Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

On Fri, 26 May 2006 18:49:47 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 18:30:50 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:22:30 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 15:58:24 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
I thought you had this lens? You were the SOB who started me reading
those damn reviews.
No, I've got this one:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm

My D-70 came with the 18-70mm zoom, I didn't want to overlap, and the
18-200mm wasn't built yet. I suggested the 18-200 'cause I'd heard good
things about it. Also, it's much smaller, lighter, and more convenient than
the monstrosity I've got. Plus, it's less than half the price I paid. I
think you'll be thrilled with it.

I'm planning to take the daughter with breast cancer on a cruise next fall,
and I just may have to get that lens for the cruise. The one I've got
stayed home last time just because it was so bulky. I do like the fact that
it's an f2.8 lens though!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
That is the only complaint I have with the 18-200 is it is a f3.5.

I know we will love this lens, but i am sure the next thing my wife is
going to want is a "macro/portrait" lens such as :

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php...productNr=1987
Get that SB-800 flash, and the f3.5 lens will never be a worry.

I don't have a macro capability now, but it's something that may go on the
Christmas list. I'll post a picture of a lily 'over there' that I took with
the 18-70mm. It's not a macro, but it does pretty well unless I wanted to
blow the flower up to an 8 x 10.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
My wife wants to the have fancy bokeh artistic effects, which in my
limited understanding, you really need a lower f stop to have a quality
bokeh.

So she's seeking a Gaussian distribution of the blur circles as opposed to
a rectangular distribution? I assume she's looking for good background, as
opposed to foreground, bokeh.

If it were my wife, I'd ask what the bokeh she was talking about and let
her buy her own lenses!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************


Yes. It is my understanding she wants it for background, but I am also
sure, she will play around with using it in the foreground. Last night
she was looking over the specs for the 18-200 and she was complaining
about it's inability to have a nice bokeh. I felt like knocking her
upside the head, but I bite my tongue instead.

Where did she come up with the complaint about it's 'nice bokeh'?

At that point I'd be going, "Whatever you want, dear."
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 18:49:47 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 18:30:50 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:22:30 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 15:58:24 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
I thought you had this lens? You were the SOB who started me reading
those damn reviews.
No, I've got this one:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm

My D-70 came with the 18-70mm zoom, I didn't want to overlap, and the
18-200mm wasn't built yet. I suggested the 18-200 'cause I'd heard good
things about it. Also, it's much smaller, lighter, and more convenient than
the monstrosity I've got. Plus, it's less than half the price I paid. I
think you'll be thrilled with it.

I'm planning to take the daughter with breast cancer on a cruise next fall,
and I just may have to get that lens for the cruise. The one I've got
stayed home last time just because it was so bulky. I do like the fact that
it's an f2.8 lens though!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
That is the only complaint I have with the 18-200 is it is a f3.5.

I know we will love this lens, but i am sure the next thing my wife is
going to want is a "macro/portrait" lens such as :

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php...productNr=1987
Get that SB-800 flash, and the f3.5 lens will never be a worry.

I don't have a macro capability now, but it's something that may go on the
Christmas list. I'll post a picture of a lily 'over there' that I took with
the 18-70mm. It's not a macro, but it does pretty well unless I wanted to
blow the flower up to an 8 x 10.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
My wife wants to the have fancy bokeh artistic effects, which in my
limited understanding, you really need a lower f stop to have a quality
bokeh.
So she's seeking a Gaussian distribution of the blur circles as opposed to
a rectangular distribution? I assume she's looking for good background, as
opposed to foreground, bokeh.

If it were my wife, I'd ask what the bokeh she was talking about and let
her buy her own lenses!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Yes. It is my understanding she wants it for background, but I am also
sure, she will play around with using it in the foreground. Last night
she was looking over the specs for the 18-200 and she was complaining
about it's inability to have a nice bokeh. I felt like knocking her
upside the head, but I bite my tongue instead.

Where did she come up with the complaint about it's 'nice bokeh'?

At that point I'd be going, "Whatever you want, dear."
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

JohnH,

I gave her a link to KenRockwell.com where he says this might be one of
the best all over lens in the world. Deep down in the article, cross
referenced was a link where he made this comment

Bokeh at 200 mm and 100 mm is poor.

Getting great bokeh in a lens like this isn't likely to happen. This
lens is designed for sharpness,
fast focus speed, reasonable distortion, no ghosts, VR and a huge zoom
range. it uses aspheric elements
which mess up bokeh, and VR also does weird things to in areas not
intended to be in focus.

If bokeh is critical you know who you are. You probably want a DC or
other f/2.8 or faster lens designed
with an eye towards bokeh. Bokeh isn't related to aperture or your
diaphragm; it's just that those particular
lenses tend to have better bokeh.

Now my wife has trouble figuring out what 18-200 mm means and even after
I show her a picture, the next day she forgets which means more and what
number means less magnifications, but she picks up on this bit about
bokeh. I have to be honest, I had never heard the word bokeh before
last night.

It is hard to believe all of this started when I was looking for some
point and shot digital cameras for the kids.
--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

wrote in message
ps.com...

JIMinFL wrote:
"RCE" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...



Plenty of peace pipe to go around. :-)

We see the best and the worst of ourselves reflected in the people
around us. It's my opinion that if we expect to grow and improve as
individuals, we have to get past the point where we dwell on the
(perceived) faults of others. Two reasons; 1) if we can't forgive our
worst faults personified by others we will never get free of the
burden
those same faults place on our own spiritual or pyschological
progress.
2) Just as we all, individually, combine some extremely worthy as well
as some extremely unworthy aspects so do the people we encounter
throughout life. If we focus on the unworthiness of others we cannot
adequately appreciate their worth- and it is only the worthiness of
our
brothers and sisters that enriches our own lives. As I said, that's my
opinion. Your mileage may vary, and if it does that's still pretty
much
OK.


