Friend got a Nikon D3 with 28k actuations for $640.00

On 14/10/2016 14:46, RichA wrote:
What a terrific camera to hold and use. Everything there, easy to access.

Yes. I thought you'd be arguing that it'd be much better if they'd made
it as a milc, in half-frame, much smaller, so that you'd need to use
toothpicks instead of fingers to operate it.

On 2016-10-14 05:52:18 +0000, RichA said:

On Thursday, 13 October 2016 22:54:27 UTC-4, Me wrote:
On 14/10/2016 14:46, RichA wrote:
What a terrific camera to hold and use. Everything there, easy to acce
ss.

Yes. I thought you'd be arguing that it'd be much better if they'd made

it as a milc, in half-frame, much smaller, so that you'd need to use
toothpicks instead of fingers to operate it.

Every camera has it's attributes and shortcomings. They could design a cam
era to be so ergonomically-perfect for shooting that you could use it with
one hand, but that won't happen because the shape would turn traditionalist
s off. Here is a piece of equipment where conventionalism was throw to the
wolves to achieve perfection in a target weapon:

http://www.airgunsofarizona.com/blog...Pistol-005.jpg

Nothing

unconventional about that airpistol from a target shooter's perspective.
2815681_1469027675.jpg
2803658_1459414353.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2016-10-14 06:23:21 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2016-10-14 05:52:18 +0000, RichA said:

On Thursday, 13 October 2016 22:54:27 UTC-4, Me wrote:
On 14/10/2016 14:46, RichA wrote:
What a terrific camera to hold and use. Everything there, easy to acce
ss.

Yes. I thought you'd be arguing that it'd be much better if they'd made

it as a milc, in half-frame, much smaller, so that you'd need to use
toothpicks instead of fingers to operate it.

Every camera has it's attributes and shortcomings. They could design a cam
era to be so ergonomically-perfect for shooting that you could use it with
one hand, but that won't happen because the shape would turn traditionalist
s off. Here is a piece of equipment where conventionalism was throw to the
wolves to achieve perfection in a target weapon:

http://www.airgunsofarizona.com/blog...Pistol-005.jpg

Nothing

unconventional

about that airpistol from a target shooter's perspective.
2815681_1469027675.jpg
2803658_1459414353.jpg

Oops!
http://www.carl-walther.de/assets/images/products/zoom/2815681_1469027675.jpg
http://www.carl-walther.de/assets/images/products/zoom/2803658_1459414353.jpg
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 23:26:07 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-10-14 06:23:21 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2016-10-14 05:52:18 +0000, RichA said:

On Thursday, 13 October 2016 22:54:27 UTC-4, Me wrote:
On 14/10/2016 14:46, RichA wrote:
What a terrific camera to hold and use. Everything there, easy to acce
ss.

Yes. I thought you'd be arguing that it'd be much better if they'd made

it as a milc, in half-frame, much smaller, so that you'd need to use
toothpicks instead of fingers to operate it.

Every camera has it's attributes and shortcomings. They could design a cam
era to be so ergonomically-perfect for shooting that you could use it with
one hand, but that won't happen because the shape would turn traditionalist
s off. Here is a piece of equipment where conventionalism was throw to the
wolves to achieve perfection in a target weapon:

http://www.airgunsofarizona.com/blog...Pistol-005.jpg

Nothing

unconventional

about that airpistol from a target shooter's perspective.
2815681_1469027675.jpg
2803658_1459414353.jpg

Oops!
http://www.carl-walther.de/assets/images/products/zoom/2815681_1469027675.jpg
http://www.carl-walther.de/assets/images/products/zoom/2803658_1459414353.jpg

The angle of the trigger pull looks very different on the one Rich
posted.

On 2016-10-14 08:24:43 +0000, Bill W said:

On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 23:26:07 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-10-14 06:23:21 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2016-10-14 05:52:18 +0000, RichA said:

On Thursday, 13 October 2016 22:54:27 UTC-4, Me wrote:
On 14/10/2016 14:46, RichA wrote:
What a terrific camera to hold and use. Everything there, easy to acce
ss.

Yes. I thought you'd be arguing that it'd be much better if they'd made

it as a milc, in half-frame, much smaller, so that you'd need to use
toothpicks instead of fingers to operate it.

Every camera has it's attributes and shortcomings. They could design a cam
era to be so ergonomically-perfect for shooting that you could use it with
one hand, but that won't happen because the shape would turn traditionalist
s off. Here is a piece of equipment where conventionalism was throw to the
wolves to achieve perfection in a target weapon:

http://www.airgunsofarizona.com/blog...Pistol-005.jpg

Nothing

unconventional about that airpistol from a target shooter's perspective.
2815681_1469027675.jpg
2803658_1459414353.jpg

Oops!
http://www.carl-walther.de/assets/images/products/zoom/2815681_1469027675.jpg
http://www.carl-walther.de/assets/images/products/zoom/2803658_1459414353.jpg

The angle of the trigger pull looks very different on the one Rich
posted.

