A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New DSLR lenses from Nikon



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old February 14th 10, 01:24 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
C J Campbell[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 689
Default New DSLR lenses from Nikon

On 2010-02-13 11:46:54 -0800, (Ray Fischer) said:

Peter wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
Peter wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
C J Campbell wrote:

You know, I don't know where people get this caricature of Bill Gates
being a greedy, selfish moneybags.

To some degree nearly every corporate CEO is a greedy, selfish
moneybag. It's nearly a job requirement.

You obviously refuse to recognize the responsibility of a CEO, regardless
of
the size of the corporation.

Correct.

When you open up in the morning and realize
that x number of people are looking to you for guidance and depend on your
skills to prevent starvation, or to promote a reasonable life style, you
should recognize that you have an awesome responsibility. Sure, some are
greedy turds, but they are in the minority.

I have seen far too many CEO's laying off $60,000/yr workers so that
they can continue to take home $20,000,000/yr. To think that a
typical CEO has the interests of employees as a priority is naive.
If they cared about employees or the company then they'd be getting
$1,000,000/yr and using the extra money to keep 200 employees producing
products to sell.


Your comments make it obvious that you know absolutely nothing about
business. A good CEO holds the interests the company first.


LOL! Is that what they tell you?

In a public
company, he is accountable to the board, who represents the interests of the
owners.


ROFL! The board represent the shareholders?!? And you really believe that?

When was the last time a board member got fired by the shareholders?
When was the last time shareholders picked a board member? Or CEO?


What are you talking about? Happens all the time. Or do you read the
financial pages?


To maintain and grow a healthy company. A good manager recognizes
that the workers are the lifeblood of the company.


If any of your beliefs were true then we wouldn't see corporations
spending so much to hire and train workers only to fire them a few
years later and then repeat the process again.

Sure, there are some good CEOs, but there aren't many.


Sez you. If you would be so much better, why ain't you rich?

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

  #162  
Old February 14th 10, 01:48 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default New DSLR lenses from Nikon

On 2010-02-13 14:45:15 -0800, "Bill Graham" said:


"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...


We agree on something. Remember Bill votes his for pocketbook, not humanity.

Yes.....I am very uncomfortable when politicians have their hands in my
pockets........Just because Robin Hood gave money to the poor, that
doesn't prevent me from calling him a thief.

Are you saying you receive no benefit from being a member of our society?
Please clarify.


--
Peter

Will do. At 10% government, society is great, At 20% government it's
still not too bad, but a bit less than "great" and at 50% government it
is oppressive, way to socialistic, and a long, long way from being
great. - We passed the 50% mark some time ago, and with Obama/Pelosi,
we are fast heading to 60% and above.



So you want the benefits without paying for them. I get it, you should
only pay for the direct benefits you think you need. Not to help
society as a whole.

Just start with a few common costs. Since you know how much to spend,
why don't you fill in the blanks.

Military: = ?
Education = ?
Domestic security protection = ?
Road maintenance = ?
Court system = ?
Helping our genuinely indigent to survive = ?

Come on Billy boy, you have investments. What is the cost of the
government helping to maintain the integrity of your money.

If you expect the benefits of living in our society without paying for
them, you are a worse thief than Robin Hood.

--
Peter


Well, the problem (as I see it) seems to be in the definition of,
"Benefits" If you live in a padded cell, and the government does
(literally) everything for you, then Peter would say life is perfect,
and we owe everything to our government. Bill would say we are all
slaves to our government and they are of no more use to us that any
slave driver is to his property.

In the above example, I think the government's use should fall
somewhere less than 20% of our gross effort, and you seem to think that
it should fall somewhere over 50% of our gross effort.

So, the lines are drawn, and all we have to do is argue over where they
should be.

My argument for my position on the matter is that the more I do for
myself, the more freedom I enjoy. You position is the more the
government does for us, the easier life will be for the most people. I
don't count living in a padded cell as, "life". I want a little more
than just breathing. But, to each his own.......


Bill,
The time has come for you to come out of retirement and join the Palin
team. Who knows, you might make a fine Palin Party, Secretary of The
Treasury, or Vice President?
If you remember to bring a Sharpie you could be one of her speech writers.

