From: nospam on
In article <hcn42h$2sum$1(a)>, No spam please
<me(a)> wrote:

> I phoned my friend to-day. The lens is an autofocus lens but, if I
> understand things correctly, it needs a body with a focus motor in it and
> the D50 doesn't have this.

that's completely wrong. the d50 has a focus motor and *all* autofocus
lenses will focus and meter on it.

which lens is it? or does she have a different camera?
From: Floyd L. Davidson on
"No spam please" <me(a)> wrote:
>No spam please" <me(a)> wrote in message
>> "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:011120091614355567%nospam(a)nospam.invalid...
>>> *all* autofocus lenses from any lens manufacturer will focus and meter
>>> with the d50, which means that *every* lens that store carried would
>>> work. there is *no* issue whatsoever, and it is *exactly* the same
>>> situation as with canon.
>>> as for cheap telephoto lenses, the 55-200vr is a good choice, or the
>>> non-vr version for slightly cheaper but the vr lens is a much better
>>> lens and the difference in price isn't all that much. the 70-300mm vr
>>> is another option for a little longer reach, but it's more money. none
>>> are really ideal for bird photography, however.
>> Hello again.
>> Ah yes - the first telephoto zoom was manual focus. Focussing the lens
>> wasn't a problem but metering was. Not all the metering modes worked with
>> the lens.
>> Friend has now acquired a new Nikon telephoto zoom so everything works as
>> expected.
>> I agree that a 3oomm lens isn't ideal for bird photography. Personally,
>> I'd love a fast 400mm but the cost, size and weight are beyond me. I'll
>> try another way - remote controlled camera and a carefully set-up perch
>> for the birds.
>> Best wishes, Rog.
>Correction - that first telephoto zoom was a Nikon autofocus lens but the AF
>couldn't be used on the D50.

There is no Nikkor AF lens that will work on other Nikon
DSLRs and not on the D50.

Floyd L. Davidson <>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)
From: -hh on
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)> wrote:
> nospam wrote:
> >
> > they also don't want passengers being distracted. in the event of an
> > emergency, you want people to hear crew instructions, not be listening
> > to music on an ipod using noise canceling headphones that squelch
> > anything the crew might be saying.
> You've never used noise cancelling headphones, have you?

YMMV. I've had a set of Plane Quiet NC-6 for the past ~5 years, and I
find that particularly when coupled with a pair of generic -28dB foam
earplugs (just turn up the iPod's volume a little), the combination
provides quite a bit of isolation from ambient habit is to
now either try to lip-read the Flight Attendent's converation, or to
be polite and pull them off.

Of course, there's no particular airline policy of "...please remove
passive earplugs..." - so they're pretty much just trying to apply the
80/20 rule.

From: Neil Harrington on

"No spam please" <me(a)> wrote in message
> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)> wrote in message
> news:eaadnbNzo4OFZHPXnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d(a)
>> "No spam please" <me(a)> wrote in message
>> news:hcmc90$1foi$3(a)
>>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:874opd25y5.fld(a)
>>>> "No spam please" <me(a)> wrote:
>>>> Rog, it probably hasn't been all a waste for your friend, since she has
>> learned something from buying the wrong lens anyway. If (as you mentioned
>> in a much earlier post) the D50 only works in certain modes with that
>> lens, I assume it is not an autofocus lens since I believe that camera
>> should work fully and properly with any autofocus Nikon-mount lens.
>> It would help a lot to know exactly what sort of lens she bought. Since
>> you indicate that she was primarily interested in keeping the cost down,
>> that suggests that what she *probably* bought was one of the many older
>> medium-range zoom lenses, presumably not autofocis ( ? ) since such
>> lenses are widely available and relatively cheap.
>> If that is the sort of lens she bought, then she has probably discovered
>> that it is not only not fully functional on her camera, but also that it
>> isn't really long enough for birding anyway. People who are not used to
>> cameras and lenses often have a very exaggerated notion of what a zoom
>> lens will do. Unless she can get pretty close to the bird (or it is
>> pretty large bird), she most likely needs something a good deal longer
>> than the typical zoom lens. That may well be out of her price range.
> Hello again Neil.
> I phoned my friend to-day. The lens is an autofocus lens but, if I
> understand things correctly, it needs a body with a focus motor in it and
> the D50 doesn't have this.

Yes it does! The D40, D40x and D60 do not have the autofocus motor in the
body and so cannot use older Nikon AF lenses that require that "screwdriver"
coupling. But the D50 is basically a lower-priced version of the D70, and it
does have the AF motor in the body. It should work just fine with any
Nikon-mount AF lens.

> She's using the 300mm end to photograph birds about 20 feet away. The
> photos are more satisfying than she'd get with the D50's kit lens

Yes, I'll say! :-)

> so she's happy for now.

Good. Some people would not regard a 300mm lens as quite long enough for
bird photography, but if she can get within 20 feet and the birds are not
too tiny, that would be good enough. I had assumed from what you said about
cost being an important factor that it was not that long a zoom.

Now what I don't understand is, since it's an autofocus zoom, what exactly
is the problem? You mentioned that you understood it would only work in a
couple of modes. It should work fine on the D50 in every way, though if it's
a low-priced lens without Vibration Reduction (Nikon's name for image
stabilization), hand-holding it would be a big problem at the long end.

From: Ghett Rheel on
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:26:44 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
<dhanks(a)> wrote:

>> And DUDley still he side-steps the important photography-related question
>> asked of him.
>How can I compose, with intent, anything of interest to the sighted while
>shooting out an airplane window?
>Actually, it isn't all that difficult.
>Keep visiting my site and I'll try to answer your question there.
>Of course, shooting those ponies is going to be a lot of fun, so you may
>need to check back a few times. But, it'll be worth your while, since
>composing pics of cars is a lot tougher than composing a skyline shot from a
>more or less constant arrangement of elements... And I think you'll be
>surprised at the much tougher car shots.
>Take Care,

No thanks. I've already been offended far too many times seeing your
blurry, badly exposed, zero-composition, 6-year-old's snapshots. All which
could have been done far better if you strapped your camera to your dog
with a bark-activated shutter. There's no need to gawk again at some sad
accident just to raise your hit count. Any increasing numbers now being
caused by people that enjoy a freak's side-show act at a two-bit carnival.