will_daniel1

Here are the best aircraft photo sites: www.af.mil and www.navy.mil. Thousands of high-res, in-flight, public domain images of world class aircraft paid for with U.S. taxpayer dollars.

post deleted

<p>That wasn't an argument at all, Shun -- I don't know why you labled it as such, unless you're trying to make it one. It was just a statement that if Pentax can make such a lens, it seems as though Nikon could too. As could Canon, Sony or any other DSLR maker. The point is, Nikon users want such a lens (I am not the only one), and we hope some day Nikon will give it to us. If so, I will buy it. There wasn't anything in my post that could be construed as an argument.</p>

<p>I would buy a <em><strong>compact </strong></em>(specifically, not fast) wide prime in the 14, 15 or 16mm range. I said so in this post: <a href="00XvSf">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00XvSf</a> last December. Just as in this thread, folks back then also strayed into the zoom area. I understand some thread drift, but not that. Anyhow, it seems if Pentax can offer its customers <a href="http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses/smc_PENTAX_DA_15mm_F4_ED_AL_Limited/">this lens</a>, Nikon could give us one as well. I would buy it.</p>

<p>I also have the older AF 35-80mm f/4-5.6D lens, and I wouldn't trade it for anything. It has a metal mount, outstanding glass, and I paid aobut $65 for it. It is on my D80 nearly all the time and provides outstanding results. I also had the 35-70mm f/3.3-4.5 and loved that lens until I really screwed it up: <a href="00TH1c">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00TH1c</a>. There are dozens of older 35-XXX zooms it seems, and they are all outstanding.</p>

My daughter was always dragging me around to various events with the express purpose of getting photos she could share with her friends, colleagues, acquaintances, etc. Rather than cause family turmoil, I bought her a camera and no longer take mine on any events I attend with her. Problem solved.

<p>This has been discussed here before: <a href="00VOdn">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VOdn</a>. I don't know if the OP in that thread ever resolved his problem, but I never did with my D3000. Exactly the same problem as the OP here, and I sent it back to Nikon twice. Both times, the service folks said the meter was working properly, but it obviously was not. My D40, D60, D200 and D80 gave me zero metering problems, but the D3000 was a complete lemon.</p>

<p>And no one ever asked the late Clarence Clemons what brand of saxophone he played.</p>

I also e-mailed Javier. He apparently had problems specifically in the Street Photography forum -- I don't have details. I believe his absence from that forum greatly diminishes its value at least as much as this one. I continue to be amazed by his work on his website and blog.

Well, Damon, having looked at the definitions of trespassing under California law, I stand corrected in not wanting to glorify that guy for trespessing. But ... those ships are under federal juristiction, are they not?

Fred, I'm confused about your most recent post. If you mean a photographer stepping onto your property to take photos, that could be both trespass (criminal) and invasion of privacy (civil). If the photos were taken from outside your property line, say with a telephoto lens, it's only the latter -- invasion of privacy. However, if your father and his mistress were public figures or public officials, it might not be invasion of privacy. That would be up to a judge and/or jury to decide, and it varies from state to state.

My 16-year-old grandson, Jake. Yes, it really is that subjective.

<p>Nice to see we're on the same side on this one, Fred.</p>

<p>It would be interesting to see how tough it would be to get legal access to those ships. If someone wants to try, the contact information is Kim Riddle, Maritime Administration Public Affairs, phone 202-366-5067, e-mail <a href="mailto:pao.marad@dot.gov">pao.marad@dot.gov</a>.</p>

Trespassing is not "healthy mischief." It is trespassing. In this case the photographer goes to great lengths to describe his evasive actions to avoid getting caught. So, from that alone we can gather that he knew he was illegally trespassing. He knows the difference between right and wrong, and he thumbs his nose at authority by telling the world he committed illegal trespass. Jeff, I'd bet if he simply contacted the proper authorities ahead of time, he could have received permission to make those photos legally. I'm not saying they aren't great photos -- they are. When we glorify the trespasser and advocate trespassing, we sink deeper into anarchy. Just a philosophical thought -- not trying to be too preachy. I'm sure others agree. It's interesting that pointing out the obvious -- the illegal and immoral actions of a photographer -- causes other photographers to say "go eat a plum."