....and I am sure she will have all your health needs covered.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #163  
Old February 14th 10, 01:51 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
C J Campbell[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 689
Default New DSLR lenses from Nikon

On 2010-02-13 08:06:23 -0800, Alan Browne
said:

On 10-02-12 19:16 , C J Campbell wrote:
On 2010-02-11 13:10:40 -0800, Bruce said:

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:40:46 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:
...and since VAT is a "value added tax" an imported item arriving a
port of entry would have the taxed "added value" of the freight costs
to move it from port of entry to point of distribution or sale. That
would also apply to the cost of transport on domestic products. That
could be considerable for some landlocked states. That is unless
transport is given a VAT exemption


Wrong, because the consumer pays VAT only once, at the point of sale.
All the VAT that was charged on any intermediate expense, including
transport, is reclaimed by the retailer of the product or service.

Otherwise, the consumer would be paying tax on tax, and that doesn't
happen.


It sure happens in the US. We have all kinds of taxes on our taxes,
including paying sales tax on items that already have been taxed for
their labor, business and occupation, and various excise taxes. We pay
alternative minimum tax, which really is an income tax on our income
taxes. At various times we have had income tax surtaxes, where you
compute your income tax then add a percentage.


We had a surtax here on income taxes up until a few years ago. It
ended when the gov't got over the hump and had surplus budgets (a
Liberal government balanced the books; the Conservatives overspent like
crazy). Surpluses that were cutting into the national debt.

But with the recent recession, the gov't (CONservative) has found the
excuse to deficit spend again. So I hope the surtax comes back to help
iron that out.

Unlike the US, people in Europe (Italy, Spain and Greece excepted) and
Canada seem to understand that you can't have debt running away
unchecked without taxes. Either get the spending under control (as
Canada and most of Europe have done) or add taxes or both. But you
(the US) can't let deficits accumulate w/o raising taxes.


Sure you can. You just print the money and pay for everything with
inflation. :P

You do realize that tax revenues showed record increases under the Bush
administration, do you not? Apparently, people were less inclined to
shelter their income and were more likely to make real investments.

As for the housing bubble that caused the recession, that is hardly
Bush's fault. Nor is it solely the fault of American banks.


The dual-idiocy of Bush W, was to start a major and semi-major war
while reducing taxes. Total insanity. (But winning a 2nd term was
more important - a lesson from Daddy's failed 2nd term attempt as he
raised taxes in the first term).


Perhaps it is time that we let Europe pay for its own defense instead
of the US footing almost the entire bill.

But if Bush was an idiot for running a deficit, what is Obama for
running a deficit that is several orders of magnitude greater?


Further, the US has been running trade deficit after trade deficit for
decades. Again, the American consumer at some point will have to
settle their debts (and this will drive down asset prices as cashing
out inevitably occurs against a sliding dollar).


The trade deficit was the result of the dollar being strong, not weak.
You know, I am beginning to think that courses in basic economics ought
to be mandatory.


The US is like that neighbor down the road with the great house,
country place, 3 luxury cars, a boat (big), country club members, etc,
etc. but who are running the whole thing on massive debt. It is
unsustainable. A fire sale will ensue.


Funny man. I just ordered my broker to sell all my stock in the Bank of
Greece, even though Germany says they will do a short-term bailout.
Germany's credit is good (for now) but it is not good enough to bail
out Spain, Italy, Portugal, or the other weak economies of Europe. I
also sold all my British Telecom (should have done that a long time
ago).

In any event, unemployment is now higher than what Obama said it would
be if his stimulus package was not passed a year ago. And despite the
'stimulus' the United States now has joined Spain and Italy in having
worse credit than Coca-Cola.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

  #164  
Old February 14th 10, 01:55 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Peter[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,078
Default New DSLR lenses from Nikon

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...


We agree on something. Remember Bill votes his for pocketbook, not
humanity.

Yes.....I am very uncomfortable when politicians have their hands in
my pockets........Just because Robin Hood gave money to the poor, that
doesn't prevent me from calling him a thief.

Are you saying you receive no benefit from being a member of our
society?
Please clarify.


--
Peter

Will do. At 10% government, society is great, At 20% government it's
still not too bad, but a bit less than "great" and at 50% government it
is oppressive, way to socialistic, and a long, long way from being
great. - We passed the 50% mark some time ago, and with Obama/Pelosi, we
are fast heading to 60% and above.



So you want the benefits without paying for them. I get it, you should
only pay for the direct benefits you think you need. Not to help society
as a whole.

Just start with a few common costs. Since you know how much to spend, why
don't you fill in the blanks.

Military: = ?
Education = ?
Domestic security protection = ?
Road maintenance = ?
Court system = ?
Helping our genuinely indigent to survive = ?

Come on Billy boy, you have investments. What is the cost of the
government helping to maintain the integrity of your money.

