Nice piece'o'art
 

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

John

Nice piece'o'art
 

Harry Krause wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:56:07 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

RG wrote:
Interest only, Harry. Don't fret it.
--
But apparently he does fret it, big time. After I outed him using
the D200 on the Breezy Point photo, he now strips out the metadata
of his photos before posting. He's even gone so far as to edit the
metadata in the Breezy Point photo so that the camera model now
shows "NYOB". He's a bit of a dullard on the draw, but he does
eventually catch on. Odd that he spends more time covering his
tracks than the rest of us spend making them. Oh what a tangled web
we weave...

And for God's sake Harry, out of mercy for the rest of us, take a
few lessons in composition, will ya?

Couple of new posts over there for you, John.

You "outed" me? Your estimation of your importance is exceeded only
by your overinflated ego.

By the way, I saw your latest photos "over there." Grainy clouds and
a triffid? Wow.

Actually, Harry, it had nothing to do with his estimations of importance.
He added some humor to the group.

It was humorous, don't you think? Here's a guy who puts down a camera
(the
D200) with multiple posts and a zoom lens (with multiple posts) only to
start posting pictures taken with same.
That *was* funny!
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John



Previously, I stated I had no experience with the 18-200 lens, and that
I had doubts it was the match of a decent prime lens or professional
zoom in the same focal lengths. Now that I have some experience with the
lens, I find my doubts were correct. The lens is no match for the many
primes in its focal lengths. I still don't know what the big deal is
with "VR," unless the photographer has Parkinson's.

As for the D200, it's a decent step up from the D70 or D70s, but the new
D80 is a far, far better buy.

You obviously are not a careful reader, but that was never in dispute,
was it?

No, I don't think the comments you mentioned were humorous. They were
just more snarkiness from one of this newsgroup's many dickwads.

The VR is important when you are using the longer zoom and/or slower
shutter speeds, and yes it really does work as reported by photographers
of far better skill than any of us in this NG. It is also been reporter
by photographers, of far better skills than any of us in this NG, that
the lens is a very good and sharp lens. Yes it is not of the same
quality of as a prime lens or a heavy Pro Lens, and yes if you blow up
the photo, you can see the difference between the 18-200 VR and a prime
or a Pro Lens, but it is a very light lens, that you can carry around
your neck all day long and probably won't have to change the lens once,
unless it is to change to an ultra wide 12mm for a few panorama shots.

All in all, if you enjoy photography and like to carry a camera with
you, it looks like a good, no, make that a great lens. My biggest
concern is the INCONSISTENT reports coming in, which suggests that Nikon
has some quality control issues. When my 18-200mm lens finally comes
in, if I am not satisfied with the quality, I will return the lens for
exchange. I will keep my 70-200 for low light situations such as
wildlife in the woods in the early AM or PM, sports and action, or
portraits, but I can see the "all in one" 18-200mm being a great lens
for walking around.

Nice piece'o'art
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Reginal P. Smithers III wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:


Previously, I stated I had no experience with the 18-200 lens, and
that I had doubts it was the match of a decent prime lens or
professional zoom in the same focal lengths. Now that I have some
experience with the lens, I find my doubts were correct. The lens is
no match for the many primes in its focal lengths. I still don't know
what the big deal is with "VR," unless the photographer has Parkinson's.


The VR is important when you are using the longer zoom and/or slower
shutter speeds, and yes it really does work as reported by
photographers of far better skill than any of us in this NG. It is
also been reporter by photographers, of far better skills than any of
us in this NG, that the lens is a very good and sharp lens. Yes it is
not of the same quality of as a prime lens or a heavy Pro Lens, and
yes if you blow up the photo, you can see the difference between the
18-200 VR and a prime or a Pro Lens, but it is a very light lens, that
you can carry around your neck all day long and probably won't have to
change the lens once, unless it is to change to an ultra wide 12mm for
a few panorama shots.

