On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 10:49:07 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:30:43 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..

Eisboch wrote:


Speaking of which (not really), did you get a chance to peruse the
contents of that CD I tucked into your package? Hogan is a master at
explaining the digital game.
I have not, yet. When your package arrived the contents quickly
disappeared into her office area. I've read some of his stuff on
some websites.

She is enjoying the camera and already has more accessories for it
than I have for mine, including a flash unit that must weigh 8 lbs.
She has a much better eye for composing a picture than I, so I just
watch.

Eisboch
Ask her if she's interested in something like this--

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

I could make her a deal.
--

It's a hell of a lens, but doesn't it weigh about three pounds?

It is a monster of a lens, but I would not trade it in. I like the
sharp images and contrast you get with the lens. It is not a "travel"
lens you want to use to just hang around your neck. I actually hold the
lens in my hand up against my chest or hip at all times, and the strap
around my neck is just a "security strap". I have found on cloudy days
the F2.8 across the entire range of the zoom will make a big difference,
especially in the woods vs. the F5.6 at 200mm on the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6
G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens

If JohnH wants to get rid of it, he can sell it on EBay and probably get
a decent price, but I figure if you amortize it over 20 years it is a
cheap lens. Now, if I die early it might not be such a good deal.

I am still trying to decide if I really need that sweet wide angle lens
you and Ken Rockwell recommended. Do I need the extra 6mm and wider
aperture. I think I am going to hold off till they finally deliver my
18-200 and then compare the two lens.



The Tokina is 12-24 and thus 18-36 on a DSLR with a 1.5 sensor.
Approximately.

The Nikkors are 18 -whatever- and thus 27 - whatever on a DSLR with a
1.5 sensor. Approximately.

27-18 is nine mm, not six mm.

Whether you need the wider lens is a function of how you want to
represent what you shoot. The faster speed, though, is always nice on a
good lens.

You have the 70-200 and you're buying an 18-200? Why not just buy an
18-70 and not carry around the extra length and weight of the 18-200?
You certainly don't need VR on a short lens like the 18-70. The ideal
pair is the 18-70 and 70 - 200/300 EDs.

I've not found the need to spend the extra buckeraroos on VR lenses. I
can handhold pretty well, and if I can't, a monopod or tripod does the
trick.

Not all of us are as young as you or have a tripod in our back pocket when
the picture presents itself.

Are your comments about VR based on experience?
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 13:59:58 GMT, Don White wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 07:46:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
...

could small boats be next? This thing is cute, goes a long ways, and has a
nice web site. According to today's NYTimes, it'll cost in the $80-100K
range. Who'll be the first?

http://www.teslamotors.com/


Interesting site and claims, considering they haven't built one yet.
Far be it from me to be cynical, but how, using the best of current battery
technology, can these guys get 250 miles between charges when the best
anybody else can get is 60-100 miles in a much more stripped down and basic
E car? Something does not add up.

Eisboch



Well, the initial info I got came from the NYTimes, so it must be true.

Editorial
Go Speed Racer!

Published: July 23, 2006

Virtue alone will not break the grip that petroleum holds on the automobile
market. That’s why the introduction of a sleek, high-performance roadster
that happens to be electric rather than gasoline-fueled is worth noting.

Tesla Motors, a Silicon Valley start-up, has developed a two-seater that
goes from zero to 60 miles an hour in four seconds, leaving the days of
electric cars as glorified golf carts in the dust. The company seems to
understands what it means to love cars as well as the environment. (On its
Web site, Tesla revels in the power of the car’s acceleration pinning
passengers to their seats.)

With a range of about 250 miles, the Tesla Roadster can go much farther on
a single charge than earlier electric cars. And 150 of those miles cost
about the same as one gallon of gas. But the car itself will not be cheap,
running from $85,000 to $100,000. Rather than a stumbling block in this
case, it’s actually a selling point.

Martin Eberhard, the company’s chief executive, recognizes that new
technologies usually start out as high-end products. He and his team are
making their car the newest hot gadget, a status symbol. If rappers and
football stars buy them, maybe the company can make a dent in the market.

Tesla already has plans for a mainstream vehicle down the road if it can
expand its business. Perhaps this is one area where trickle-down theories
could really work.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John
Bet there will be more pedestrian/auto accidents with them. No one
will hear the cars coming.. especially in noisy cities.

