Lens question
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: No spam please on 1 Nov 2009 15:56 "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:011120091453097799%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... > 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. Hello once again. The rule about batteries seems to vary here in the UK. Most airports like electronic equipment to be in the cabin bag so they can check exactly what it is and does. One airport in Northern Ireland has the exact opposite policy and insists the equipment is in hold luggage. The last time that my cabin bag was hand-checked (other than in Northern Ireland) the security staff paid more attention to my lenses and spare body than they did to my radio. Regards, Rog.
From: No spam please on 1 Nov 2009 15:57 "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message news:4aOdnX8PTJisR3DXnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "No spam please" <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote in message > news:hck4q7$d90$2(a)adenine.netfront.net... >> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:4aed24d3$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... W >> >> I believe it is also true that any EF lens should work on any Canon EF >> mount body including their 35mm and APS bodies. >> 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. > Hello again Neil. I flew several years ago on a Dash 8-400 and was told not to use any digital equipment during the take-off and landing phases. More recently I flew on an A320 and was told not to use digital equipment at all. In both cases the cabin crew took my requests courteously and seriously and checked with the captain. On the Dash 8-400 we were not far away from landing at Birmingham when one of the cabin crew confiscated a mobile phone from one of the passengers who'd been trying to use it. This may well be different in North America. It seems that whatever the North American airlines permit to-day so the European airlines will permit in a few years time. Regards, Rog.
From: nospam on 1 Nov 2009 15:14 In article <hcksno$1pcf$1(a)adenine.netfront.net>, No spam please <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote: > >>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. > >>If > >>you look around this newsgroup I believe you will see that some Nikon > >>users > >>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 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. *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.
From: Ray Fischer on 1 Nov 2009 17:00 Floyd L. Davidson <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote: >"No spam please" <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote: >>"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>Ray Fischer <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote: >>> >>>> >there are no problems using any nikon af lens on any nikon body either. >>>> >the only issue is that entry level cameras won't autofocus old lenses, >>>> >>>> So there's no problems except for the problems. > >The point is that the lens *will* work. The more relevant point is that nobody cares except for a few cronic malcontents. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Floyd L. Davidson on 1 Nov 2009 18:14
"No spam please" <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote: >"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote in message >news:87iqdu1681.fld(a)apaflo.com... >>> >>>Hello Floyd. >>> >>>People who buy entry-level cameras often rely on the shop's >>>recommendation. >>>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. >>>If >>>you look around this newsgroup I believe you will see that some Nikon >>>users >>>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 >> decisions. >> >>>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. It does indeed. If you buy the wrong camera for the right reasons, it is still the *wrong* camera. That doesn't mean there is something wrong with the camera, it simply means *you* made a mistake. If you buy a 2-door sedan today thinking it will allow you to drive to work, is it the dealer or the manufacturer's fault if it turns out a month later that you now have a need for something that will haul all 6 kids on your block to a soccer game every weekend? They do make and sell vans, you know... -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com |