All in all, if you enjoy photography and like to carry a camera with
you, it looks like a good, no, make that a great lens. My biggest
concern is the INCONSISTENT reports coming in, which suggests that
Nikon has some quality control issues. When my 18-200mm lens finally
comes in, if I am not satisfied with the quality, I will return the
lens for exchange. I will keep my 70-200 for low light situations
such as wildlife in the woods in the early AM or PM, sports and
action, or portraits, but I can see the "all in one" 18-200mm being a
great lens for walking around.


1. I have no problems handholding a 180-200 millimeter fixed focal
length lens and I had no problems handholding a 70-300 mm zoom without
VR. Practice with a long, non-VR lens and you will pick up the knack.

Harry, You are missing the point entirely. It doesn't matter how well
you can hand hold a 180-200 fixed focal length lens without blurring,
you can do it better with VR. So let's just carry this to the
ridiculous for argument sake. If you can handhold your camera a shutter
speed of 1/2 sec without blurring your image without VR than you can do
it for about 1.5 secs with VR.

2. My "normal" lens on a 35 mm camera is a mild wide angle, 35 mm F2.
That lense is sharper and faster than the VR lenses you are discussing
at its focal length. Period. And it probably weighs half as much. It's
the equivalent of a 52 mm on a Nikon D-SLR.

3. If I need a short tele on a D-SLR, I'd go with a 60 mm fixed focal
length or when it is available, the new Sigman 70 mm fixed focal length.

4. Usually, if I am walking about, I rarely have any need for a really
long lens.

If you enjoy photography and want to carry around a nice camera with
you, one of the many small form digitals will do nicely. There's very
little *you* can do with a D-SLR that you would not be able to do with a
Canon Powershot A700 for under $275. And you can easily "photoshop" its
images.

Those who are wiser and more knowledgeable about cameras and photography
than you or I would completely disagree with you. Now if you are say
that *I* do not have the ability to learn to be creative or use apeture
,shutter speed, ISO and lens to be creative , well you might be right,
but I have to disagree with you. Now, even if I a moron without the
ability to learn and don't know how to use a DSLR beyound the auto point
and shot settings the quality of the lens in a DSLR is far superior to a
compact point and shot.

You seem to be in an argumentative mood today, whats up?


When I want to walkabout with a camera, I carry my old Leica M3.

That is the reason they sell so many different color and types of cars.
Different strokes for different folks. I hope you don't think
everyone should sell their camera and buy an old Leica M3, the world
would become a very boring shade of Vanilla.

Nice piece'o'art
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Reginal P. Smithers III wrote:

You seem to be in an argumentative mood today, whats up?

Nice piece'o'art
 

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:48:27 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Reginal P. Smithers III wrote:


Harry, You are missing the point entirely. It doesn't matter how well
you can hand hold a 180-200 fixed focal length lens without blurring,
you can do it better with VR. So let's just carry this to the
ridiculous for argument sake. If you can handhold your camera a shutter
speed of 1/2 sec without blurring your image without VR than you can do
it for about 1.5 secs with VR.

Uh, if I needed a 1.5 second exposure, I'd use a tripod and either an
electronic or mechanical remote shutter control.




2. My "normal" lens on a 35 mm camera is a mild wide angle, 35 mm F2.
That lense is sharper and faster than the VR lenses you are discussing
at its focal length. Period. And it probably weighs half as much. It's
the equivalent of a 52 mm on a Nikon D-SLR.

3. If I need a short tele on a D-SLR, I'd go with a 60 mm fixed focal
length or when it is available, the new Sigman 70 mm fixed focal length.

4. Usually, if I am walking about, I rarely have any need for a really
long lens.

If you enjoy photography and want to carry around a nice camera with
you, one of the many small form digitals will do nicely. There's very
little *you* can do with a D-SLR that you would not be able to do with a
Canon Powershot A700 for under $275. And you can easily "photoshop" its
images.

Those who are wiser and more knowledgeable about cameras and photography
than you or I would completely disagree with you. Now if you are say
that *I* do not have the ability to learn to be creative or use apeture
,shutter speed, ISO and lens to be creative , well you might be right,
but I have to disagree with you. Now, even if I a moron without the
ability to learn and don't know how to use a DSLR beyound the auto point
and shot settings the quality of the lens in a DSLR is far superior to a
compact point and shot.