I think most car noise is behind, not in front, of the car. Harley riders
have been trying for years to convince the public that noisy pipes are a
safety feature, so cars can hear them coming. What horsepucky.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 13:59:58 +0000, Don White wrote:

John
Bet there will be more pedestrian/auto accidents with them. No one
will hear the cars coming.. especially in noisy cities.

You can get some electic motorbikes with "Harley" MP3 sound built-in!
'struth!

Lloyd Sumpter
http://www.bcboatnet.org

Harry Krause wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:30:43 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..

Eisboch wrote:


Speaking of which (not really), did you get a chance to peruse the
contents of that CD I tucked into your package? Hogan is a master
at explaining the digital game.
I have not, yet. When your package arrived the contents quickly
disappeared into her office area. I've read some of his stuff on
some websites.

She is enjoying the camera and already has more accessories for it
than I have for mine, including a flash unit that must weigh 8
lbs. She has a much better eye for composing a picture than I, so
I just watch.

Eisboch
Ask her if she's interested in something like this--

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

I could make her a deal.
--

It's a hell of a lens, but doesn't it weigh about three pounds?

It is a monster of a lens, but I would not trade it in. I like the
sharp images and contrast you get with the lens. It is not a "travel"
lens you want to use to just hang around your neck. I actually hold
the lens in my hand up against my chest or hip at all times, and the
strap around my neck is just a "security strap". I have found on
cloudy days the F2.8 across the entire range of the zoom will make a
big difference, especially in the woods vs. the F5.6 at 200mm on the
18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens

If JohnH wants to get rid of it, he can sell it on EBay and probably
get a decent price, but I figure if you amortize it over 20 years it
is a cheap lens. Now, if I die early it might not be such a good deal.

I am still trying to decide if I really need that sweet wide angle
lens you and Ken Rockwell recommended. Do I need the extra 6mm and
wider aperture. I think I am going to hold off till they finally
deliver my 18-200 and then compare the two lens.



The Tokina is 12-24 and thus 18-36 on a DSLR with a 1.5 sensor.
Approximately.

The Nikkors are 18 -whatever- and thus 27 - whatever on a DSLR with a
1.5 sensor. Approximately.

27-18 is nine mm, not six mm.

Whether you need the wider lens is a function of how you want to
represent what you shoot. The faster speed, though, is always nice on a
good lens.

You have the 70-200 and you're buying an 18-200? Why not just buy an
18-70 and not carry around the extra length and weight of the 18-200?
You certainly don't need VR on a short lens like the 18-70. The ideal
pair is the 18-70 and 70 - 200/300 EDs.

I've not found the need to spend the extra buckeraroos on VR lenses. I
can handhold pretty well, and if I can't, a monopod or tripod does the
trick.

Harry,

I am really looking at the 18-200 VR as a light weight travel lens so
you don't have to keep changing lens. It won't be as sharp, as the fast
70-200 F2.8 but it will do when I don't want to carry the extra lens.
It is one lens that will work in 90% of the situations, plus the 18-200
VR is 3.8" long and weighs 19.8 oz. so it is easy to carry.

Since I am looking at buying the D200 the 18-200VR won't really be a
duplicate, it will be a comparable lens for my camera. See the way a
compulsive mind can justify things.

Do you have a Tokina 12-24 you are interested in selling?


--
Reggie

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

"JohnH" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 13:59:58 GMT, Don White
wrote:

I think most car noise is behind, not in front, of the car. Harley riders
have been trying for years to convince the public that noisy pipes are a
safety feature, so cars can hear them coming. What horsepucky.

It works. I've proved it, both to myself and Mrs.E. I am about to change
the pipes on the Ultra - going back to the next level softer - but only
because I no longer ride it in Florida, the land of a million white Lincoln
Town cars with all the windows up and driven by the hearing impaired ...
never mind. They work.

I can cite another example that occurred last weekend here in MA. Mrs.E was
on the back seat and I was putt-putting (potato, potato) down the road and
my eye caught a car approaching from an intersecting road on the right. The
driver was a young girl, one hand on the steering wheel, the other holding a
cell phone to her ear, and she was booking it up to the intersection,
chatting away and looking down the road, away from us. I could tell there
was no way she saw us nor was she intending on stopping before turning onto
the road that we were on. Pulled on the clutch, gave the throttle a quick
"Blap" and she jammed on the brakes, her head jerking around to our
direction with a surprised and shocked look on her face. I can do that a
heck of a lot faster than trying to brake and find the horn button, and it's
a heck of a lot more effective.

