Nikon D750 - Report from a fanboi

In article , android
wrote:

I know that everybody ain't a fan of Ken Rockwell, but I went to the
archive of his site and it's obvious that he has creed in the knowledge
department. That is not saying that his always right... Whether his
articles reflects that knowledge in a way so that his conclusions are
transparent is another story.

he lies and much of what's on his site is completely bogus.

he compares his site to the onion, a satirical web site.

he claims he does this because he likes practical jokes.

there are plenty of legitimate sites that don't exploit readers for the
author's twisted ideas of fun.

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

I know that everybody ain't a fan of Ken Rockwell, but I went to the
archive of his site and it's obvious that he has creed in the knowledge
department. That is not saying that his always right... Whether his
articles reflects that knowledge in a way so that his conclusions are
transparent is another story.

he lies and much of what's on his site is completely bogus.

he compares his site to the onion, a satirical web site.

he claims he does this because he likes practical jokes.

there are plenty of legitimate sites that don't exploit readers for the
author's twisted ideas of fun.

That what he writes on the "About" page is...

"I enjoy making things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them
here ‹ even on this page."

Whatever... ;-/
--
teleportation kills

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 12:10:20 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

I know that everybody ain't a fan of Ken Rockwell, but I went to the
archive of his site and it's obvious that he has creed in the knowledge
department. That is not saying that his always right... Whether his
articles reflects that knowledge in a way so that his conclusions are
transparent is another story.

he lies and much of what's on his site is completely bogus.

he compares his site to the onion, a satirical web site.

he claims he does this because he likes practical jokes.

there are plenty of legitimate sites that don't exploit readers for the
author's twisted ideas of fun.

Your problem is that your joke detector is busted. You seem to find
reading a document with jokes rather like negotiating a minefield.

Ken Rockwell writes about himself and likens himself to 'The Onion' in
http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm#intro

The text which offends nospam is probably:

" I continue to do this site all by myself for fun — probably the
last remaining 1990's for-fun website that hasn't sold out to
other interests. Even though it has become popular, presumably
because so many people find it helpful, it is still run just for
fun. I am this site's only author. I have no one to proofread,
spell check or fact check for me, so there will always be errors
and omissions. Apparently the world finds my opinions very useful,
but remember, they are the opinions of one man. I have a big sense
of humor, and do this site to entertain you (and myself), as well
as to inform and to educate. I occasionally weave fiction and
satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good
hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A hoax, like
some of the things I do on this website, is done as a goof simply
for the heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke. Even
Ansel Adams kidded around when he was just a pup in the 1920s by
selling his photos as "Parmelian Prints." I have the energy and
sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a
personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making
things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them here —
even on this page.

I've been adding to this site since 1999. This means that many of
these pages, including this one, are over ten years old. I can't
possibly go back and update everything magically as the world
turns. Read, enjoy, have fun, and take everything in the spirit in
which it's shared."

The whole article is worth reading.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 10:38:58 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 09:31:23 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 07:27:01 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 17:23:10 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

A D70 can be updated to D70s specs.

not all of them, it can't.

I wasn't aware of that.


https://support.nikonusa.com/app/ans...d/13580/~/d70-
2.0
-fi
rmw
are-
update

I wasn't of any limitation on the ability to load the D70s
firmware
into the D70. Which ones couldn't do it?

you read that wrong (again).

I read what you wrote. You didn't write quite what you meant.

what i wrote was perfectly clear.

... and has two possible interpretations.

admit your error and move on.

a d70 can be updated to *some* of the d70s specs, not all. the
hardware
differences cannot be updated via firmware.

I had to take my modem apart before I could get the larger rear
screen
through it.

as usual, arguing just to argue.

Hell man! That's a joke.

I thought that the LCD upgrade was loaded through the firewire! ;-p

It might have loaded through fire wire but it never got past my modem.

We can't help you unless yu're more specific. Was it an ADSL or ATnT?
Don't waste our time! ;-p

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r...-telephone.jpg

Are those cans Campbell?

Watties http://tinyurl.com/lg8lelh
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 10:38:58 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 09:31:23 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 07:27:01 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 17:23:10 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric
Stevens
wrote:

A D70 can be updated to D70s specs.

not all of them, it can't.

I wasn't aware of that.


https://support.nikonusa.com/app/ans...a_id/13580/~/d
70-
2.0
-fi
rmw
are-
update

I wasn't of any limitation on the ability to load the D70s
firmware
into the D70. Which ones couldn't do it?

you read that wrong (again).

I read what you wrote. You didn't write quite what you meant.

what i wrote was perfectly clear.

... and has two possible interpretations.

admit your error and move on.

a d70 can be updated to *some* of the d70s specs, not all. the
hardware
differences cannot be updated via firmware.

I had to take my modem apart before I could get the larger rear
screen
through it.

as usual, arguing just to argue.

Hell man! That's a joke.

