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

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

<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.

If I said "the D40 is designed for those who buy it with the kit
lens or a pair of kit lenses" you tell me I said that the D40
can only mount 2 kit lenses?

If I said "the D40 is designed for those who wnat an entry level
DSLR" you tell me I said professionals and advanced hobbyists
cannot use the D40, no way, no how?

I can live with that, but you'll have to live with me insisting
you should read again in that case.

-Wolfgang

 

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

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

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

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

Canon can, Nikon cannot?

-Wolfgang

 

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

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

Neil Harrington wrote:

Yes, I think that was a rangefinder lens.

It was.

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.

Poor Rita, your penis envy is a bit to obvious. Sour grapes and
all that. Are you sure the 50mm was never meant as an ultra wide
angle and is thus a failure?

-Wolfgang

 

[Neil Harrington]

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



It's an interesting toy and tool

Well, an interesting toy perhaps. But I suppose it's possible to use a toy
as a tool so I won't quibble about that.

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?

I'm afraid I have so little interest in the Lensbaby I really haven't formed
an opinon about it, so neither agree nor disagree.

But not with Lensbabies and catadioptic lenses.

Right. Only with lenses the other 99.973% of users might be interested in.

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

None. The "just" was implied. (Uh . . . "eludification"?)

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

Well, I wouldn't say expressly *designed* for such people, but I have a
fairly large (and growing) collection of Nikon lenses and I have a D40 as
well, which I like very much. Of course I have a couple of other Nikon
bodies too, as I suppose many people do who have Nikon lens collections.

Neil

 

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Right. Only with lenses the other 99.973% of users might be interested in.

I see your 99.973% ... now you just have to cite a source.
No, "pulled out of your behind", does not count as reliable
or repeatable.

None. The "just" was implied.

As the author, I have it on the best source, the *authoritative*
source even, that, no, "just" was not implied.

I do, however, see _you_ implying that you know better what I
wrote and meant than I do.

(Uh . . . "eludification"?)

The action by which the way the meaning that eludes you went is
made known to you formally.

Well, I wouldn't say expressly *designed* for such people, but I have a
fairly large (and growing) collection of Nikon lenses and I have a D40 as
well, which I like very much.

I have a collection of Canon lenses and a point & shoot, which
I like very much. Which proves that your liking your D40
says nothing about it's compliance with Nikon lenses.

-Wolfgang

 

[Neil Harrington]

I see your 99.973% ... now you just have to cite a source.
No, "pulled out of your behind", does not count as reliable
or repeatable.

I'm sorry, but it will have to serve.

As the author, I have it on the best source, the *authoritative*
source even, that, no, "just" was not implied.

As the author you can only say what was *intentionally* implied. A thing may
be said to be implied when others may reasonably draw a certain inference
from it.

I do, however, see _you_ implying that you know better what I
wrote and meant than I do.

See above.

The action by which the way the meaning that eludes you went is
made known to you formally.

That would not be an expected definition of "eludification." If such a word
ever actually comes into existence, it should mean the process of having
something elude one.

I have a collection of Canon lenses and a point & shoot, which
I like very much. Which proves that your liking your D40
says nothing about it's compliance with Nikon lenses.

Your comment to which that was a direct reply says nothing about that
either, for that matter -- especially in your case, since you are inclined
to deny implications that others might regard as fairly obvious. There is no
*explicit* connection between any camera and "a large lens collection."

Neil

 

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

I'm sorry, but it will have to serve.

If that's the quality of your arguments in general ...

As the author you can only say what was *intentionally* implied.

Ah, yes, an author can in no way interpret his own texts.
But you are perfectly free to read anything into anything.

Thank you for not telling me from the beginning that you
won't be moved by neither logic nor truth.

A thing may be said to be implied when others may reasonably draw a
certain inference from it.

"prejudice beats reading".

See above.

Since you already know what I want to say and what I mean, why
do you continue to oppose my position, or bring real arguments?

That would not be an expected definition of "eludification."

