel heads cost a fortune!
Oops, too late. The wildlife flew, ran, hopped, slithered, trotted,
crawled, swam, jumped, fluttered, galloped, bounded away by the time you
set up your heavy and expensive required tripod in one spot. If by chance
you were able to haul it that far, to be where the species you are trying
to photograph might be found. Is your only "wildlife photographer"
experience from photographing your pet canary in a cage? If even that.
Try again, pretend-wildlife-photographer troll.
I bet that you have fun in that mind of yours, pretending to take snapshots
all the time. Try your imagined methods in the real-world where none of
your delusions will ever work. This is what you get from having nothing but
a life-long experience with cameras and photography from only reading about
it.
This too is why photographers who can't cut it write books on the subject.
They can't make money from photography so they try to be teachers.
Unconsciously conveying the very reasons that they failed, trying to pass
off what they know as successful "how to do it" advice. Then idiots like
you take that as gospel on how to be a photographer. The same way that you
get your photography knowledge from websites today. All authored by failed
photographers without a clue. Or authored by those who have a vested
interest in conning others into buying something that nobody really needs,
except perhaps those who are foolish enough to believe these failed
photographers and con-artists.
This reminds me of some advice that I gave to a friend once. He was going
to start up a business in designing fishing-lures. I told him, "You don't
have to design a lure that actually catches fish. Just find a bright color
pattern and shape that will catch fishermen's eyes in the store. You'll
make a fortune." The same can be said of all those that sell photography
equipment. It doesn't have to help to catch actual photos, it only has to
catch idiots who believe that that's the very equipment they need to be a
photographer.
I bet you never realized how very transparent that you, and all like you,
truly are. It clearly shows in every post, bit of advice, and suggestion
that any of you ever make.
Chris Malcolm
> Bruce wrote:
>> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>> I probably would not use it much. I do have a suitable tripod but it's a
>>> bear to haul around. I have used it on road trips. The tripod lives in
>>> my van recently because I hate hauling it up & down the stairs however I
>>> haven't actually used in in the past few weeks it's been there.
>>
>>
>> You would probably benefit from using a really good monopod,
> Not a bad idea. For wildlife on the mega-tripod the head has to be loose
> to pan around anyways, it has big rubber grips for pan/tilt. Those
> gimbel heads cost a fortune!
Trigger action ball head? Fastest aiming and fastest locking head you
can get.
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
The difference in portability is so large that if I was rich enough or
cared enough the extra image quality I'd have both. I'd lug the huge
heavy thing along when I was definitely planning to use it. And since
it weighs nearly a stone, as much as a vacuum cleaner, I'd also have
planned how to get as near as possible to the site with wheeled
transport. So it would be great for motor sports, indoor athletics,
and watching wild life from a hide with a nearby car park. I'm now too
old to consider taking a huge heavy lens like that for an afternoon
stroll in the countryside, or even in a park, just in case.
If I had both I'd still end up taking most of my longest shots with
the mirror lens, simply because it's small and light enough to carry
around as an extra lens just in case, including up mountains.
--
Chris Malcolm
Paul Furman
>
> I bet that you have fun in that mind of yours, pretending to take snapshots
I posted 400 keepers this month, where's your work?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3530558744/in/set-72157603328712620/
-that's the best I could get with the 300/2.8 that I keep handy at the
nursery during the day... pretty puny.
The Parade of Morons Never Ends
wrote:
>Fool wrote:
>>
>> I bet that you have fun in that mind of yours, pretending to take snapshots
>
>I posted 400 keepers this month, where's your work?
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3530558744/in/set-72157603328712620/
>-that's the best I could get with the 300/2.8 that I keep handy at the
>nursery during the day... pretty puny.
Wow, what a demanding species to find and shoot. He can't even tell the
difference between common crows that can be shot from anyone's kitchen
window and the lesser-common but also dense ravens. I'd educate you on the
quick method to tell the difference, even when all you have are badly
underexposed over-sharpened silhouettes like your snapshots, but I love
watching you spew your ignorance to the world. Hint: I just checked a few
popular bird-advice websites online, and like most websites, they too have
managed to regurgitate an error in their "knowledge" from unknowingly
parroting other online x-spurt idiots like themselves. Too funny!
For something even more challenging, why don't you go photograph pigeons
downtown while you're at it? Doing so demands using a "professional" tripod
for sure. You're such an advanced and experienced wildlife photographer.
You better hand out more of your sage advice to everyone. You don't want to
deny the world the vast depths of your advanced "wildlife-photographer"
skills, do you?
LOL!!!
By the way, let us know when you learn to use your automatic P&S-DSLR
exposure settings properly. You've totally failed in these. But then,
you're the "pro"! You know what you are doing! Just like any "pro" you only
post the photos that show your prowess. I see how you've done just that! I
bet all of your photos are "keepers" if this is how you evaluate "keepers".
LOL!!!!!!!! This just gets more and more hilarious.