I thought that the LCD upgrade was loaded through the firewire! ;-p

It might have loaded through fire wire but it never got past my modem.

We can't help you unless yu're more specific. Was it an ADSL or ATnT?
Don't waste our time! ;-p

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r...-telephone.jpg

Are those cans Campbell?

Watties http://tinyurl.com/lg8lelh

Thanks! Coming up next: The Chicken or the Egg? The world wanna now!
Right after the break...
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 12:10:20 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

I know that everybody ain't a fan of Ken Rockwell, but I went to the
archive of his site and it's obvious that he has creed in the knowledge
department. That is not saying that his always right... Whether his
articles reflects that knowledge in a way so that his conclusions are
transparent is another story.

he lies and much of what's on his site is completely bogus.

he compares his site to the onion, a satirical web site.

he claims he does this because he likes practical jokes.

there are plenty of legitimate sites that don't exploit readers for the
author's twisted ideas of fun.

Your problem is that your joke detector is busted. You seem to find
reading a document with jokes rather like negotiating a minefield.

Ken Rockwell writes about himself and likens himself to 'The Onion' in
http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm#intro

The text which offends nospam is probably:

" I continue to do this site all by myself for fun — probably the
last remaining 1990's for-fun website that hasn't sold out to
other interests. Even though it has become popular, presumably
because so many people find it helpful, it is still run just for
fun. I am this site's only author. I have no one to proofread,
spell check or fact check for me, so there will always be errors
and omissions. Apparently the world finds my opinions very useful,
but remember, they are the opinions of one man. I have a big sense
of humor, and do this site to entertain you (and myself), as well
as to inform and to educate. I occasionally weave fiction and
satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good
hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A hoax, like
some of the things I do on this website, is done as a goof simply
for the heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke. Even
Ansel Adams kidded around when he was just a pup in the 1920s by
selling his photos as "Parmelian Prints." I have the energy and
sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a
personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making
things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them here —
even on this page.

I've been adding to this site since 1999. This means that many of
these pages, including this one, are over ten years old. I can't
possibly go back and update everything magically as the world
turns. Read, enjoy, have fun, and take everything in the spirit in
which it's shared."

The whole article is worth reading.

Ain't those kids cute?
--
teleportation kills

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 22:43:50 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 12:10:20 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

I know that everybody ain't a fan of Ken Rockwell, but I went to the
archive of his site and it's obvious that he has creed in the knowledge
department. That is not saying that his always right... Whether his
articles reflects that knowledge in a way so that his conclusions are
transparent is another story.

he lies and much of what's on his site is completely bogus.

he compares his site to the onion, a satirical web site.

he claims he does this because he likes practical jokes.

there are plenty of legitimate sites that don't exploit readers for the
author's twisted ideas of fun.

Your problem is that your joke detector is busted. You seem to find
reading a document with jokes rather like negotiating a minefield.

Ken Rockwell writes about himself and likens himself to 'The Onion' in
http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm#intro

The text which offends nospam is probably:

" I continue to do this site all by myself for fun — probably the
last remaining 1990's for-fun website that hasn't sold out to
other interests. Even though it has become popular, presumably
because so many people find it helpful, it is still run just for
fun. I am this site's only author. I have no one to proofread,
spell check or fact check for me, so there will always be errors
and omissions. Apparently the world finds my opinions very useful,
but remember, they are the opinions of one man. I have a big sense
of humor, and do this site to entertain you (and myself), as well
as to inform and to educate. I occasionally weave fiction and
satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good
hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A hoax, like
some of the things I do on this website, is done as a goof simply
for the heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke. Even
Ansel Adams kidded around when he was just a pup in the 1920s by
selling his photos as "Parmelian Prints." I have the energy and
sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a
personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making
things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them here —
even on this page.

I've been adding to this site since 1999. This means that many of
these pages, including this one, are over ten years old. I can't
possibly go back and update everything magically as the world
turns. Read, enjoy, have fun, and take everything in the spirit in
which it's shared."

The whole article is worth reading.

Ain't those kids cute?

Watch out for that little girl when she gets older.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 22:43:50 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 12:10:20 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

I know that everybody ain't a fan of Ken Rockwell, but I went to the
archive of his site and it's obvious that he has creed in the knowledge
department. That is not saying that his always right... Whether his
articles reflects that knowledge in a way so that his conclusions are
transparent is another story.

he lies and much of what's on his site is completely bogus.

he compares his site to the onion, a satirical web site.

he claims he does this because he likes practical jokes.

there are plenty of legitimate sites that don't exploit readers for the
author's twisted ideas of fun.

Your problem is that your joke detector is busted. You seem to find
reading a document with jokes rather like negotiating a minefield.

