Nikon D40 with 300mm lens AND teleconverter (Nikkor AF-STeleconverter TC-20E II)

[Mr.T]

You do forget that this concept is lost on most Canon shooters since
they lack the level of intelligence required to do "homework" that is needed
for an educated purchase.

Rita

Your speaking from personal experience obviously.

MrT.

 

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

not quite. there are roughly *fifty* lenses that will autofocus on the
d40 and focus confirmation works with the rest of them.

And they do metering, too?

-Wolfgang

 

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Maybe you have to step up to the next model and pay more for that feature?

Like, say, spot metering with Canon?

It's not a difficult concept for most people to understand.

Well, how much is it to upgrade you to a version with brains?

-Wolfgang

 

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]

Neil Harrington wrote:

BINGO! You do forget that this concept is lost on most Canon shooters since
they lack the level of intelligence required to do "homework" that is needed
for an educated purchase.

Ah, yes, us Canon shooters is all dege'nrat's who don' need to
go to 'niverst'y --- we just buy Canon and EF lenses ... and ...
everything ... just ... works.

Clearly, the end of the world is near.

-Wolfgang

 

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Older F-mount lenses are not "on the market today" in the sense that I'm
using that term.

| 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,'
| it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.
(Lewis Carol)

Why ask why?

Because dumb acceptance is not a mark of intelligence?

It doesn't need to.

It doesn't need to do anything, including taking pictures.

The D40 is designed primarily for the
entry-level buyer who is very unlikely to be interested in such lenses.
Lensbabies and mirror lenses are for a tiny fraction of one percent of users
who wouldn't be buying a D40 in the first place.

What a nice circular argument: It doesn't need to because it
doesn't need to.
Or: "Buy a bridge camera instead, it's just as good for you".

Look again.

*READ* again.
Do you see anything like "the D40 can mount (just) a half-dozen
lenses" anywhere in what I have written?

But the capability to do so is always there.

Unneeded and hence causing costs unnecessary.
Just as, say, an AF motor in the D40 would.

Unfounately, unlike a missing AF motor, a missing fixed lens
has that ugly dust problem, too ...

Most Ferrari buyers are never going to enter Le Mans either.

And most people don't use the brains they have, either.
Your point?

Now you've crossed the line from silliness to lunacy. No offense.

Just because you disagree doesn't mean you are right. Why else
would people ask for using the monitor to frame and why else is
LifeView a must this season?

-Wolfgang

 

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]

Wolfie doesn't care. He'd rather use that substandard consumer grade Canon
crap.

Sure do.
I just don't have the time and patience with Nikon, I wanna do
pictures, not study which body and lens combinations work to what
extend ... and I already have a perfectly working fast 50mm lens.

-Wolfgang

 

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

canon's chuck westfall explains the problem in detail:

[snip]

Please answer my question.

to quote you, "I don't forgive not metering" to which i add "correctly."

Replace the screen, and all is well.

what's odd about it? and why does it even matter?

Read the thread.

i ran tcpdump while posting and you're right, it does add a line break
when wrapping outgoing text.
Finally.

however, it's not noticable in urls
because both newsreaders (one gui, one text based) as well as email and
even text editors that i use all detect urls, regardless of embedded
line breaks and even without delimiters most of the time, so at the end
of the day, it doesn't really matter if there's an extra line break or
not.

Ah, and you're the one to complain about Canon's focussing
screen not being as linear as you'd like it to? Well, it
doesn't matter, since all the lenses *I* use work perfectly
with it.

Your logic is too flawed to detect how flawed your logic really is.

Or in other words, if I start killing people left and right, well,
at the end of the day, it does not matter, since I am still alife.
At least by your logic.

nikon could make a 50mm f/1 if they thought it would be profitable,

Show me the Nikon 50mm f/1.0, if you please. I want to see one.

-Wolfgang

 

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]

nospam wrote:

Sounds like a piss poor design to me!

Just like restricting sensors to 24x36 or even APS sized ones,
instead of 10x10" ...

-Wolfgang

 

[Rita Berkowitz]

Your speaking from personal experience obviously.

In my defense I was smart enough to recognize the gaping hole in Canon's
lens quality that I shot my Mk III with Nikkors.




Rita

 

[Rita Berkowitz]

Show me the Nikon 50mm f/1.0, if you please. I want to see one.

Why, for Christ's sake, would Nikon want to duplicate Canon's failure with
this lens?





Rita

 

[Neil Harrington]

(Lewis Carol)

Lewis Carroll, yes. I didn't need the reminder; I'm the guy who coined the
term "Humpty Dumptyism." But this is not Humpty Dumptyism. The phrase "on
the market today" can reasonably be taken to imply currently catalogued
products still being sold new, as opposed to older products that haven't
been made for some time. And I did originally mention the difference between
new and old to make sure there'd be no misunderstanding.

Because dumb acceptance is not a mark of intelligence?

A Lensbaby is something you associate with intelligence?

It doesn't need to do anything, including taking pictures.

On the contrary, taking pictures is its raison d'être.

