From: nospam on 1 Nov 2009 13:08
In article <sZmdnSclrdNMSnDXnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil
Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
> I know a good number of people who bought SLRs for the first time and not a
> single one of them ever bought "second-hand old lenses" (meaning lenses so
> old as to be incompatible) for them. At least half of them in fact never
> bought any lens other than the one that came with the camera. Those who did
> buy a second lens in every case bought one suitable for the camera.
exactly. last time i checked, there were over 80 lenses that would work
from several manufacturers. by now it's probably 100 or more. it's a
From: Neil Harrington on 1 Nov 2009 14:49
"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message
[ . . . ]
> minolta, on the other hand, didn't have a good reason to change mounts
> but they did anyway
And caught me with a cupboard full of MD mount lenses, which caused me much
gnashing of teeth. I had almost everything from the 16mm fisheye to the
500mm mirror. Had no choice but to sell 'em all when I started buying
> and they didn't stop with the lens, they came up
> with a wacky hotshoe too.
Yes. The late Herbert Keppler of Modern Photo and later Pop Photo thought
that new Maxxum mount was a marvelous feature, but I have no idea why.
Adding a lock was a good thing, but why a whole new design? Nikon's
improvements to the standard hot shoe were so much better, and I should
think Minolta could have done something similar.
From: Neil Harrington on 1 Nov 2009 14:52
"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
> "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> [ . . . ]
>> and they didn't stop with the lens, they came up
>> with a wacky hotshoe too.
> Yes. The late Herbert Keppler of Modern Photo and later Pop Photo thought
> that new Maxxum mount was a marvelous feature,
New Maxxum hot shoe, I meant to say.
From: nospam on 1 Nov 2009 13:53
In article <4aOdnX8PTJisR3DXnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil
Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
> > Before you ask - not all airlines permit digital cameras to be used during
> > flight and many prohibit them during the take-off and landing phases of
> > the flight. I fly with an airline that has a total ban on digital
> > equipment. It's a good airline (usually on time, plenty of leg room and so
> > on) so I'm happy to use a film body.
> I never heard of such a ban. When I fly I always take a DSLR to take
> pictures in the airport (I love airports) and a digital compact to take
> pictures out the airliner window, and sometimes of the cockpit when the door
> is open. No one has ever objected yet.
all airlines prohibit electronic devices during takeoff/landing, but
some go further than that. some airlines ban cd/dvd players (can't have
a laser!) or they require removable batteries to be removed and put in
checked luggage. so while it may be rare, i wouldn't rule it out.
From: No spam please on 1 Nov 2009 15:56
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote in message
>>People who buy entry-level cameras often rely on the shop's
>>In small towns there may be only one shop and not a lot of choice. People
>>who buy entry-level cameras are often new to SLR photography and don't
>>always understand specifications.
> You said "In my experience, my friends who bought
> entry-level cameras wanted to keep ..."
> That is the reference point, not some questionable
> advice from a small town shop. Regardless, I cannot
> imagine any small town shop advising purchase of a
> camera that won't work with old lenses if the customer
> says that is what they want to use. (If for no other
> reason than it is exactly the excuse the sales person
> needs to switch to a more expensive camera.)
> You made up this scenario. It isn't rational.
>>I haven't used Nikon bodies since the days of film. It wasn't until my
>>friend bought an entry-level Nikon DSLR that the problem became apparent.
>>you look around this newsgroup I believe you will see that some Nikon
>>see the old lens / entry-level DSLR as a problem whereas others do not.
> You are still missing the point. The problem is not
> with Nikon's camera/lens design. They *do* provide
> camera bodies that function perfectly with older lenses.
> (A distinct difference from other manufacturer's who had
> a less technically advanced lens mount in the 1970's and
> had no choice but to abandon *all* compatibility.)
> The "problem" is people making up excuses for doing
> stupid things. Or, in your case, making up claims of
> others doing stupid things in order to jusify your own
>>As I said, your mileage may vary.
> So does the honesty and rationality of your articles.
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
Hello again Floyd.
The shop which sold my friend the D50 didn't ask if she would be buying any
other lenses. She simply wanted a DSLR to use for her work as the cost of
film and processing was getting quite high.
The kit lens with the D50 was fine for her work. The telephoto lens for bird
photography was an afterthought and, as it wasn't revenue earning, had to be
as cheap as possible.
Hope this clarifies things.
Regards once more, Rog.