On those the angle of the trigger is individually adjusted to suit the
shooter. Every one will be different. They are set extremely light and
they require more of a "touch" to fire rather than a squeeze or pull.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2016-10-14 10:17:13 +0000, "J. Clarke" said:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 23:26:07 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-10-14 06:23:21 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2016-10-14 05:52:18 +0000, RichA said:

On Thursday, 13 October 2016 22:54:27 UTC-4, Me wrote:
On 14/10/2016 14:46, RichA wrote:
What a terrific camera to hold and use. Everything there, easy to acce
ss.

Yes. I thought you'd be arguing that it'd be much better if they'd made

it as a milc, in half-frame, much smaller, so that you'd need to use
toothpicks instead of fingers to operate it.

Every camera has it's attributes and shortcomings. They could design a cam
era to be so ergonomically-perfect for shooting that you could use it with
one hand, but that won't happen because the shape would turn traditionalist
s off. Here is a piece of equipment where conventionalism was throw to the
wolves to achieve perfection in a target weapon:

http://www.airgunsofarizona.com/blog...Pistol-005.jpg

Nothing

unconventional

about

that airpistol from a target shooter's perspective.
2815681_1469027675.jpg
2803658_1459414353.jpg

Oops!
http://www.carl-walther.de/assets/images/products/zoom/2815681_1469027675.jpg
http://www.carl-walther.de/assets/images/products/zoom/2803658_1459414353.jpg

The angle of the trigger pull looks very different on the one Rich
posted.

At that level it's likely adjustable.

It is.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2016-10-14 10:46:41 +0000, RichA said:

On Friday, 14 October 2016 02:23:29 UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-14 05:52:18 +0000, RichA said:

On Thursday, 13 October 2016 22:54:27 UTC-4, Me wrote:
On 14/10/2016 14:46, RichA wrote:
What a terrific camera to hold and use. Everything there, easy to acce
ss.

Yes. I thought you'd be arguing that it'd be much better if they'd made

it as a milc, in half-frame, much smaller, so that you'd need to use
toothpicks instead of fingers to operate it.

Every camera has it's attributes and shortcomings. They could design a cam
era to be so ergonomically-perfect for shooting that you could use it with
one hand, but that won't happen because the shape would turn traditionalist
s off. Here is a piece of equipment where conventionalism was throw to the
wolves to achieve perfection in a target weapon:

http://www.airgunsofarizona.com/blog...Pistol-005.jpg

Nothing

unconventional

about that airpistol from a target shooter's perspective.
2815681_1469027675.jpg
2803658_1459414353.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Those grips are radically different from the average handgun, but not
as elaborate as some I've seen made for shooters.

They are very adjustable meating changed rules from the days when I was
a serious target shooter. I those days (the 1960's &70's) I had custom
grips made by a guy named Hoffmann in Hamburg and they were milled off
a master individual hand outline. I have them on three of my handguns.
Here is my Hi-Standard Supermatic Trophy, with Hoffmann grips.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Shared%20Images/GUNS/E_DSCN0382.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Shared%20Images/GUNS/E-DSCN0384e.jpg

I

also had a Hammerlli 50M "Free pistol" with grips similar to those
shown on those airpistols (but a much earlier generation). The trigger
on that was a set trigger which required pushing a lever down to set
the trigger, which had an extension which just had to be touched to
fire.

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/IMG_15413.JPG
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 07:08:01 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-10-14 08:24:43 +0000, Bill W said:

On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 23:26:07 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-10-14 06:23:21 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2016-10-14 05:52:18 +0000, RichA said:

On Thursday, 13 October 2016 22:54:27 UTC-4, Me wrote:
On 14/10/2016 14:46, RichA wrote:
What a terrific camera to hold and use. Everything there, easy to acce
ss.

Yes. I thought you'd be arguing that it'd be much better if they'd made

it as a milc, in half-frame, much smaller, so that you'd need to use
toothpicks instead of fingers to operate it.

Every camera has it's attributes and shortcomings. They could design a cam
era to be so ergonomically-perfect for shooting that you could use it with
one hand, but that won't happen because the shape would turn traditionalist
s off. Here is a piece of equipment where conventionalism was throw to the
wolves to achieve perfection in a target weapon:

http://www.airgunsofarizona.com/blog...Pistol-005.jpg

Nothing

unconventional about that airpistol from a target shooter's perspective.
2815681_1469027675.jpg
2803658_1459414353.jpg

Oops!
http://www.carl-walther.de/assets/images/products/zoom/2815681_1469027675.jpg
http://www.carl-walther.de/assets/images/products/zoom/2803658_1459414353.jpg

The angle of the trigger pull looks very different on the one Rich
posted.

