Nikon is backwards

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 00:18:08 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 28/01/2019 23.46, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

Evidently, you don't understand the mechanics of a spinning lawnmower
blade. If the nut tightened in the normal way, the blade would work
loose in use.

And for some reason motors must spin a certain way?

It's standard. If a motor rotated the other way no doubt you would
complain about it.

you're confusing standard with convention.

a motor can spin in either direction, often under user control.

Try that on a gasoline mower :-p

as i said, convention.

Sure. Did you try to reverse rotation in gasoline motor? Did you succeed?


Or on a drill.

most drills have a reversing switch.


Try to drill in reverse.

To drill a hole is only one function of a power drill. Some are used
more with a screwdriver bit. Inserting and removing screws requires
reversing.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 28/01/2019 23:18, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 28/01/2019 23.46, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

Evidently, you don't understand the mechanics of a spinning lawnmower
blade. If the nut tightened in the normal way, the blade would work
loose in use.

And for some reason motors must spin a certain way?

It's standard. If a motor rotated the other way no doubt you would
complain about it.

you're confusing standard with convention.

a motor can spin in either direction, often under user control.

Try that on a gasoline mower :-p

as i said, convention.

Sure. Did you try to reverse rotation in gasoline motor? Did you succeed?


Being pernickety - a gas-oil engine called a Bollinder *CAN* run in
either direction!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vZajSrrbFU

Or on a drill.

most drills have a reversing switch.


Try to drill in reverse.

It is possible to buy left handed drill bits!

https://www.irwin.com/tools/browse/d...drill-bit-sets

So yes, one CAN drill with the drill running in reverse!

--
David B.

On 1/28/2019 5:15 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 21:47:37 -0000, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:52:38 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 15:46:24 -0000, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 08:16:09 +0000, "David B." "David
wrote:

On 28/01/2019 00:20, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 23:03:04 -0000, RichA
wrote:

On Sunday, 27 January 2019 17:32:41 UTC-5, Commander Kinsey* wrote:
https://www.nickcarverphotography.co...-is-backwards/

Now I know it's not just me that's annoyed by this.* In fact more
than annoyed, I once BROKE a Nikon camera I'd rented, costing me
£200, simply by trying to attach the lens in the correct clockwise
manner.* The rental company was not amused.

The bayonet is fine if you never go from one system to another and
back, but it grates if you do.

Not for me.* Everything in life tightens to the right.* Taps, screws,
etc, etc.* Having to do one thing the other way simply will never
work
for me.* It's one of those things I expect to be intuitive.* If I
want
to tighten something, it goes clockwise.* If that snaps a fragile
component inside the camera, I'll never buy their product again.
There's simply no need to be different to the rest of the entire
world.

cough Sounds to me as if you've never connected a gas hose to a
propane bottle! ;-)

Or changed a lawn mower blade.

No need for either of those to be backwards either.* The designers
were clearly dimwits.

Gas bottle threads are left handed to prevent dimwits from using
inappropriate connections. Especially strong dimwits.

That's illogical.* What are these "inappropriate connections" and why
can't they be left handed too?* Anyway, all the dimwits will do is start
using adhesive tape.

This thread has drifted quite far afield.
Anyway:

A CGA fitting is the standardized system for the attachment of a
compressed gas
cylinder to the required regulator or transfer line. Examples of CGA
fittings would
be CGA-580 for Non-flamable, Non-oxidizing gasses such as Nitrogen, Argon,
or Helium. CGA-590 is used for compressed air and CGA-326 is used for
Nitrous Oxide. There are approximately a dozen commonly used CGA-fittings,
with others used for special purposes.

For more on this see:
https://www.concoa.com/cgachart.html
--
==
Later...
Ron C

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 23:15:40 -0000, David B. "David wrote:

On 28/01/2019 21:37, Bill W wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 08:07:48 +0000, "David B." "David
wrote:

On 28/01/2019 01:27, Savageduck wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 01:06:44 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 00:19:11 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 22:52:38 -0000, newshound wrote:

On 27/01/2019 22:32, Commander Kinsey wrote:
https://www.nickcarverphotography.co...-is-backwards/

Now I know it's not just me that's annoyed by this. In fact more than
annoyed, I once BROKE a Nikon camera I'd rented, costing me £200, simply
by trying to attach the lens in the correct clockwise manner.. The
rental company was not amused.

Agree with you about the bayonet, but FWIW the Fuji zoom goes the same
way as the Nikon. Clockwise is the positive direction, going out.

Never had a Fuji DSLR, but I won't be buying Fuji since two compact
cameras I bought have nowhere near the MP they claim.