If you expect the benefits of living in our society without paying for
them, you are a worse thief than Robin Hood.

--
Peter


Well, the problem (as I see it) seems to be in the definition of,
"Benefits" If you live in a padded cell, and the government does
(literally) everything for you, then Peter would say life is perfect, and
we owe everything to our government. Bill would say we are all slaves to
our government and they are of no more use to us that any slave driver is
to his property.

In the above example, I think the government's use should fall somewhere
less than 20% of our gross effort, and you seem to think that it should
fall somewhere over 50% of our gross effort.

So, the lines are drawn, and all we have to do is argue over where they
should be.

My argument for my position on the matter is that the more I do for
myself, the more freedom I enjoy. You position is the more the government
does for us, the easier life will be for the most people. I don't count
living in a padded cell as, "life". I want a little more than just
breathing. But, to each his own.......



You completely avoided the question. What is the basis for your 20%

How are you going to ensure that you have the right to do more than just
breath.

Try filling in the blanks and tell me what can be eliminated.

--
Peter

  #165  
Old February 14th 10, 01:58 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Peter[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,078
Default New DSLR lenses from Nikon

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
Peter wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
.. .
Peter wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message



I have seen far too many CEO's laying off $60,000/yr workers so that
they can continue to take home $20,000,000/yr. To think that a
typical CEO has the interests of employees as a priority is naive.
If they cared about employees or the company then they'd be getting
$1,000,000/yr and using the extra money to keep 200 employees
producing
products to sell.


How about some examples: You are making accusations of clear violations of
rhe SEC Regulations.


What regulations? What violation? It's no violation to lay off
hundreds of people. It's no violation to get $20,000,000/year.

Your comments make it obvious that you know absolutely nothing about
business. A good CEO holds the interests the company first.

LOL! Is that what they tell you?


They? Suggest you get over your bitter pill and learn something about the
reality of business before you open your mouth.


Says the rightard who cannot actually refute what I write.

In a public
company, he is accountable to the board, who represents the interests of
the
owners.

ROFL! The board represent the shareholders?!? And you really believe
that?


And just how do you think a director becomes a director.


By being selected by the board.

He/she is elected
by vot of the shareholders.


You may be that stupid, or not, but don't assume that I am that
stupid. We both know that the vast majority of such elections
are decided when the board recommends someone for the position.

When was the last time a board member got fired by the shareholders?
When was the last time shareholders picked a board member? Or CEO?

Read this and learn.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles.../04/082704.asp


You must be pretty stupid. You didn't even notice that that doesn't
answer either of my questions.

To maintain and grow a healthy company. A good manager recognizes
that the workers are the lifeblood of the company.

If any of your beliefs were true then we wouldn't see corporations
spending so much to hire and train workers only to fire them a few
years later and then repeat the process again.


My statements are based upon personal observation and experience.


You statements are based on naive worship of corporations.

Sure, there are some good CEOs, but there aren't many.


More than you would admit.


Less than you would admit.

Wow! You certainly are a fountain of
misinformation.


I'm not a part of your cult of stupidity. When the incomes of CEOs
explode and the incomes of workers actually fall then it's clear who
is scamming whom.



You show the shallowness of your position by resorting to personal attacks.
It is clear that you have no business experience.

Bye

--
Peter

  #166  
Old February 14th 10, 02:00 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Peter[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,078
Default New DSLR lenses from Nikon

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:06:24 -0800, Jürgen Exner
wrote:

C J Campbell wrote:
On 2010-02-11 23:39:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" said:


[replying to C J's posting because Bill has been in my killfile for a
long time. And obviously for very good reasons, see below]

"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message
C J Campbell wrote:
And wouldn't Bill Gates love a sales tax......


He happens to be living in Bellevue, WA, USA, which happens to have
about 8% sales tax (plus probably a few percent slapped on by King
County and the city of Bellevue).

He wouldn't spend any
more than he does now, but his investments would make billions of
dollars every year, and it would all be tax free., Talk about a
regressive tax system.....


???
What does income tax have to do with the difference between sales tax
and VAT? Are you tossing red herrings around again?

He's referring to the "FairTax" movement. It replaces the income tax
with a consumption tax on retail sales (essentially, a "sales tax")
with a rebate to taxpayers with incomes below a certain level. There
are some advantages to the proposal, but it stands little chance of
advancing.

There's more to it than I've outlined above.



Yup! Lots more. there are a lot of advantages, but it cannot sell
politically.