But, too loud is excessive, I agree. Fortunately, there are fewer hearing
impaired drivers up north.

BTW ... Harley riders are also the safest, most courteous and slowest
riders. Ever notice that?

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 13:59:58 GMT, Don White
wrote:

I think most car noise is behind, not in front, of the car. Harley riders
have been trying for years to convince the public that noisy pipes are a
safety feature, so cars can hear them coming. What horsepucky.


It works. I've proved it, both to myself and Mrs.E. I am about to change
the pipes on the Ultra - going back to the next level softer - but only
because I no longer ride it in Florida, the land of a million white Lincoln
Town cars with all the windows up and driven by the hearing impaired ...
never mind. They work.

I can cite another example that occurred last weekend here in MA. Mrs.E was
on the back seat and I was putt-putting (potato, potato) down the road and
my eye caught a car approaching from an intersecting road on the right. The
driver was a young girl, one hand on the steering wheel, the other holding a
cell phone to her ear, and she was booking it up to the intersection,
chatting away and looking down the road, away from us. I could tell there
was no way she saw us nor was she intending on stopping before turning onto
the road that we were on. Pulled on the clutch, gave the throttle a quick
"Blap" and she jammed on the brakes, her head jerking around to our
direction with a surprised and shocked look on her face. I can do that a
heck of a lot faster than trying to brake and find the horn button, and it's
a heck of a lot more effective.

But, too loud is excessive, I agree. Fortunately, there are fewer hearing
impaired drivers up north.

BTW ... Harley riders are also the safest, most courteous and slowest
riders. Ever notice that?

Eisboch



I always hear motorcycles and loud cars long before they arrive. Must
be an *age* thing. ...you know..like what's the 2nd thing you lose??

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 16:05:51 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 13:59:58 GMT, Don White
wrote:

I think most car noise is behind, not in front, of the car. Harley riders
have been trying for years to convince the public that noisy pipes are a
safety feature, so cars can hear them coming. What horsepucky.

It works. I've proved it, both to myself and Mrs.E. I am about to change
the pipes on the Ultra - going back to the next level softer - but only
because I no longer ride it in Florida, the land of a million white Lincoln
Town cars with all the windows up and driven by the hearing impaired ...
never mind. They work.

I can cite another example that occurred last weekend here in MA. Mrs.E was
on the back seat and I was putt-putting (potato, potato) down the road and
my eye caught a car approaching from an intersecting road on the right. The
driver was a young girl, one hand on the steering wheel, the other holding a
cell phone to her ear, and she was booking it up to the intersection,
chatting away and looking down the road, away from us. I could tell there
was no way she saw us nor was she intending on stopping before turning onto
the road that we were on. Pulled on the clutch, gave the throttle a quick
"Blap" and she jammed on the brakes, her head jerking around to our
direction with a surprised and shocked look on her face. I can do that a
heck of a lot faster than trying to brake and find the horn button, and it's
a heck of a lot more effective.

But, too loud is excessive, I agree. Fortunately, there are fewer hearing
impaired drivers up north.

BTW ... Harley riders are also the safest, most courteous and slowest
riders. Ever notice that?

Eisboch



Except for the noise, I've no complaint with Harley riders. When they're
alone or in small groups, two or three, I've always found them courteous,
and on the slow side. Sometimes, when they're in bigger groups, they think
they own the road.

OTOH, when they're riding in a large group, with a police escort, there's
nothing cooler, except a pack of Guzzis doing the same thing!

I put Fiamm horns on my Guzzi. It took a little wiring and the addition of
a relay, but the damn things are LOUD. The horn button is right by my
thumb, and takes no more time to push then blipping my throttle would. The
advantage is that the horns send the sound to the front of the bike, not
the rear.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 15:22:48 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:30:43 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..

Eisboch wrote:


Speaking of which (not really), did you get a chance to peruse the
contents of that CD I tucked into your package? Hogan is a master
at explaining the digital game.
I have not, yet. When your package arrived the contents quickly
disappeared into her office area. I've read some of his stuff on
some websites.

She is enjoying the camera and already has more accessories for it
than I have for mine, including a flash unit that must weigh 8
lbs. She has a much better eye for composing a picture than I, so
I just watch.