Which compact cameras,

The Finepix S1000FD and the similar one made before that which claimed 6MP.

and you know this how?

By looking at the pictures they produced obviously.

Looking at the pictures they produced will not tell you anything about the
sensor, or its specs.

WTF is the point in them telling me what the sensor can do if the output
image isn't as good as that? I don't care if it's the sensor or the lens
or something else that limits it. I expect an image worthy of the MP it claims.

A more thorough examination of the image files is going to be needed.

Yip, did that. I get about 25% of the MP Fuji quote. Canon gives 100%. Sony gives 80%.

Besides, you are talking about a long defunct camera.

I don't care, they made two cameras that lied about their output. Every
time I've had a Canon, it produced what it said on the tin.


You should check on the capability of the current generation of Fujifilm
mirrorless cameras.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xwwov7yanz74rem/DSF6645R1E3.jpg

I love the image of YOU in his helmet!

Be afraid, Duck, be very afraid...

He has nothing to fear from me, I assure you - and him! ;-)

Correct, you strike me as a big cuddly gentleman ;-)

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 19:09:07 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 08:07:48 -0000, David B. "David wrote:

On 28/01/2019 01:27, Savageduck wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 01:06:44 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 00:19:11 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 22:52:38 -0000, newshound wrote:

On 27/01/2019 22:32, Commander Kinsey wrote:
https://www.nickcarverphotography.co...-is-backwards/

Now I know it's not just me that's annoyed by this. In fact more than
annoyed, I once BROKE a Nikon camera I'd rented, costing me £200, simply
by trying to attach the lens in the correct clockwise manner. The
rental company was not amused.

Agree with you about the bayonet, but FWIW the Fuji zoom goes the same
way as the Nikon. Clockwise is the positive direction, going out.

Never had a Fuji DSLR, but I won't be buying Fuji since two compact
cameras I bought have nowhere near the MP they claim.

Which compact cameras,

The Finepix S1000FD and the similar one made before that which claimed 6MP.

and you know this how?

By looking at the pictures they produced obviously.

Looking at the pictures they produced will not tell you anything about the
sensor, or its specs.

WTF is the point in them telling me what the sensor can do if the output
image isn't as good as that? I don't care if it's the sensor or the lens
or something else that limits it. I expect an image worthy of the MP it claims.

A more thorough examination of the image files is going to be needed.

Yip, did that. I get about 25% of the MP Fuji quote. Canon gives
100%. Sony gives 80%.

Besides, you are talking about a long defunct camera.

I don't care, they made two cameras that lied about their output. Every
time I've had a Canon, it produced what it said on the tin.


You should check on the capability of the current generation of Fujifilm
mirrorless cameras.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xwwov7yanz74rem/DSF6645R1E3.jpg

I love the image of YOU in his helmet!

An absolutely cracking shot! :-)

I've never seen a mirrored helmet before, what is it's purpose?


The reflection is in a clear visor, which the rider had reversed, and move
up so that it was clear of his face.

Reversed?


Note that the notch which should clear his nose, and if in the correct
orientation should be facing downwards, is now reversed and facing upwards.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 19:09:07 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 01:21:09 -0000, wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 18:19:11 -0600, Savageduck
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 22:52:38 -0000, newshound wrote:

On 27/01/2019 22:32, Commander Kinsey wrote:
https://www.nickcarverphotography.co...-is-backwards/

Now I know it's not just me that's annoyed by this. In fact more than
annoyed, I once BROKE a Nikon camera I'd rented, costing me £200, simply
by trying to attach the lens in the correct clockwise manner. The
rental company was not amused.

Agree with you about the bayonet, but FWIW the Fuji zoom goes the same
way as the Nikon. Clockwise is the positive direction, going out.

Never had a Fuji DSLR, but I won't be buying Fuji since two compact
cameras I bought have nowhere near the MP they claim.


Which compact cameras, and you know this how?

My "car camera" is a Fuji FinePix F600EXR, and it's the worst buying
decision I've made in the area of photography. I bought it when there
were not as many choices of compacts that have manual control and
shoot RAW as there are now. And, I made the mistake of buying a
camera online without handling it in person. The local stores didn't
have enough of a selection.

Another discontinued camera with technology Fujifilm has long abandoned.

Irrelevant.

Back when that camera was available there were much better compacts
available. I would have suggested a Canon G12.

Yip, Canon was way better than Fuji ****.