On those the angle of the trigger is individually adjusted to suit the
shooter. Every one will be different. They are set extremely light and
they require more of a "touch" to fire rather than a squeeze or pull.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing, mainly because there
appears to be a trigger pin directly above the trigger in Rich's
photo. What I'm referring to is the direction of travel of the trigger
in relation to the barrel. In the photos you posted, it appears to be
parallel to the barrel, but in Rich's, it seems to travel upwards
towards the line of the barrel. But at the same time, if the travel is
very short as you seem to be saying, it makes little difference.

On 2016-10-14 18:50:23 +0000, Bill W said:

On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 07:08:01 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-10-14 08:24:43 +0000, Bill W said:

On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 23:26:07 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-10-14 06:23:21 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2016-10-14 05:52:18 +0000, RichA said:

On Thursday, 13 October 2016 22:54:27 UTC-4, Me wrote:
On 14/10/2016 14:46, RichA wrote:
What a terrific camera to hold and use. Everything there, easy to acce
ss.

Yes. I thought you'd be arguing that it'd be much better if they'd made

it as a milc, in half-frame, much smaller, so that you'd need to use
toothpicks instead of fingers to operate it.

Every camera has it's attributes and shortcomings. They could design a cam
era to be so ergonomically-perfect for shooting that you could use it with
one hand, but that won't happen because the shape would turn traditionalist
s off. Here is a piece of equipment where conventionalism was throw to the
wolves to achieve perfection in a target weapon:

http://www.airgunsofarizona.com/blog...Pistol-005.jpg


Nothing

unconventional about that airpistol from a target shooter's perspective.
2815681_1469027675.jpg
2803658_1459414353.jpg

Oops!
http://www.carl-walther.de/assets/images/products/zoom/2815681_1469027675.jpg
http://www.carl-walther.de/assets/images/products/zoom/2803658_1459414353.jpg

The angle of the trigger pull looks very different on the one Rich
posted.

On those the angle of the trigger is individually adjusted to suit the
shooter. Every one will be different. They are set extremely light and
they require more of a "touch" to fire rather than a squeeze or pull.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing, mainly because there
appears to be a trigger pin directly above the trigger in Rich's
photo. What I'm referring to is the direction of travel of the trigger
in relation to the barrel. In the photos you posted, it appears to be
parallel to the barrel, but in Rich's, it seems to travel upwards
towards the line of the barrel. But at the same time, if the travel is
very short as you seem to be saying, it makes little difference.

The direction of travel for the triggers on the airpistol in Rich's
photo and the High Standard and Hammerlli I posted are all, very
conventionally, from front to rear.
What is different is how that is implemented in each design. In the
case of my Hammerlli the set trigger had an accessory trigger extention
protuding to the side so all the trigger finger had to do was touch it
to fire (more of a stroke than a touch), but the fundemental direction
of trigger movement was still front to rear.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:33:05 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-10-14 18:50:23 +0000, Bill W said:

On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 07:08:01 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-10-14 08:24:43 +0000, Bill W said:

On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 23:26:07 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-10-14 06:23:21 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2016-10-14 05:52:18 +0000, RichA said:

On Thursday, 13 October 2016 22:54:27 UTC-4, Me wrote:
On 14/10/2016 14:46, RichA wrote:
What a terrific camera to hold and use. Everything there, easy to acce
ss.

Yes. I thought you'd be arguing that it'd be much better if they'd made

it as a milc, in half-frame, much smaller, so that you'd need to use
toothpicks instead of fingers to operate it.

Every camera has it's attributes and shortcomings. They could design a cam
era to be so ergonomically-perfect for shooting that you could use it with
one hand, but that won't happen because the shape would turn traditionalist
s off. Here is a piece of equipment where conventionalism was throw to the
wolves to achieve perfection in a target weapon:

http://www.airgunsofarizona.com/blog...Pistol-005.jpg


Nothing

unconventional about that airpistol from a target shooter's perspective.
2815681_1469027675.jpg
2803658_1459414353.jpg

Oops!
http://www.carl-walther.de/assets/images/products/zoom/2815681_1469027675.jpg
http://www.carl-walther.de/assets/images/products/zoom/2803658_1459414353.jpg

The angle of the trigger pull looks very different on the one Rich
posted.

On those the angle of the trigger is individually adjusted to suit the
shooter. Every one will be different. They are set extremely light and
they require more of a "touch" to fire rather than a squeeze or pull.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing, mainly because there
appears to be a trigger pin directly above the trigger in Rich's
photo. What I'm referring to is the direction of travel of the trigger
in relation to the barrel. In the photos you posted, it appears to be
parallel to the barrel, but in Rich's, it seems to travel upwards
towards the line of the barrel. But at the same time, if the travel is
very short as you seem to be saying, it makes little difference.

The direction of travel for the triggers on the airpistol in Rich's
photo and the High Standard and Hammerlli I posted are all, very
conventionally, from front to rear.
What is different is how that is implemented in each design. In the
case of my Hammerlli the set trigger had an accessory trigger extention
protuding to the side so all the trigger finger had to do was touch it
to fire (more of a stroke than a touch), but the fundemental direction
of trigger movement was still front to rear.

Okay. I'm not at all familiar with target pistols.