Stupidest, most overpriced, most poorly executed camera in the last two years

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

no modification is needed. tracking autofocus works fine with the old
80-400, as well as non afs lenses (mechanical linkage). i've done it
many times with various lenses.

I see. You have done tracking autofocus, with non-af lenses. Or, am I
nitpicking.

i didn't say that at all.

learn to read and stop making up ****.

Your statement istherefor all to see.

yes it is, and it isn't what you say it was. you have once again made a
fool of yourself.

PeterN said "non afs lenses". That's not the same as 'non af lenses'.

other way around.

*i* said non afs lenses, further clarifying it by saying mechanical
linkage. that's about as clear as it gets. there is no ambiguity.

peter said non-af. he's confused, can't read and made a fool of himself.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F-mount
"AF — The original autofocus designation, indicating focus driven by
a motor inside the camera body. All AF lenses have a CPU."

.......

"AF-S — Autofocus-Silent. Uses a "Silent Wave Motor" (SWM)
(ultrasonic motor) to focus quietly and quickly."

On 5/18/2013 10:35 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

that's why autofocus works better. the camera is faster than a human
and can track moving subjects, even while you fire off multiple shots.

Depends on the lens. e.g. the original Nikon 80-400. If you don't
believe me, who owned one, read the reviews. Some lenses focus faster
than others.

although the 80-400 is not that fast, the camera is still going to be
able to track a moving subject faster than you can. it only needs to
make very minor adjustments to the focus, not rack the entire focus
movement.

Your engineering skill issovaluable, that you could have made millions
of dollars, making that modification. It's a crying shame you did not
have your predictive skills a few years before Nikon came out with the
new version. Indeed since there are a lot of the old models out there,
why dont you start a modification service. I certainly would haveliked
to see such a service.

more irrelevant babble.

no modification is needed. tracking autofocus works fine with the old
80-400, as well as non afs lenses (mechanical linkage). i've done it
many times with various lenses.

I see. You have done tracking autofocus, with non-af lenses. Or, am I
nitpicking.

i didn't say that at all.

learn to read and stop making up ****.

Your statement istherefor all to see.

yes it is, and it isn't what you say it was. you have once again made a
fool of yourself.


Why should you care, then. Or could it be, that I'm simply letting you
dig yourself in deeper. It's noted how you always resort to a personal
attack when it is shown that you are dead wrong.

--
PeterN

On 5/18/2013 10:35 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

Depends on the lens. e.g. the original Nikon 80-400. If you don't
believe me, who owned one, read the reviews. Some lenses focus faster
than others.

I owned one. It would be interesting to go back in time to 1975, grab
a news photog and see how fast they could manual focus. Likely very
fast, but not as fast as current fast AF lenses. Some lenses are slow
to AF and annoyingly, hunting is still a problem too many times with
DSLRs.

nospam claims otherwise. That lens was sharp as a tack,

not at the long end, it wasn't.

with good
contrast, but totally unusable for captures that moved.

bull****. it may not have been ideal, but it was definitely usable for
moving subjects.

what were you saying about making absolute claims??

I got rid of it,

i had an 80-400. i got rid of it not because it was slow, but because i
rarely used it.

Then your experience ws different than most other people I know who got
rid of the lens for the same reason I did.

so when you say 'totally unusable for captures that moved', you
actually meant something else, that 'most other people' had problems.

my, how the story changes.

You really are an asshole.
Bye


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

that's why autofocus works better. the camera is faster than a human
and can track moving subjects, even while you fire off multiple
shots.

Depends on the lens. e.g. the original Nikon 80-400. If you don't
believe me, who owned one, read the reviews. Some lenses focus faster
than others.

although the 80-400 is not that fast, the camera is still going to be
able to track a moving subject faster than you can. it only needs to
make very minor adjustments to the focus, not rack the entire focus
movement.