The zoom is jerky and extremely difficult to set to frame a photo.
Given enough time, I can frame the scene but that makes it worthless
for street photography. OK for a static scene, but that's not the
type of photo I go after. Shutter response is slow so any moving
target is blind luck. It's not good at low-light, but the RAW frame
can sometimes be rescued.

You chose the wrong tool for the job. You should have got better advise, or
done some deeper research.

No camera should be as slow as those Fujis.


...and that is why that camera was relegated to the trash can of history.

I would not expect a decent brand like Fuji to make rubbish in the first place.


I have known questionable Nikons, Canons, Sonys, and Panasonics. So Fuji is
not alone in the production of lemons.
--
Regards,
Savageduck

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 19:09:06 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 01:27:46 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 01:06:44 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 00:19:11 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 22:52:38 -0000, newshound wrote:

On 27/01/2019 22:32, Commander Kinsey wrote:
https://www.nickcarverphotography.co...-is-backwards/

Now I know it's not just me that's annoyed by this. In fact more than
annoyed, I once BROKE a Nikon camera I'd rented, costing me £200, simply
by trying to attach the lens in the correct clockwise manner. The
rental company was not amused.

Agree with you about the bayonet, but FWIW the Fuji zoom goes the same
way as the Nikon. Clockwise is the positive direction, going out.

Never had a Fuji DSLR, but I won't be buying Fuji since two compact
cameras I bought have nowhere near the MP they claim.

Which compact cameras,

The Finepix S1000FD and the similar one made before that which claimed 6MP.

and you know this how?

By looking at the pictures they produced obviously.

Looking at the pictures they produced will not tell you anything about the
sensor, or its specs.

WTF is the point in them telling me what the sensor can do if the output
image isn't as good as that? I don't care if it's the sensor or the lens
or something else that limits it. I expect an image worthy of the MP it claims.

A more thorough examination of the image files is going to be needed.

Yip, did that. I get about 25% of the MP Fuji quote. Canon gives
100%. Sony gives 80%.

Besides, you are talking about a long defunct camera.

I don't care, they made two cameras that lied about their output. Every
time I've had a Canon, it produced what it said on the tin.


You should check on the capability of the current generation of Fujifilm
mirrorless cameras.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xwwov7yanz74rem/DSF6645R1E3.jpg

What model is that taken with?


X-T2 with the XF 55-200mm lens.

Your image is only 6MP, the camera states 24MP. Have you a full size version?


I try to be considerate of broadband usage for folks on the receiving end
by down sizing files for sharing. While I have the RAW files at home, I am
currently traveling (Lomé, Togo, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Cape Town,
South Africa), and I only have my iPad Pro with me. However, For the
pixelpeeker in you I have dug up, a still resized version at 13MP which was
tucked away in my cloud files.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/f0rlowfnnqomm4h/DSF6645R1E1.jpg

....and just to show that a little compression, and downsizing when it comes
to online sharing is usually irrelevant, here is another downsized shot for
you to peek at.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dh8q323iuyle153/DSCF6922-E2.jpg
--
Regards,
Savageduck

Bill W wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 08:07:48 +0000, "David B." "David
wrote:

On 28/01/2019 01:27, Savageduck wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 01:06:44 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 00:19:11 -0000, wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 22:52:38 -0000, newshound wrote:

On 27/01/2019 22:32, Commander Kinsey wrote:
https://www.nickcarverphotography.co...-is-backwards/

Now I know it's not just me that's annoyed by this. In fact more than
annoyed, I once BROKE a Nikon camera I'd rented, costing me £200, simply
by trying to attach the lens in the correct clockwise manner. The
rental company was not amused.

Agree with you about the bayonet, but FWIW the Fuji zoom goes the same
way as the Nikon. Clockwise is the positive direction, going out.

Never had a Fuji DSLR, but I won't be buying Fuji since two compact
cameras I bought have nowhere near the MP they claim.

Which compact cameras,

The Finepix S1000FD and the similar one made before that which claimed 6MP.

and you know this how?

By looking at the pictures they produced obviously.

Looking at the pictures they produced will not tell you anything about the
sensor, or its specs.

WTF is the point in them telling me what the sensor can do if the output
image isn't as good as that? I don't care if it's the sensor or the lens
or something else that limits it. I expect an image worthy of the MP it claims.

A more thorough examination of the image files is going to be needed.

Yip, did that. I get about 25% of the MP Fuji quote. Canon gives
100%. Sony gives 80%.

Besides, you are talking about a long defunct camera.

I don't care, they made two cameras that lied about their output. Every
time I've had a Canon, it produced what it said on the tin.