--
Peter

  #167  
Old February 14th 10, 02:07 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Peter[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,078
Default New DSLR lenses from Nikon

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010021316481660903-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-02-13 14:45:15 -0800, "Bill Graham" said:


"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...


We agree on something. Remember Bill votes his for pocketbook, not
humanity.

Yes.....I am very uncomfortable when politicians have their hands in
my pockets........Just because Robin Hood gave money to the poor,
that doesn't prevent me from calling him a thief.

Are you saying you receive no benefit from being a member of our
society?
Please clarify.


--
Peter

Will do. At 10% government, society is great, At 20% government it's
still not too bad, but a bit less than "great" and at 50% government it
is oppressive, way to socialistic, and a long, long way from being
great. - We passed the 50% mark some time ago, and with Obama/Pelosi,
we are fast heading to 60% and above.


So you want the benefits without paying for them. I get it, you should
only pay for the direct benefits you think you need. Not to help society
as a whole.

Just start with a few common costs. Since you know how much to spend,
why don't you fill in the blanks.

Military: = ?
Education = ?
Domestic security protection = ?
Road maintenance = ?
Court system = ?
Helping our genuinely indigent to survive = ?

Come on Billy boy, you have investments. What is the cost of the
government helping to maintain the integrity of your money.

If you expect the benefits of living in our society without paying for
them, you are a worse thief than Robin Hood.

--
Peter


Well, the problem (as I see it) seems to be in the definition of,
"Benefits" If you live in a padded cell, and the government does
(literally) everything for you, then Peter would say life is perfect, and
we owe everything to our government. Bill would say we are all slaves to
our government and they are of no more use to us that any slave driver is
to his property.

In the above example, I think the government's use should fall somewhere
less than 20% of our gross effort, and you seem to think that it should
fall somewhere over 50% of our gross effort.

So, the lines are drawn, and all we have to do is argue over where they
should be.

My argument for my position on the matter is that the more I do for
myself, the more freedom I enjoy. You position is the more the government
does for us, the easier life will be for the most people. I don't count
living in a padded cell as, "life". I want a little more than just
breathing. But, to each his own.......


Bill,
The time has come for you to come out of retirement and join the Palin
team. Who knows, you might make a fine Palin Party, Secretary of The
Treasury, or Vice President?
If you remember to bring a Sharpie you could be one of her speech writers.

...and I am sure she will have all your health needs covered.



If the government spending was at the level he claims to want, he will be
very busy: Digging holes to safeguard his money; target practice; worrying
whether his doctor really had a medical license; whether his grandchildren's
teachers were competent to teach; growing his own food because of worry
about adulterating substances; etc.


--
Peter

  #168  
Old February 14th 10, 02:12 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
C J Campbell[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 689
Default New DSLR lenses from Nikon

On 2010-02-13 14:51:05 -0800, "Bill Graham" said:


"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell wrote:
On 2010-02-11 23:39:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" said:


[replying to C J's posting because Bill has been in my killfile for a
long time. And obviously for very good reasons, see below]

"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message
C J Campbell wrote:
And wouldn't Bill Gates love a sales tax......


He happens to be living in Bellevue, WA, USA, which happens to have
about 8% sales tax (plus probably a few percent slapped on by King
County and the city of Bellevue).

He wouldn't spend any
more than he does now, but his investments would make billions of
dollars every year, and it would all be tax free., Talk about a
regressive tax system.....


???
What does income tax have to do with the difference between sales tax
and VAT? Are you tossing red herrings around again?

jue


I am talking about the new "progressive" idea of replacing the income
tax with a national sales tax. The super rich would make out like
bandits, since they have the bulk of their money invested, and spend
only a small fraction of their incomes. But people like me, who are
retired, and spend everything we get on our living expenses would be
paying for all the costs of the society.


Why do I get the feeling you do not know the difference between a
progressive and a regressive tax? These are distinct economic terms
that have nothing to do with whether a tax is "good" or "bad;" they
just describe the manner of taxation. "Progressive" taxes collect a
higher percentage of income as income goes up. "Regressive" taxes
collect a higher percentage of income as income goes down. "Neutral"
taxes collect the same percentage of income from everybody.

Sales and VAT taxes are called regressive because people with lower
incomes tend to spend a greater percentage of their income than people
with higher incomes who tend to save and invest. Sales and VAT taxes
are ultimately dependent on sales. The poor spend a higher percentage
of their income on sales and VAT taxes than do the rich. For this
reason it is common (but by no means universal) to mitigate the adverse
effects of these taxes on the poor by exempting certain necessities,
such as food and drugs.

