Biggest mistake with the new D7000

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 07:33:05 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Going from slotted eyelets to the old ring-type. These metal on metal
instead of metal on strap style eyelets wear, especially when you
carry heavier lenses. The chrome-plated brass ones on my Olympus E-1
actually almost wore through. The ones on my D300 are down to the
brass. the cost to replace them (because the camera has to go back to
the mfg or a repair depot and taken apart) is about $250.00. This
does not happen with slotted eyelets where the strap is what will
wear, so you just need to replace the strap from time to time.

Whereas I much prefer the rotating ring-style connections as are on some of
the Sony superzoom cameras. One I have from 8 years ago has never worn nor
broken nor has any strap attached to it ever been strained enough to even
show wear. These rotating ring-mounts allow the strap to easily untwist so
it always rests comfortably on your shoulder and never gets in the way of
holding the camera because the strap ends simply swivel the strap's ends
out of the way.

I detest rectangular "slotted" strap eyelets. They seem to always force the
strap to be in an awkward position when holding the camera and untwisting
the strap, so it all rests smoothly across the shoulder, turns into
momentary pain in the ass that isn't needed if the eyelets swiveled freely.

Haven't used many, or any, cameras have you. It shows.

Ofnuts wrote:

You can have a 2001 superzoom in 2002...

Yes, all of 0.3 MPix. :-)

And you missed:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf707/

5x zoom doesn't make it a superzoom.

-Wolfgang

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 21:19:09 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

All images it shows are stolen, usually from
DSLR cameras.

Thanks for the compliment. Or should I say, the compliment that you are
paying to all superzoom cameras since you insist they were all shot with
dslrs. Now, describe just ONE (or more) of them that you claim I stole.
You're desperately crying out to be revealed for the lying, sniveling, ****
of a libelous and slanderous pretend-photographer troll that you are. If
you don't describe at least one of them, then that automatically makes you
a lying, sniveling, **** of a libelous and slanderous pretend-photographer
troll.

LOL!

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 09:50:05 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
wrote:
: On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 07:33:05 -0700 (PDT), RichA
: wrote:
:
: Going from slotted eyelets to the old ring-type. These metal on metal
: instead of metal on strap style eyelets wear, especially when you
: carry heavier lenses. The chrome-plated brass ones on my Olympus E-1
: actually almost wore through. The ones on my D300 are down to the
: brass. the cost to replace them (because the camera has to go back to
: the mfg or a repair depot and taken apart) is about $250.00. This
: does not happen with slotted eyelets where the strap is what will
: wear, so you just need to replace the strap from time to time.
:
: Whereas I much prefer the rotating ring-style connections as are on some of
: the Sony superzoom cameras. One I have from 8 years ago has never worn nor
: broken nor has any strap attached to it ever been strained enough to even
: show wear. ...
:
: Haven't used many, or any, cameras have you. It shows.

What shows is that the wear that Rich described occurs only if the camera is
actually used. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Bob

On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 20:55:24 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 09:50:05 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
wrote:
: On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 07:33:05 -0700 (PDT), RichA
: wrote:
:
: Going from slotted eyelets to the old ring-type. These metal on metal
: instead of metal on strap style eyelets wear, especially when you
: carry heavier lenses. The chrome-plated brass ones on my Olympus E-1
: actually almost wore through. The ones on my D300 are down to the
: brass. the cost to replace them (because the camera has to go back to
: the mfg or a repair depot and taken apart) is about $250.00. This
: does not happen with slotted eyelets where the strap is what will
: wear, so you just need to replace the strap from time to time.
:
: Whereas I much prefer the rotating ring-style connections as are on some of
: the Sony superzoom cameras. One I have from 8 years ago has never worn nor
: broken nor has any strap attached to it ever been strained enough to even
: show wear. ...
:
: Haven't used many, or any, cameras have you. It shows.

What shows is that the wear that Rich described occurs only if the camera is
actually used. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Bob

Now that's an odd lie coming from the usual TROLL. That particular camera
with the rotating eyelets has over 400,000 photos taken on it so far. It's
been schlepped from mountain-top to desert to remote steamy swamp and
everything in between. I have the photos to prove it and have already
posted some of them to do just that. Even the brand name got worn off of
the strap, but the strap itself is just fine. The only "repair" its needed
so far is that some of the body-screws became a little loose from all the
abuse it's been though. I simple jeweler's screwdriver to the rescue.

Got something else you want to add? You lousy piece-of-****
pretend-photographer **** of a TROLL.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 21:48:20 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
wrote:

Now that's an odd lie coming from the usual TROLL. That particular camera
with the rotating eyelets has over 400,000 photos taken on it so far.

That is truly impressive! There are that many rare moths in your
backyard? Did any of the 400,000 turn out? All we saw here was the
one that was either a rare moth or a crumpled up mohair sweater that
had been left out in the rain.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 23:25:07 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 21:48:20 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
wrote:

Now that's an odd lie coming from the usual TROLL. That particular camera
with the rotating eyelets has over 400,000 photos taken on it so far.

That is truly impressive! There are that many rare moths in your
backyard? Did any of the 400,000 turn out? All we saw here was the
one that was either a rare moth or a crumpled up mohair sweater that
had been left out in the rain.



Here's your chance! To prove to the world that you are NOT a ****ingly
pathetic liar and slanderous libelous **** of a TROLL!

Post PROOF that I EVER CLAIMED to have posted ANY photo of ANY rare moth!

C'mon! You can do it! Can't you?

LOL!

NO, you CAN'T! Because I never posted any photo of any rare moth nor have I
ever claimed to.

Prove me WRONG! Until then ... you're nothing but a lying **** of a
libelous and slanderous ****head TROLL. This post PROVES IT!

LOL!

LOL! wrote in
:

On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 23:25:07 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 21:48:20 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
wrote:

Now that's an odd lie coming from the usual TROLL. That particular
camera with the rotating eyelets has over 400,000 photos taken on it
so far.

That is truly impressive! There are that many rare moths in your
backyard? Did any of the 400,000 turn out? All we saw here was the
one that was either a rare moth or a crumpled up mohair sweater that
had been left out in the rain.



Here's your chance! To prove to the world that you are NOT a ****ingly
pathetic liar and slanderous libelous **** of a TROLL!

Post PROOF that I EVER CLAIMED to have posted ANY photo of ANY rare
moth!

C'mon! You can do it! Can't you?

LOL!

NO, you CAN'T! Because I never posted any photo of any rare moth nor
have I ever claimed to.

Prove me WRONG! Until then ... you're nothing but a lying **** of a
libelous and slanderous ****head TROLL. This post PROVES IT!

LOL!



You can't claim libel or slander if someone calls you on the use of a
P&S, because judges don't listen to the insane.