In 1977 I was a (Pentax) sales rep for the Honeywell Photo Division. Honeywell sold the division to Rollei of America, and Pentax went its own separate way. I made the huge mistake of going to work for Rollei. That employment lasted just a few months, and I went to the other side -- Pentax Corporation. When I filed my 1977 income tax return, I had W2 forms from an American, a German and a Japanese company, and all three were staffed with the same people I had worked with for several years. Ironically, our East Coast sales manager at Honeywell went on to become the national sales manage for Ricoh. I wonder if he had anything to do with this deal.

I'm not too keen on glorifying that guy for trespassing. Apparently, if you read into the comments at the bottom of his post, telling the world about his illegal escapade has created a serious logistics problem for museum ships elsewhere in the world.

If you sell the D3000, you can save money on lenses. Most of the older AF and AF-D lenses work with the D80 and they are available on the used market for great prices. I sold my D3000 and never looked back. Love my D80.

There is no obligation on the part of registered members here to "support Photo.net financially." Photo.net's financial support comes from paid subscribers and advertising. Once again, A.T. is choosing his words carefully, but with strong negative implications.

Photo.net offers substantial incentives for those who wish to be paid subscribers. Those incentives are not available to registered users who do not pay to subscribe. There are choices to be made, and choosing to be a registered user but not a paid subscriber doesn't in any way make one dishonest or not of good character. Although A.T. chose his words very carefully, the negative implication is there. If the site management were to pressure registered members to become subscribing members, the choice would be clear: subscribe or leave. But I haven't felt that pressure from any of the staff, and I certainly don't feel dishonest or of bad character for being a registered user here.

Yeah, I see your point. But I wasn't talking about your market or my market -- rather just trying to generalize the U.S. market in macro from the eyes of a 1970s Pentax sales rep. I loved my Instamatic Reflex, by the way.

<p>As a former camera seller like George, I have a slightly different take on the camera/film market of the 1970s. The Instamatic and Pocket Instamatic lines of cameras, film and processing were just an extension of the 127/120/620 box camera lineage for the family snapshooter. The 35mm shooter was in a class by himself, and it wasn't a very big one until Canon introduced the AE-1 and began a heavy TV advertising campaign. Pentax, Olympus, Nikon, Minolta and Konica all followed suit with easy-to-use, heavily advertised automatic 35mm cameras. Consumers (family snapshooters) no longer believed the 35mm camera to be too technically sophisticated for their casual use.</p>

<p>In the United States, 35mm cameras began selling at 10 times, 20 times, 100 times more than their pre-AE-1, pre-TV advertising rates. The sales increases were astounding. No longer was 35mm only for the sophisticated serious hobbyist. Everyone could own 35mm cameras and get great shots. Who needs Instamatic? And that's the way I saw it.</p>

<p> </p>

Byran, there is such a place. It's called PR Newswire (http://www.prnewswire.com/). I used it all the time when I was editor of a software association newsletter. However, I don't think any major camera companies subscribe to the service. Nikon has a Press Room as part of the company's USA site (http://press.nikonusa.com/), but I don't know about the others.

I knew many photographers in the 1970s who bought their film in bulk and used 250-exposure backs on their Nikons. Olympus OM system also had those backs, not sure if Canon had them -- probably the F-1. One friend of mine bought a 70mm bulk back for his Hasselblad. Not sure how many exposures he got with that.

My writing. I am working on my second book of riverscapes.

I still have the capability to read Kodak raw images, but like another poster above stated: too much work. So, I converted my Kodak raw images to TIFF a couple of years ago, then deleted the raw images forever, and then sold the camera. Today I shoot Nikon NEF exclusively. I suppose if I live long enough I might see NEF disappear, but I doubt it.