Oh man, I don't think I've laughed so hard in days. Since the last time one
of you idiots posted something this priceless. I just love you "pro"
DSLR-Trolls. The funniest, least talented, and stupidest group of fools
I've ever ran into.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Snapshot much? LOL!!!!!!
Paul Furman
> Paul Furman wrote:
>> Fool wrote:
>>> I bet that you have fun in that mind of yours, pretending to take snapshots
>> I posted 400 keepers this month, where's your work?
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3530558744/in/set-72157603328712620/
>> -that's the best I could get with the 300/2.8 that I keep handy at the
>> nursery during the day... pretty puny.
>
He? Who? :-) do you usually reply to people by talking to yourself?
Should be a wedge shaped tail, I guess that's not, though the splayed
one kinda looks that way... the guy I was with was saying the sound they
make differs too and these were making croaks rather than squawks.
Whatever, I don't know birds & never called myself a wildlife photog.
Nature yes, mostly plants & landscape but I don't know birds. I do know
those would've been spectacular shots with a longer lens. More
interesting than the fox walking past your trash cans at night that you
posted.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/2840973734/
The Parade of DSLR Morons Never Ends
wrote:
>The Moron wrote:
(Wow, are you ever lost on the net. But then is that any surprise when you
can't even find the correct exposure settings on your expensive "pro"
camera?)
Oh NO!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3661/3578059988_3916cb4ec9_o.jpg
A wildlife photo of taken HAND-HELD out of the passenger's window of a
camper while bouncing down a boulder-strewn mountain-pass at 40mph because
the brakes were going out (no lie) and wanting to do something to get my
mind off of our precarious situation. Taken with a "lowly" P&S camera, so
old that it didn't even have image-stabilization.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!! Take your stupid "pro suggested
wildlife-photographer's tripod" and shove it up your ass where you'll
actually make good use of it and finally enjoy it.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Bonus points if you can figure out the species. Hint: don't accept your
first guess.)
Oh gawd ... I don't think I can handle much laughter from these "pro"
DSLR-Trolls. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TUMMY HURTS! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Parade of DSLR Morons Never Ends
wrote:
>The Moron wrote:
(Wow, are you ever lost on the net. But then is that any surprise when you
can't even find the correct exposure settings on your expensive "pro"
camera?)
Oh NO!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3661/3578059988_3916cb4ec9_o.jpg
A wildlife photo of taken HAND-HELD out of the passenger's window of a
camper while bouncing down a boulder-strewn mountain-pass at 40mph because
the brakes were going out (no lie) and wanting to do something to get my
mind off of our precarious situation. Taken with a "lowly" P&S camera, so
old that it didn't even have image-stabilization.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!! Take your stupid "pro suggested
wildlife-photographer's tripod" and shove it up your ass where you'll
actually make good use of it and finally enjoy it.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Bonus points if you can figure out the species. Hint: don't accept your
first guess.)
Oh gawd ... I don't think I can handle much more laughter from these "pro"
Chris Malcolm
> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>
>>I probably would not use it much. I do have a suitable tripod but it's a
>>bear to haul around. I have used it on road trips. The tripod lives in
>>my van recently because I hate hauling it up & down the stairs however I
>>haven't actually used in in the past few weeks it's been there.
> You would probably benefit from using a really good monopod, if you
> haven't already got one. I use a Swiss-made Monostat with my longer
> lenses. It has a patented articulated rubber foot that works at a wide
> range of angles. Monostats are very popular with sports shooters.
I checked out Monostat reviews but could find out whether that special
foot was just a simple good grippy foot on a ball joint, or whether it
managed to address the most serious deficiency of monopods in
stabilising cameras, rotation about the vertical axis of the monopod
(camera yaw). Some other monopod makers offer special feet which
address that problem, but are a lot clumsier than the Monostat's foot.
--
Chris Malcolm
Bob Larter
> On Thu, 28 May 2009 22:31:56 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Bruce wrote:
>>> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>>> I probably would not use it much. I do have a suitable tripod but it's a
>>>> bear to haul around. I have used it on road trips. The tripod lives in
>>>> my van recently because I hate hauling it up & down the stairs however I
>>>> haven't actually used in in the past few weeks it's been there.
>>>
>>> You would probably benefit from using a really good monopod,
>> Not a bad idea. For wildlife on the mega-tripod the head has to be loose
>> to pan around anyways, it has big rubber grips for pan/tilt. Those
>> gimbel heads cost a fortune!
>
Still waiting to see some of your shots, kook.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
> On Fri, 29 May 2009 08:44:05 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Fool wrote:
>>> I bet that you have fun in that mind of yours, pretending to take snapshots
>> I posted 400 keepers this month, where's your work?
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3530558744/in/set-72157603328712620/
>> -that's the best I could get with the 300/2.8 that I keep handy at the
>> nursery during the day... pretty puny.
>
Still waiting to see your photos, kook.
Bob Larter
> "Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>> BTW what American cameras are there? (That is US designed AND
>> manufactured)?
>
> The U2 cameras were US made and frigging amazing. I saw contact prints from
> some test shots once, and was able to see instantly why the Russians were so
> irritated.