What a nice circular argument: It doesn't need to because it
doesn't need to.
Or: "Buy a bridge camera instead, it's just as good for you".

Bridge cameras are fine too. I have several and I love 'em. But they do not
compare with DSLRs, and the D40 is a DSLR whether you recognize it as such
or not.

*READ* again.
Do you see anything like "the D40 can mount (just) a half-dozen
lenses" anywhere in what I have written?

Certainly the implication was clear. Why else mention "a half-dozen lenses"
as what the D40 "_might_ be able to mount"?

If you now want to back away from that ill-considered remark, try to do so
more gracefully.

Neil

 

[Neil Harrington]

Why, for Christ's sake, would Nikon want to duplicate Canon's failure
with this lens?

Canon even made an f/0.95 lens once, didn't they? I think it could only be
used on the Pellix because it intruded so far into the body.

Neil

 

[Rita Berkowitz]

Canon even made an f/0.95 lens once, didn't they? I think it could
only be used on the Pellix because it intruded so far into the body.

Yes, I think that was a rangefinder lens. The 50/1 Wolfie is referring to
was an overpriced piece of crap that met with many complaints, especially
for the ridiculous price/performance ratio. It just sucked at any price.





Rita

 

[Jürgen Exner]

*READ* again.
Do you see anything like "the D40 can mount (just) a half-dozen
lenses" anywhere in what I have written?

<Quote>
The D40 is designed for those who want a camera which _might_ be
able to mount a half-dozen lenses.
<\Quote>

Seems pretty obvious to me.

Look, I couldn't care less if or why you prefer Canon over Nikon. It's your
choice and I'm sure you had reasons to decide that way. I also readily
accept that you may have some factual knowledge.

However your ongoing crusade with half-truths and twisted accusations is
becoming tiresome. You don't like Nikon. Ok, we got it. You accuse Nikon of
making the wrong decision when not changing the mount for electronic control
some 20 years ago. OK, we got it. You accuse Nikon of reducing functionality
on its entry-level DSLR. OK, we got it. You are accusing Nikon to not
providing 100% compatibility with 20+ year old lenses in all cases. Ok, we
got it. WE GOT IT. Actually we got it the first time. No need to repeat it
over and over and over again.

Maybe, just maybe, you can accept that there are others who have a different
view. People who actually welcome the fact that even almost all 20+ year old
lenses can still be mounted and used on today's bodies. People who don't
mind if an entry level camera doesn't have all the bells and whistles of a
pro model that is 5 times as expensive. People who don't mind using only
lenses of a new generation. People who do their research and read the
information before deciding on a specific body.

And quite frankly, people you don't care about your tirade except that it is
cluttering this NG.

jue

 

[user]

Yep. I have one. It remains in faithful service
today, minus it's lens mount, in a scientific apparatus.

This lens is basically only f/0.95 at the exact center of the
field. It vignettes like crazy. It is soft as a marshmallow,
even at f/4.

Doug McDonald

 

[Annika1980]

In my defense I was smart enough to recognize the gaping hole in Canon's
lens quality that I shot my Mk III with Nikkors.

Rita

The only gaping hole I see around here is you.

 

[Neil Harrington]

Yes, I think that was a rangefinder lens.

I think you're right. It wasn't the Pellix after all. I guess I'm thinking
of some other lens for the Pellix.

Neil

 

[Neil Harrington]

Yep. I have one. It remains in faithful service
today, minus it's lens mount, in a scientific apparatus.

This lens is basically only f/0.95 at the exact center of the
field. It vignettes like crazy. It is soft as a marshmallow,
even at f/4.

<chuckle>

That sure is an impressive aperture, though.

I'm not familiar with the f/1.0 the others are talking about. I recall that
Zunow made an f/1.1 lens and I think that was in the Canon mount. No idea
whether it was any good, though.

The fastest lens I ever owned was a Minolta f/1.2 back in the MD mount days.
That was impressive just because it was f/1.2, but it had little if any
real-world benefit over the f/1.4 -- not even the half stop advantage it was
supposed to have, because of the fall-off.

Neil

 

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]

In my defense I was smart enough to recognize the gaping hole in Canon's
lens quality that I shot my Mk III with Nikkors.

Sure, it _could_ not have anything to do with you owning your
Nikkors and no Canon lenses, since you bought these Nikkors just
for the MK III and sold them afterwards.

Excuse me for a monthe or two while I laugh.

-Wolfgang

 

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Lewis Carroll, yes. I didn't need the reminder; I'm the guy who coined the
term "Humpty Dumptyism."

I though a certain L. Carol did that. I stand corrected.

A Lensbaby is something you associate with intelligence?

It's an interesting toy and tool and seems to work out as a
business model, ad an adequate price. To me that shows no signs
of dumb acceptance, but quite a few of intelligence, yes.

Do you disagree?

On the contrary, taking pictures is its raison d'être.

But not with Lensbabies and catadioptic lenses.

Certainly the implication was clear.

Which of the words "designed for those" needs eludification?

Or will you now tell me that the D40 was designed for people with
a large lens collection?

-Wolfgang