Nikon D50 overexposes

Little Green Eyed Dragon wrote:
In article ,
"Sheldon" wrote:

Check the settings in the camera and try your lens on another camera. Your
results tend to make .

Yawn This really is starting to sound familiar.


So what.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

"3putt" wrote in message
...

You buy Sigma lenses to put on a Nikon body?

Sorry dude, your problems start and end with the glass in front of the
camera.

--
http://www.nikongear.com/

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I also drive a Ford, wishing it were a Toyota.
I, as well as many in this group, am looking for suggestions, not
criticism.
3putt, I'm beginning to wonder if your combination of a Nikon body with a
Sigma lens didn't instigate the war between Hezbollah and Israel. Watch it
next time!
Ilaab

" I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I also drive a Ford, wishing it were a Toyota.
I, as well as many in this group, am looking for suggestions, not
criticism.

3putt, I'm beginning to wonder if your combination of a Nikon body with a
Sigma lens didn't instigate the war between Hezbollah and Israel. Watch it
next time!
Ilaab

Hey! Probably not. You should see the discussions in rec.sport.golf.
Anyway, I visited the camera shop and he recommended a couple of settings be
changed. The 70-300mm Canon lens has been on backorder for the past 6
months. The Sigma was loaned until one comes in. I've taken more ourdoor
shots today and have yet to look at them.

A D50 that isn´t defective does _not_ overexpose or make unsharp pictures.

Maybe the problem is in front or behind the camera-house

--
Med venlig hilsen, Ole Larsen.

Thanks, I'll take that into consideration.

In article ,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:

Little Green Eyed Dragon wrote:
In article ,
"Sheldon" wrote:

Check the settings in the camera and try your lens on another camera.
Your
results tend to make .

Yawn This really is starting to sound familiar.


So what.

Paying attention is an attribute, not a privilege.

--
Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian".

I had the opposite problem with my D70. Sorted it by using RAW and reading
up on Histograms, which basically boils down to taking a meter reading (spot
reading in manual mode) and after taking the photo checking the Histogram &
adjusting it by altering the f stop rather than the EV. This is a good
starting point, then read the instructions in more detail.

Bruce

You *want* a Toyota?

I'm beginning to think you are a very strange fella. I wouldn't give a
person a Thank You if they gave me a Toyota (and yes, I drive a Ford).
Japanese cars are all crap, IMO.

But the really reliable, start first time kinda crap.... ;-)


Guy

DD wrote:

In article ,
says...

You buy Sigma lenses to put on a Nikon body?

Sorry dude, your problems start and end with the glass in front of the
camera.

--
http://www.nikongear.com/

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I also drive a Ford, wishing it were a Toyota.
I, as well as many in this group, am looking for suggestions, not
criticism.

You *want* a Toyota?

I'm beginning to think you are a very strange fella. I wouldn't give a
person a Thank You if they gave me a Toyota (and yes, I drive a Ford).
Japanese cars are all crap, IMO.

Had one Toyota, changed the engine every 10,000 miles. People always tell
me I must have "abused it". Well maybe I did, but I abused it the same way
that I abused the Volvo that it replaced (Volvo was running fine at 80,000
and while we were in Hell of a lot better shape than the drunk in the Pinto
the Volvo was no longer useful afterwards) and the Corvette that replaced
it (running fine at 100,000, just plain needed more room) and the Jeep that
replaced that (75,000 so far with no problems).

But to get back on topic, Sigma lenses are well known for their sample
variations. Sometimes you get a good one, sometimes you don't. Sounds
like you got a bad one.


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Had one Toyota, changed the engine every 10,000 miles. People always tell
me I must have "abused it". Well maybe I did, but I abused it the same
way
that I abused the Volvo that it replaced (Volvo was running fine at 80,000
and while we were in Hell of a lot better shape than the drunk in the
Pinto
the Volvo was no longer useful afterwards) and the Corvette that replaced
it (running fine at 100,000, just plain needed more room) and the Jeep
that
replaced that (75,000 so far with no problems).

I'm sure you read the manual incorrectly. Change the oil, not the engine!
I had a Toyota MR2 and had it for 160,000 miles. Traded it 3 years ago, and
I still see it now and then.

3putt wrote:

Had one Toyota, changed the engine every 10,000 miles. People always
tell
me I must have "abused it". Well maybe I did, but I abused it the same
way
that I abused the Volvo that it replaced (Volvo was running fine at
80,000 and while we were in Hell of a lot better shape than the drunk in
the Pinto
the Volvo was no longer useful afterwards) and the Corvette that replaced
it (running fine at 100,000, just plain needed more room) and the Jeep
that
replaced that (75,000 so far with no problems).

I'm sure you read the manual incorrectly. Change the oil, not the
engine!

Another illiterate netloon heard from.

I had a Toyota MR2 and had it for 160,000 miles. Traded it 3 years ago,
and I still see it now and then.

Well goody for you.

plonk



--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)