Your engineering skill issovaluable, that you could have made millions
of dollars, making that modification. It's a crying shame you did not
have your predictive skills a few years before Nikon came out with the
new version. Indeed since there are a lot of the old models out there,
why dont you start a modification service. I certainly would haveliked
to see such a service.

more irrelevant babble.

no modification is needed. tracking autofocus works fine with the old
80-400, as well as non afs lenses (mechanical linkage). i've done it
many times with various lenses.

I see. You have done tracking autofocus, with non-af lenses. Or, am I
nitpicking.

i didn't say that at all.

learn to read and stop making up ****.

Your statement istherefor all to see.

yes it is, and it isn't what you say it was. you have once again made a
fool of yourself.

Why should you care, then. Or could it be, that I'm simply letting you
dig yourself in deeper.

no, it could not.

quite the opposite, actually. you're digging yourself deeper with every
post.

you refuse to acknowledge your mistake and you are making a bigger fool
of yourself with every post.

It's noted how you always resort to a personal
attack when it is shown that you are dead wrong.

i didn't insult you at all.

meanwhile, all you do is insult, especially when you are wrong.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Depends on the lens. e.g. the original Nikon 80-400. If you don't
believe me, who owned one, read the reviews. Some lenses focus faster
than others.

I owned one. It would be interesting to go back in time to 1975, grab
a news photog and see how fast they could manual focus. Likely very
fast, but not as fast as current fast AF lenses. Some lenses are slow
to AF and annoyingly, hunting is still a problem too many times with
DSLRs.

nospam claims otherwise. That lens was sharp as a tack,

not at the long end, it wasn't.

with good
contrast, but totally unusable for captures that moved.

bull****. it may not have been ideal, but it was definitely usable for
moving subjects.

what were you saying about making absolute claims??

I got rid of it,

i had an 80-400. i got rid of it not because it was slow, but because i
rarely used it.

Then your experience ws different than most other people I know who got
rid of the lens for the same reason I did.

so when you say 'totally unusable for captures that moved', you
actually meant something else, that 'most other people' had problems.

my, how the story changes.

You really are an asshole.
Bye

more insults, as usual.

this quote of yours made just moments earlier applies to you so very
perfectly:

In article , PeterN
wrote:
It's noted how you always resort to a personal
attack when it is shown that you are dead wrong.

On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:16:16 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

no modification is needed. tracking autofocus works fine with the old
80-400, as well as non afs lenses (mechanical linkage). i've done it
many times with various lenses.

I see. You have done tracking autofocus, with non-af lenses. Or, am I
nitpicking.

i didn't say that at all.

learn to read and stop making up ****.

Your statement istherefor all to see.

yes it is, and it isn't what you say it was. you have once again made a
fool of yourself.

PeterN said "non afs lenses". That's not the same as 'non af lenses'.

other way around.

*i* said non afs lenses, further clarifying it by saying mechanical
linkage. that's about as clear as it gets. there is no ambiguity.

peter said non-af. he's confused, can't read and made a fool of himself.

So have I. You are correct.

Too many layers of double-negatives. :-(



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F-mount
"AF — The original autofocus designation, indicating focus driven by
a motor inside the camera body. All AF lenses have a CPU."

.......

"AF-S — Autofocus-Silent. Uses a "Silent Wave Motor" (SWM)
(ultrasonic motor) to focus quietly and quickly."
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Paul Ciszek wrote:
RichA wrote:

Whatever anyone says, an LCD in anything brighter than cloudy
conditions is just plain HORRIBLE to use. And since LCD's can't be
diopter corrected like EVF's and DSLR optical viewfinders, 50% of the
population have to wear glasses if they intend to do any manual
focusing.

An LCD viewfinder,

is an EVF. Not an LCD.

And RichA never met a transflexive LCD. These are readable
in full sunlight --- in fact, you'd likely switch off the
backlight them to save battery power.

(As to wearing glasses --- yes, I wear glasses using optical
viewfinders, too. So why shouldn't I use them for LCDs?)

[...]

I wonder why, though, since the image is provided via wire rather than
optical path, they don't make the detatchable viewfinder a separate thing
like a jeweler's loupe

Because you're likely going to be seasick.

so you don't need to mash the body of the camera
against your face.