Eisboch
Ask her if she's interested in something like this--

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

I could make her a deal.
--

It's a hell of a lens, but doesn't it weigh about three pounds?

It is a monster of a lens, but I would not trade it in. I like the
sharp images and contrast you get with the lens. It is not a "travel"
lens you want to use to just hang around your neck. I actually hold
the lens in my hand up against my chest or hip at all times, and the
strap around my neck is just a "security strap". I have found on
cloudy days the F2.8 across the entire range of the zoom will make a
big difference, especially in the woods vs. the F5.6 at 200mm on the
18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens

If JohnH wants to get rid of it, he can sell it on EBay and probably
get a decent price, but I figure if you amortize it over 20 years it
is a cheap lens. Now, if I die early it might not be such a good deal.

I am still trying to decide if I really need that sweet wide angle
lens you and Ken Rockwell recommended. Do I need the extra 6mm and
wider aperture. I think I am going to hold off till they finally
deliver my 18-200 and then compare the two lens.



The Tokina is 12-24 and thus 18-36 on a DSLR with a 1.5 sensor.
Approximately.

The Nikkors are 18 -whatever- and thus 27 - whatever on a DSLR with a
1.5 sensor. Approximately.

27-18 is nine mm, not six mm.

Whether you need the wider lens is a function of how you want to
represent what you shoot. The faster speed, though, is always nice on a
good lens.

You have the 70-200 and you're buying an 18-200? Why not just buy an
18-70 and not carry around the extra length and weight of the 18-200?
You certainly don't need VR on a short lens like the 18-70. The ideal
pair is the 18-70 and 70 - 200/300 EDs.

I've not found the need to spend the extra buckeraroos on VR lenses. I
can handhold pretty well, and if I can't, a monopod or tripod does the
trick.

Harry,

I am really looking at the 18-200 VR as a light weight travel lens so
you don't have to keep changing lens. It won't be as sharp, as the fast
70-200 F2.8 but it will do when I don't want to carry the extra lens.
It is one lens that will work in 90% of the situations, plus the 18-200
VR is 3.8" long and weighs 19.8 oz. so it is easy to carry.

Since I am looking at buying the D200 the 18-200VR won't really be a
duplicate, it will be a comparable lens for my camera. See the way a
compulsive mind can justify things.

Do you have a Tokina 12-24 you are interested in selling?

I find nothing wrong with overlapping focal lengths if it saves from having
to carry a second lens.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:43:09 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:

Whether you need the wider lens is a function of how you want to
represent what you shoot. The faster speed, though, is always nice on a
good lens.

You have the 70-200 and you're buying an 18-200? Why not just buy an
18-70 and not carry around the extra length and weight of the 18-200?
You certainly don't need VR on a short lens like the 18-70. The ideal
pair is the 18-70 and 70 - 200/300 EDs.

I've not found the need to spend the extra buckeraroos on VR lenses. I
can handhold pretty well, and if I can't, a monopod or tripod does the
trick.

Not all of us are as young as you or have a tripod in our back pocket when
the picture presents itself.

Are your comments about VR based on experience?


I don't need VR or a tripod to hold a camera steady with a wide angle,
normal, or 18-70 mm lens. These lenses are light enough. Besides, I do a
lot of offhand pistol shooting, so I have another activity where being
able to hold steady is important. As for age, I suspect we are
contemporaries.

For a longer tele, I can handhold my 70-300 non-VR steady enough in good
light where I can use fast shutter speeds. If not, I'll use a monopod or
tripod.

Hey, I'm not saying VR isn't a good thing. It probably is on a long,
heavy lens, like that monster expensive lens you own.

Yes, I have tried a D200 with the 18-200 VR lens. I didn't see where the
resultant shots were any better than those I handheld with my 70-300 in
decent light.

You can't notice a difference looking at the camera display. Only once
you've cropped a cat's whisker and blown it up can you see the difference.
You need to show us some of the non-tripod pictures you've taken at 300mm.
I'll agree the owl picture wasn't too bad!
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 20:39:07 +0000, Don White wrote:


I always hear motorcycles and loud cars long before they arrive. Must be
an *age* thing. ...you know..like what's the 2nd thing you lose??

Yeah, but that's you. If you are depending on noise to alert other
drivers, think about all those boom boxes on wheels. You think they can
hear anything but their boom boxes?