Sure, & that dates back to the sixties.
frank
<tpod...@tpodmne.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 May 2009 21:09:53 -0700, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >The Moron wrote:
> >> Paul Furman wrote:
> >>> Fool wrote:
> >>>> I bet that you have fun in that mind of yours, pretending to take snapshots
> >>> I posted 400 keepers this month, where's your work?
and this is why people shouldn't eat the pigeon food at the park..
Paul Furman
> The Parade of Morons Never Ends wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 08:44:05 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Fool wrote:
>>>> I bet that you have fun in that mind of yours, pretending to take
>>>> snapshots
>>> I posted 400 keepers this month, where's your work?
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3530558744/in/set-72157603328712620/
>>>
>>> -that's the best I could get with the 300/2.8 that I keep handy at
>>> the nursery during the day... pretty puny.
>>
>> Wow, what a dema[*SLAP!*]
>
> Still waiting to see your photos, kook.
You got it, a bird's ass flushing out of a tree.
Paul Furman
> Paul Furman wrote:
>> The Moron wrote:
>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>> Fool wrote:
>>>>> I bet that you have fun in that mind of yours, pretending to take snapshots
>>>> I posted 400 keepers this month, where's your work?
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3530558744/in/set-72157603328712620/
>>>> -that's the best I could get with the 300/2.8 that I keep handy at the
>>>> nursery during the day... pretty puny.
>
> can't even find the correct exposure settings on your expensive "pro"
> camera?)
Aperture priority is my default mode. Stopping down might have helped a
tad but I didn't have time to do more than crank the aperture ring down
a couple stops. F/5.6 on an f/2.8 lens should be fine though with proper
focus which I did manage (not easy). 1/5000 sec is more than I needed
perhaps but f/8 seemed a risky choice on a moment's notice. How would
you have set things?
> Oh NO!
>
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3661/3578059988_3916cb4ec9_o.jpg
>
> A wildlife photo of taken HAND-HELD out of the passenger's window of a
> camper while bouncing down a boulder-strewn mountain-pass at 40mph because
> the brakes were going out (no lie) and wanting to do something to get my
> mind off of our precarious situation. Taken with a "lowly" P&S camera, so
> old that it didn't even have image-stabilization.
I wasn't stabilized either. Manual focus.
So you caught a bird flying away... <yawn>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!! Take your stupid "pro suggested
> wildlife-photographer's tripod"
Where did I say that? Pro-suggested would be a carbon fiber with a
gimble head, this is an old rusty Manfrotto3050 with 3047 video head
from a surf photog. And I didn't use it for the crow shot at 1/5000,
that was grab & run.
> <snip profanities>
>
> (Bonus points if you can figure out the species. Hint: don't accept your
> first guess.)
I already said I don't know birds.
It's not a red tail <g>.
It is a boring shot with no interest.
The Parade of DSLR Morons Never Ends
wrote:
>
>It is a boring shot with no interest.
You stupid fucking moron! LOL!!!!! It was posted to show you that using a
tripod is a huge detriment to wildlife photography and is never necessary.
A tripod is never an asset to being a decent wildlife photographer, nor is
owning and using a DSLR. Unless you're a rank amateur who knows no better
and you lack any camera skills whatsoever. I guess that be you! Hell, you
can't even get the exposure set properly let alone know how to hold a
camera correctly. Someone should take that thing away from you before you
hurt yourself or someone else. Judging by your photos you certainly don't
deserve to have ANY camera in your lame hands. Even worse, you are the last
person on earth who should be handing out any advice about the subject.
That much is perfectly clear.
Bob Larter
Still waiting to see some of your amazing P&S wildlife shots...
Bob Larter
All I see here is "This photo is currently unavailable". I guess the
kook isn't so proud of his work after all.
John Turco
>
> In message <iqydnbmH9pgGFoHX...@giganews.com>, Rich
> <no...@nowhere.com> writes
> >Chinese making the cheap plastic in backyard furnaces?
>
> As opposed to what?
>
> The Chinese make some very good quality stuff as do the Taiwanese and
> the Japanese...
>
> BTW what American cameras are there? (That is US designed AND
> manufactured)?
>
> make...
Hello, Chris:
Rich Anderson is a Canadian...or, do you need a score card, to keep
track of the various nationalities of this lively newsgroup's regular
posters? <g>
Anyway, go ahead and ask him, this:
"BTW what Canadian cameras are there? (That is Canuck designed AND
manufactured)?"
Oh, and here's my own question, to you:
"BTW what British cameras are there? (That is poorly designed AND
manufactured)?"
;-)
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
John Turco
> > manufactured)?
>
> some test shots once, and was able to see instantly why the Russians were so
> irritated.
Hello, David:
Kodak and the late, lamented Polaroid Corporation both had their fair share of
government contracts, also.
Polaroid contributed to the Allied victory in World War II, in fact. For example,
the company developed (no pun) an inexpensive way to manufacture plastic lenses,
which were then used in different types of military equipment (e.g., gun sights).
(That is, they weren't intended as "objective" lenses.)
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>