You should check on the capability of the current generation of Fujifilm
mirrorless cameras.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xwwov7yanz74rem/DSF6645R1E3.jpg

I love the image of YOU in his helmet!

Be afraid, Duck, be very afraid...


I have ceased direct communication with that particular individual.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On 1/28/19 4:49 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 18:01:55 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 17:38:15 -0000, Tony Cooper wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:52:38 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 15:46:24 -0000, Tony Cooper wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 08:16:09 +0000, "David B." "David
wrote:

On 28/01/2019 00:20, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 23:03:04 -0000, RichA wrote:

On Sunday, 27 January 2019 17:32:41 UTC-5, Commander Kinsey wrote:
https://www.nickcarverphotography.co...-is-backwards/

Now I know it's not just me that's annoyed by this. In fact more
than annoyed, I once BROKE a Nikon camera I'd rented, costing me
£200, simply by trying to attach the lens in the correct clockwise
manner. The rental company was not amused.

The bayonet is fine if you never go from one system to another and
back, but it grates if you do.

Not for me. Everything in life tightens to the right. Taps, screws,
etc, etc. Having to do one thing the other way simply will never work
for me. It's one of those things I expect to be intuitive. If I want
to tighten something, it goes clockwise. If that snaps a fragile
component inside the camera, I'll never buy their product again.
There's simply no need to be different to the rest of the entire world.

cough Sounds to me as if you've never connected a gas hose to a
propane bottle! ;-)

Or changed a lawn mower blade.

No need for either of those to be backwards either. The designers were clearly dimwits.

Evidently, you don't understand the mechanics of a spinning lawnmower
blade. If the nut tightened in the normal way, the blade would work
loose in use.

And for some reason motors must spin a certain way?

It's standard. If a motor rotated the other way no doubt you would
complain about it.

If the mower blades spun in the opposite direction, you would only be
able to mow grass in the southern hemisphere.



--
Ken Hart

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 23:27:13 -0000, Alan Browne wrote:

On 2019-01-28 18:11, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 23:06:55 -0000, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-01-28 16:49, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 18:01:55 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"

And for some reason motors must spin a certain way?

It's standard. If a motor rotated the other way no doubt you would
complain about it.

US, UK/Italy/Germany/Japan manufactured helicopters generally have
rotors turn CW (viewed from below).

So do French and Russian ... when viewed from above. ;-)

The French always have to be different. Take my Renault for example, it
refuses to give the error codes to any OBD device except a Renault one.
OBD is supposed to be a standard. I've had to buy a pirate Renault Clip
interface (£85 - the real one is £4000, hence most garages don't have
one) to get the data so I can fix it. I will absolutely not pay a
Renault main dealer just to find a fault.

Renault's sold in North America would be obligated by law to spit out
their OBD's w/o need for a hacked interface.
Legal requirement for cars made and sold 1996+.

Same in Europe. But OBD doesn't seem to legally require much above emissions testing. All the more important stuff like ABS failure, engine failure, they don't care about.

OTOH, most sane people avoid Renault like the plague.

I avoid them too. But when I bought it, similarly priced cars were double the mileage, half the size, and half the power. I guess that's indicative of everyone avoiding them. I'm surprised they're still in business, they should have gone under like Rover.

They are not qualified for Quebec winters by any measure.

They can't handle the heat either. My last Renault seized the engine when it overheated in .... FRANCE!

The linked article suggests that they will take another kick at the can
in promoting their trash in North America:
http://loutardeliberee.com/voitures-...er-de-nouveau/

I thought half of Canada was French folk?

Garages here no longer charge to read OBD because there are many devices
available on the market.

Indeed - but the Brits are gullible and throw money at garages. I've reported two of my local garages to Trading Standards for malpractice. One tried to charge me £165 for a £55 part.

Last time I was at Honda for an airbag recall
(10 years ago),

Pah! You can ignore recalls you know.

the "tech" told me there were additional codes but he
wouldn't tell me w/o paying a fee. And then I found the other codes
printed on my $0 invoice. I guess someone screwed up. I don't know how
they treat customers these days in that respect.

I avoid Honda ever since my ABS failed and the two sensors were £160 each. There were no 3rd party alternatives. I managed to get them for £110 each by getting an American friend to buy them then post them over to me in the UK! My next car was a VW. Same problem, failed ABS sensor, only £12 for a genuine part, £5 for a fake. Honda can kiss my ass.

I recently bought a "BlueDriver" Bluetooth widget that I leave plugged
in all of the time. I get the codes (de-coded) on my iPhone along with
suggested fixes. (classed most likely to least...). Nice widget.