And hold the camera even more unstably? 2 arms
extended-stand?

-Wolfgang

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2013 08:39:29 -0700, Savageduck

My D300S has "CF" mode or constant focus, a menu setting for "Focus
tracking with lock on", "Dynamic AF area"; 3D Tracking, all of these
features have proven to be very useful for me at sporting events, motor
sport events, and air shows.

But say you are trying to take the photograph of the bird in
http://www.learningtosnap.com/thumbs/bird2HDR-1.jpg

How would you ensure that you were focussed on the eye and not the
feathers around it?

This bird is sitting, and you can presumably get close enough
that the active focus point only covers the eye. (Yep, they're
usually active for a larger area than the etched part in the
ground glass). Unless that photo is an extreme crop, that is.

-Wolfgang

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2013 09:36:05 -0700, Savageduck

With the focus mode switch on the front of the D300 you can select from
"S", "M", or "C".

In the custom setting menu go to a3 Dynamic AF area and select "3D 51
points (3D-tracking).
Using this can be a bit disconcerting at first as the active FP seems
to jump all over the place especially when you are tracking or panning
with a moving target. For example at an airshow when a plane is making
a low fast pass at several 100 MPH shooting with AF "S" mode and using
a single FP, making a good, focused capture with a high shutter speed
pan is very difficult to achieve. Using AF "C" mode and 3D-tracking, as
you pan the AF point is jumping all over the tracked target, and one
might think "WTF is this damn camera doing?". What it is doing is what
is very difficult for even the best of us to do with standard settings.
It allows me to get airshow shots such as this:
http://db.tt/B1Q9fEoI

3D focussing works in that case there is only the aircraft in the
picture. How would you get on in the circumstances of
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.n...86707623_n.jpg
(not my photograph - this is one of the early shots after the plane
was reassembled at the Fighter Factory (Norfolk, Virginia)). Would all
the stuff in the background make it harder for the camera to keep
focussed on the aircraft?

The AF knows for every focus points:
- distance and direction of focus compared to the current
lens focus setting --- or "no contrast (e.g. sky)"
- approximate absolute focus setting of the lens right
now

So the AF sees in 3D ... not just in the 2D photos are in.

Therefore the AF sees that the plane is *much* closer to the
lens than the trees. If it saw the man down at the bottom,
it again would be much closer.

Now, physics dictate that one can change the distance to the
lens only gradually --- one can't teleport --- and thus the
range to the plane is only gradually changing. It doesn't
matter if it also shifts from AP point to AF point (which
again won't be jumpy, but gradually, even if very fast),
if a neighbouring AF point of the plane suddenly jumps to
the approximate distance of the plane and the original one
suddenly jumps to the background of the others (off plane)
near it, then of course the plane must have moved by 1 AF
point and this one should be switched active then.

Same if a tree suddenly comes into view in front of the plane
you're tracking: the AF jumps to "much closer" and thus the
camera knows it's off target.

-Wolfgang

In article , ozcvgtt02
@sneakemail.com says...

Paul Ciszek wrote:
RichA wrote:

Whatever anyone says, an LCD in anything brighter than cloudy
conditions is just plain HORRIBLE to use. And since LCD's can't be
diopter corrected like EVF's and DSLR optical viewfinders, 50% of the
population have to wear glasses if they intend to do any manual
focusing.

An LCD viewfinder,

is an EVF. Not an LCD.

And RichA never met a transflexive LCD. These are readable
in full sunlight --- in fact, you'd likely switch off the
backlight them to save battery power.

(As to wearing glasses --- yes, I wear glasses using optical
viewfinders, too. So why shouldn't I use them for LCDs?)

[...]

I wonder why, though, since the image is provided via wire rather than
optical path, they don't make the detatchable viewfinder a separate thing
like a jeweler's loupe

Because you're likely going to be seasick.

so you don't need to mash the body of the camera
against your face.

And hold the camera even more unstably? 2 arms
extended-stand?

Ever see a Steadicam?