Good grief, Chuck.

A swift kick in the ass is just as effective and works a heck of a lot
faster.

RCE



More Psycho babble from the Chuckster. Please pardon my bluntness.

Send me an email listing the concepts you are having any difficulty
comprehending, and I'll send you an alternative version in a more basic
vernacular. No need to apologize for your bliuntness, how else would we
know that it's so far outside your ken it sounds like "babble"? Good
for you, Florida Jim. More people should speak out when they aren't
following along.

Not interested in following your preachings Chuck. But thanks for the offer.

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

JimH wrote:

You are indeed obsessed with me John.

You said you had me killfiled yet respond to a post not concerning you.

Sick.

Regarding Richy Rich.........he has launched attacks on me and I am
responding.

It is very telling that you snipped all previous responses to the
thread you quoted.

Your agenda is quite clear John.......to lie and incite arguments here.

Have a super evening John.........go start a fight with someone else.


Can you set your news reader to quote? This isn't an attack, it's just
very hard to follow your responses. If I read what I want to read and
mark everything as read I, and others, can't follow the conversations.

Dan

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

JohnH wrote:

We've all enjoyed having Rich in the group. As have others, he has shared
pictures of his boat, his house, his car, etc. Now he is being attacked for
doing so, and in a way that, to me, is despicable.

*********************************************
"JimH" wrote in message
oups.com...
And in your case.....narcissistic.

Any new pictures of the things you purchased and want to flaunt to the
NG? You know, the "look what I have but you don't" type you normally
post.

Have a super fantasticalictic weekend materialistic boy.;-)
*******************************************

Comments? Do you actually approve of this in the newsgroup?
--
'Til next time,

John H


It's not about approval, John. This isn't a club where you can show
someone the door. People will draw their own conclusions and act
accordingly. From where I sit, RCE doesn't flaunt his toys and I enjoy
seeing them just as I enjoy seeing Jim's. Some people respond to things
differently than others. Some are just having a bad day.

Dan

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

On Fri, 26 May 2006 19:38:54 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:


JohnH,

I gave her a link to KenRockwell.com where he says this might be one of
the best all over lens in the world. Deep down in the article, cross
referenced was a link where he made this comment

Bokeh at 200 mm and 100 mm is poor.

Getting great bokeh in a lens like this isn't likely to happen. This
lens is designed for sharpness,
fast focus speed, reasonable distortion, no ghosts, VR and a huge zoom
range. it uses aspheric elements
which mess up bokeh, and VR also does weird things to in areas not
intended to be in focus.

If bokeh is critical you know who you are. You probably want a DC or
other f/2.8 or faster lens designed
with an eye towards bokeh. Bokeh isn't related to aperture or your
diaphragm; it's just that those particular
lenses tend to have better bokeh.

Now my wife has trouble figuring out what 18-200 mm means and even after
I show her a picture, the next day she forgets which means more and what
number means less magnifications, but she picks up on this bit about
bokeh. I have to be honest, I had never heard the word bokeh before
last night.

It is hard to believe all of this started when I was looking for some
point and shot digital cameras for the kids.

Well, does it have 'good bokeh' up to 100mm?

Here's what I've learned about identifying a lens with good bokeh:

"Look for points of light in the background. Perfect subjects for this are
distant points of light at night or sometimes light shining through leaves
or specular reflections in daylight.

If they all blend together nicely, that's nice bokeh. If they are perfect
little circles, then that's neutral bokeh. If they are all swimmy and look
like little rolled up condoms or donuts, then that's bad bokeh. "

I especially like the last line!

That's from: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm

You might get your wife interested in scrapping. There's a nice synergy
there. My wife puts the pics in the album, and I take them. That works
nicely. I just constantly sing the praises of the scrapbooks!

[BTW, I had to add 'bokeh' to my spell check dictionary. That's proof it's
not too common!]
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

Harry Krause wrote:

I was surprised that you would really consider spending $12,000 so
you can go 5 mph faster on the few days when the bay is calm enough
so you could actually go 30mph at 4000 rpm. Between the wind,, and
the wake chop, that must be 3 or 4 days a year. ; )

Where did you come up with $12,000?

I pulled the number out of my ass, was I close?


No. It's more like $4000 or so. I probably wouldn't have any significant
"rigging" charges, since I already have Yamaha gauges and universal
controls.

If the promo is still on when you get it, there is an allowance in the
form of a rebate it seems for rigging.

Dan

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

Reginald P. Smithers wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Don White wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers wrote:
Chuck,
Can you hear the music in the background? Listen closely, I think
it is Kumbaya, but I am not sure.

Have a great day, and your boat's paint job really looks nice, can
you imagine how slow and careful you will be docking and hauling
your anchor for the next few years.

Like that first ding in your new autos paint.
I'd be afraid to sail on that boat until a few scratches show up.

Chuck's boat only goes slow.

Harry,

Then he will only get slow dings and dents in his boat. ;)

Harry, when I was younger, I always was in a rush to get somewhere,
now that I am older and dumber, I try to enjoy the trip as much as the
destination.

I was surprised that you would really consider spending $12,000 so you
can go 5 mph faster on the few days when the bay is calm enough so you
could actually go 30mph at 4000 rpm. Between the wind,, and the wake
chop, that must be 3 or 4 days a year. ; )

Where did you come up with $12,000?

I pulled the number out of my ass, was I close?

You was close to your ass at least!!