You seem to be in an argumentative mood today, whats up?


Actually, they probably would not. You can do quite a bit with many of
the new little digital cameras, and that includes some manual settings.
Further, if quality of image is uppermost, you certainly would not be
shooting on any of the popular digitals or D-SLRs. You'd be shooting at
least 2-1/4 format, and on film.





When I want to walkabout with a camera, I carry my old Leica M3.

That is the reason they sell so many different color and types of cars.
Different strokes for different folks. I hope you don't think
everyone should sell their camera and buy an old Leica M3, the world
would become a very boring shade of Vanilla.

Uh, I don't think you know much about photography. There are no real
limitations on the photos you can take with a decent rangefinder camera,
well, except for superlong telephotos.

Sounds like you should stick with the Leica and a fixed lens. Were those
last photos made with the Leica? That might explain the shots.

BTW, did you ever track down the name of those sunglasses you mentioned
about a month ago?
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

Nice piece'o'art
 

BTW, that is a good pic of Neptune Regis

Nice piece'o'art
 

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:11:01 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:48:27 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Reginal P. Smithers III wrote:

Harry, You are missing the point entirely. It doesn't matter how well
you can hand hold a 180-200 fixed focal length lens without blurring,
you can do it better with VR. So let's just carry this to the
ridiculous for argument sake. If you can handhold your camera a shutter
speed of 1/2 sec without blurring your image without VR than you can do
it for about 1.5 secs with VR.
Uh, if I needed a 1.5 second exposure, I'd use a tripod and either an
electronic or mechanical remote shutter control.



2. My "normal" lens on a 35 mm camera is a mild wide angle, 35 mm F2.
That lense is sharper and faster than the VR lenses you are discussing
at its focal length. Period. And it probably weighs half as much. It's
the equivalent of a 52 mm on a Nikon D-SLR.

3. If I need a short tele on a D-SLR, I'd go with a 60 mm fixed focal
length or when it is available, the new Sigman 70 mm fixed focal length.

4. Usually, if I am walking about, I rarely have any need for a really
long lens.

If you enjoy photography and want to carry around a nice camera with
you, one of the many small form digitals will do nicely. There's very
little *you* can do with a D-SLR that you would not be able to do with a
Canon Powershot A700 for under $275. And you can easily "photoshop" its
images.
Those who are wiser and more knowledgeable about cameras and photography
than you or I would completely disagree with you. Now if you are say
that *I* do not have the ability to learn to be creative or use apeture
,shutter speed, ISO and lens to be creative , well you might be right,
but I have to disagree with you. Now, even if I a moron without the
ability to learn and don't know how to use a DSLR beyound the auto point
and shot settings the quality of the lens in a DSLR is far superior to a
compact point and shot.

You seem to be in an argumentative mood today, whats up?

Actually, they probably would not. You can do quite a bit with many of
the new little digital cameras, and that includes some manual settings.
Further, if quality of image is uppermost, you certainly would not be
shooting on any of the popular digitals or D-SLRs. You'd be shooting at
least 2-1/4 format, and on film.




When I want to walkabout with a camera, I carry my old Leica M3.
That is the reason they sell so many different color and types of cars.
Different strokes for different folks. I hope you don't think
everyone should sell their camera and buy an old Leica M3, the world
would become a very boring shade of Vanilla.
Uh, I don't think you know much about photography. There are no real
limitations on the photos you can take with a decent rangefinder camera,
well, except for superlong telephotos.

Sounds like you should stick with the Leica and a fixed lens. Were those
last photos made with the Leica? That might explain the shots.

Just think, John, by the time you are in a wheelchair, you might break
90 on a serious golf course. Been out fishing lately?



Break 90??

Hell, Harry, I just started this last year. I can count on one hand the
number of times I've broken 100 (today was one!).

Unlike you, I didn't shoot in the low 80's the first few times I played!