Income taxes are supposed to be either neutral or progressive -- the
poor pay a lower rate than the rich. In practice, however, you cannot
make income taxes too high or the rich will take steps to shield their
incomes from taxation -- as in the extreme example of Sweden. Another
extreme example is the United States, which has one of the highest
corporate income tax rates in the world, resulting in many US
corporations to move as much of their operations as possible to
friendlier tax climes. Thus the rich can afford to escape taxation,
leaving the poor to pay taxes. A nominally progressive tax system turns
into a regressive one.

From what I can see here, most of the people arguing about this subject
have probably never taken a basic course in economics in their entire
lives. Either that, or they forgot everything they ever learned.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

  #169  
Old February 14th 10, 02:25 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Jürgen Exner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,579
Default New DSLR lenses from Nikon

C J Campbell wrote:
On 2010-02-13 14:51:05 -0800, "Bill Graham" said:


"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell wrote:
On 2010-02-11 23:39:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" said:

[replying to C J's posting because Bill has been in my killfile for a
long time. And obviously for very good reasons, see below]

"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message
C J Campbell wrote:
And wouldn't Bill Gates love a sales tax......

He happens to be living in Bellevue, WA, USA, which happens to have
about 8% sales tax (plus probably a few percent slapped on by King
County and the city of Bellevue).

He wouldn't spend any
more than he does now, but his investments would make billions of
dollars every year, and it would all be tax free., Talk about a
regressive tax system.....

???
What does income tax have to do with the difference between sales tax
and VAT? Are you tossing red herrings around again?

jue


I am talking about the new "progressive" idea of replacing the income
tax with a national sales tax.


And what on earth does that have to do with the claim that VAT is more
regressive than sales tax as was discussed in this branch of the thread?

I'm done with the NG. In the past at least you get catch a good advice
once in a while but the signal-to-noise ratio has gotten so low that
it's absolutely worthless to keep trying.

I am sure you won't miss me.

jue
  #170  
Old February 14th 10, 02:29 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
George Kerby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default New DSLR lenses from Nikon




On 2/13/10 6:24 PM, in article
2010021316244816807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

On 2010-02-13 11:46:54 -0800, (Ray Fischer) said:

Peter wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
Peter wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
C J Campbell wrote:

You know, I don't know where people get this caricature of Bill Gates
being a greedy, selfish moneybags.

To some degree nearly every corporate CEO is a greedy, selfish
moneybag. It's nearly a job requirement.

You obviously refuse to recognize the responsibility of a CEO, regardless
of
the size of the corporation.

Correct.

When you open up in the morning and realize
that x number of people are looking to you for guidance and depend on your
skills to prevent starvation, or to promote a reasonable life style, you
should recognize that you have an awesome responsibility. Sure, some are
greedy turds, but they are in the minority.

I have seen far too many CEO's laying off $60,000/yr workers so that
they can continue to take home $20,000,000/yr. To think that a
typical CEO has the interests of employees as a priority is naive.
If they cared about employees or the company then they'd be getting
$1,000,000/yr and using the extra money to keep 200 employees producing
products to sell.

Your comments make it obvious that you know absolutely nothing about
business. A good CEO holds the interests the company first.


LOL! Is that what they tell you?

In a public
company, he is accountable to the board, who represents the interests of the
owners.


ROFL! The board represent the shareholders?!? And you really believe that?

When was the last time a board member got fired by the shareholders?
When was the last time shareholders picked a board member? Or CEO?


What are you talking about? Happens all the time. Or do you read the
financial pages?


To maintain and grow a healthy company. A good manager recognizes
that the workers are the lifeblood of the company.


If any of your beliefs were true then we wouldn't see corporations
spending so much to hire and train workers only to fire them a few
years later and then repeat the process again.

Sure, there are some good CEOs, but there aren't many.


Sez you. If you would be so much better, why ain't you rich?


Because FishHead is a 'whiner', not a 'winner'.

Typical 'Progressive' behavior. Typical on the "No-Cal" state of mind...

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon DSLR: Does 3d matrix metering work with these lenses...? [email protected] Digital Photography 3 October 26th 05 01:01 PM
Nikon D70 dSLR or Nikon CP8800 Non dSLR (Non-CCD Cleaning!!) ?? Digital Photography 62 March 18th 05 08:41 AM
Nikon D70 dSLR or Nikon CP8800 Non dSLR (Non-CCD Cleaning!!) ?? Digital Photography 0 March 3rd 05 06:48 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.