Noone, except you just now, ever accused English to be an
expectable, logical lanugage.

If such a word ever actually comes into existence, it should mean the
process of having something elude one.

If wishes were fishes ...

Since you say I invented the word, by what right are you telling
me what the word means, should mean and so on?
Oh, I forgot, you know what I mean and want to say ...

Your comment to which that was a direct reply says nothing about that
either, for that matter --

*which was exactly the point*
Thank you for seeing and still not getting it.

especially in your case, since you are inclined
to deny implications that others might regard as fairly obvious.

Ah, yes, the old "I never said that" routine _you_ want to
pin on me. Yet I see you using it without qualms.

If you don't have the cojones to say in plain text that you find
your D40 useful with your lens collection, do kindly refrain from
deniably implying so.

There is no
*explicit* connection between any camera and "a large lens collection."

So your point was?

-Wolfgang

 

[Neil Harrington]

If that's the quality of your arguments in general ...

The "99.973%" of course was intended as a metaphysical teminological
inexactitude. I feel bad about having to explain that.

Ah, yes, an author can in no way interpret his own texts.

Certainly you can, as can anyone else. Interpret to your heart's content.
Some interpretations are more valid than others, of course.


[ . . . ]

Noone, except you just now, ever accused English to be an
expectable, logical lanugage.

It's not particularly logical but it does have rules, which are expected to
be followed. And speaking of English, there is no such word as "noone"
either. Were you attempting to use some form of antique English for "mid
day"?

Neil

 

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

The "99.973%" of course was intended as a metaphysical teminological
inexactitude. I feel bad about having to explain that.

"metaphysical teminological inexactitude", indeed!

It's the metaphysical terminally inebriated obnoxious, throwing
up left and right at the wedding of any semi-rational discussion.
Also known as Mr. 100% Truthiness.

Now go and wash your mouth out with soap.

Certainly you can, as can anyone else. Interpret to your heart's content.
Some interpretations are more valid than others, of course.

And your's are more valid, of course. At least by your
meter of validity --- or would you knowingly offer less valid
interpretations? Hence that is proof that your meter of validity
is FUBAR, and you are unable to even notice it, lacking the
metadata and meta-point-of-view to calibrate it.

Unfortunately, in the course of this discussion, you used lots
of time and skill to defend the _imagined_ needs of the OP,
down to the highly intelligent, well thought out suggestion of
a 17-55mm for birding. I even understand _how_ you came up with
the suggestion and except for requiring a highly interesting and
and extremely selective interpretation of everything the OP wrote
--- basically negating his every sentence and any and all implied
or explicitely written out wants and needs), I cannot fault it in
the least.

Thus, I have my doubts wether the rectifications outlined in
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
can be made to work, since it needs the flexibility to alter ones'
mind and a certain rigidity in interpretating clearly stated facts,
rather than rigidity when altering ones' mind and a liberal and
flexible interpretation.

It's not particularly logical but it does have rules, which are expected to
be followed.

Except when they are not.

Shall we start with basic English, like irregular verbs? As in
"verbs that do emphatically not follow the rules which are expected
to be followed"?
Or will you rather claim them following their own, special rules,
with you deciding what is and isn't allowed a special rule?

And speaking of English, there is no such word as "noone"
either.

Ah, yes, spelling flames!
The penultimative low stop on the argument ladder of the rascals
and incompetents, just before name calling, insult, defamation
and grievous bodily harm.

Please excuse me from no longer attending to such discussions
with you. I cannot stand up to your skill in the direction this
discussion is now going.

Thank you for ending the discussion in such a friendly, lucid way.

-Wolfgang

 

[Neil Harrington]

"metaphysical teminological inexactitude", indeed!

It's the metaphysical terminally inebriated obnoxious, throwing
up left and right at the wedding of any semi-rational discussion.
Also known as Mr. 100% Truthiness.

Now go and wash your mouth out with soap.

My, my. Aren't we having a little snit for ourselves though.