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

John

Nice piece'o'art
 

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:45:55 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:11:01 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:48:27 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Reginal P. Smithers III wrote:

Harry, You are missing the point entirely. It doesn't matter how well
you can hand hold a 180-200 fixed focal length lens without blurring,
you can do it better with VR. So let's just carry this to the
ridiculous for argument sake. If you can handhold your camera a shutter
speed of 1/2 sec without blurring your image without VR than you can do
it for about 1.5 secs with VR.
Uh, if I needed a 1.5 second exposure, I'd use a tripod and either an
electronic or mechanical remote shutter control.



2. My "normal" lens on a 35 mm camera is a mild wide angle, 35 mm F2.
That lense is sharper and faster than the VR lenses you are discussing
at its focal length. Period. And it probably weighs half as much. It's
the equivalent of a 52 mm on a Nikon D-SLR.

3. If I need a short tele on a D-SLR, I'd go with a 60 mm fixed focal
length or when it is available, the new Sigman 70 mm fixed focal length.

4. Usually, if I am walking about, I rarely have any need for a really
long lens.

If you enjoy photography and want to carry around a nice camera with
you, one of the many small form digitals will do nicely. There's very
little *you* can do with a D-SLR that you would not be able to do with a
Canon Powershot A700 for under $275. And you can easily "photoshop" its
images.
Those who are wiser and more knowledgeable about cameras and photography
than you or I would completely disagree with you. Now if you are say
that *I* do not have the ability to learn to be creative or use apeture
,shutter speed, ISO and lens to be creative , well you might be right,
but I have to disagree with you. Now, even if I a moron without the
ability to learn and don't know how to use a DSLR beyound the auto point
and shot settings the quality of the lens in a DSLR is far superior to a
compact point and shot.

You seem to be in an argumentative mood today, whats up?
Actually, they probably would not. You can do quite a bit with many of
the new little digital cameras, and that includes some manual settings.
Further, if quality of image is uppermost, you certainly would not be
shooting on any of the popular digitals or D-SLRs. You'd be shooting at
least 2-1/4 format, and on film.



When I want to walkabout with a camera, I carry my old Leica M3.
That is the reason they sell so many different color and types of cars.
Different strokes for different folks. I hope you don't think
everyone should sell their camera and buy an old Leica M3, the world
would become a very boring shade of Vanilla.
Uh, I don't think you know much about photography. There are no real
limitations on the photos you can take with a decent rangefinder camera,
well, except for superlong telephotos.
Sounds like you should stick with the Leica and a fixed lens. Were those
last photos made with the Leica? That might explain the shots.
Just think, John, by the time you are in a wheelchair, you might break
90 on a serious golf course. Been out fishing lately?



Break 90??

Hell, Harry, I just started this last year. I can count on one hand the
number of times I've broken 100 (today was one!).

Unlike you, I didn't shoot in the low 80's the first few times I played!

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

John


There you go again. I shot a low score once, the only time I played
golf. Haven't played since. Not the first few times I played - the only
time I played. I found golf excessively boring, though we did enjoy
walking the course.

Been out fishing lately?

No, not lately. Are they biting well? Got any pics of your catch?
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

Nice piece'o'art
 

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 20:30:56 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


John

They were biting last week. I don't know yet about this week.
No, I didn't take any fish photos.

I'm hearing some stories of pretty good flounder catches. I'm going up
today to see about getting the brakes on the trailer fixed. May end up
doing it myself, but right now the thing has no brakes, and I plan to move
the boat within the next month or so.

Please check on the sunglasses. I'd appreciate it.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

Nice piece'o'art
 

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 08:01:16 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 20:30:56 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


John
They were biting last week. I don't know yet about this week.
No, I didn't take any fish photos.

I'm hearing some stories of pretty good flounder catches. I'm going up
today to see about getting the brakes on the trailer fixed. May end up
doing it myself, but right now the thing has no brakes, and I plan to move
the boat within the next month or so.

Please check on the sunglasses. I'd appreciate it.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John


Sunglasses: http://www.solarscript.com/

Move the boat? To BP?

Thanks.

No, to Bowler's Wharf on the Rappahannock.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John