Ken Rockwell writes about himself and likens himself to 'The Onion' in
http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm#intro

The text which offends nospam is probably:

" I continue to do this site all by myself for fun — probably the
last remaining 1990's for-fun website that hasn't sold out to
other interests. Even though it has become popular, presumably
because so many people find it helpful, it is still run just for
fun. I am this site's only author. I have no one to proofread,
spell check or fact check for me, so there will always be errors
and omissions. Apparently the world finds my opinions very useful,
but remember, they are the opinions of one man. I have a big sense
of humor, and do this site to entertain you (and myself), as well
as to inform and to educate. I occasionally weave fiction and
satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good
hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A hoax, like
some of the things I do on this website, is done as a goof simply
for the heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke. Even
Ansel Adams kidded around when he was just a pup in the 1920s by
selling his photos as "Parmelian Prints." I have the energy and
sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a
personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making
things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them here —
even on this page.

I've been adding to this site since 1999. This means that many of
these pages, including this one, are over ten years old. I can't
possibly go back and update everything magically as the world
turns. Read, enjoy, have fun, and take everything in the spirit in
which it's shared."

The whole article is worth reading.

Ain't those kids cute?

Watch out for that little girl when she gets older.

That's not what I meant. Posting picture of your family on the internet
might be hazardous to their health.
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 22:43:50 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 12:10:20 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

I know that everybody ain't a fan of Ken Rockwell, but I went to the
archive of his site and it's obvious that he has creed in the knowledge
department. That is not saying that his always right... Whether his
articles reflects that knowledge in a way so that his conclusions are
transparent is another story.

he lies and much of what's on his site is completely bogus.

he compares his site to the onion, a satirical web site.

he claims he does this because he likes practical jokes.

there are plenty of legitimate sites that don't exploit readers for the
author's twisted ideas of fun.

Your problem is that your joke detector is busted. You seem to find
reading a document with jokes rather like negotiating a minefield.

Ken Rockwell writes about himself and likens himself to 'The Onion' in
http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm#intro

The text which offends nospam is probably:

" I continue to do this site all by myself for fun — probably the
last remaining 1990's for-fun website that hasn't sold out to
other interests. Even though it has become popular, presumably
because so many people find it helpful, it is still run just for
fun. I am this site's only author. I have no one to proofread,
spell check or fact check for me, so there will always be errors
and omissions. Apparently the world finds my opinions very useful,
but remember, they are the opinions of one man. I have a big sense
of humor, and do this site to entertain you (and myself), as well
as to inform and to educate. I occasionally weave fiction and
satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good
hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A hoax, like
some of the things I do on this website, is done as a goof simply
for the heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke. Even
Ansel Adams kidded around when he was just a pup in the 1920s by
selling his photos as "Parmelian Prints." I have the energy and
sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a
personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making
things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them here —
even on this page.

I've been adding to this site since 1999. This means that many of
these pages, including this one, are over ten years old. I can't
possibly go back and update everything magically as the world
turns. Read, enjoy, have fun, and take everything in the spirit in
which it's shared."

The whole article is worth reading.

Ain't those kids cute?

Watch out for that little girl when she gets older.

That's not what I meant. Posting pictures of your family on the internet
might be hazardous to their health.
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

On 3/8/2015 5:04 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 3/7/2015 9:16 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

As I've written befo I think that the D750 is the true successor to
the D300s. What's your take?

In my case, it's the successor to the D300, which in turn was the
successor to the D70.

it may have been what you bought after owning a d70 but that doesn't
make it a successor.

the d300 was *not* a successor of the d70. it was the successor of the
d200 which was the successor of the d100.

the d70 was a consumer slr, which was succeeded by the d80, d90 and
then the d5000 series.

While there was a very noticable jump from the
D70 to the D300 there seems to be an even bigger jump from the D300 to
the D750.

that's because the d70 and d300 different product tiers and the d300
and d750 are not only different product tiers but also dx/fx.

There is a marked improvement in dynamic range which gives rise to
improved low light shooting at even moderate ISOs.

no ****. the sensor in the d300 is much better than what was in the
d70, plus it didn't have the electronic shutter that hobbled the d70.


It ain't the camera.

this discussion is.

As I have posted before, my daughter has sold her
images, taken with a D70 and a kit lens, for over $700. She has been
offered one per shows, but turned them down.

what your daughter has sold has absolutely nothing to do with the
sensor, it's resolution and dynamic range or how nikon classifies the
various models.

Uhm!
She still uses it, and her images are still selling.

still missing the point.

ten years ago, a lot of people sold photos from a d70. it was a very
good camera in its day, but those days are *long* gone. even a lowly
d3200 blows it away.

It's still the photographer, not the camera.

it's a bit of both.

There is no question hat a better photographer will take
better images with a lessr camera, than a lessor
phtographer will, with a ,ore expensive camera.

Only if the quality is judged as an average of all
pictures.

On a one by one basis, either photographer will get
better images with a better camera, just that the better
photographer will get a higher percentage of better
pictues.

On a bright sunny 16 day, a better photographer will creating
interesting permutations of the shadows and highlights, that a less
skilled photographer would not even see.
A more expensive camera is capable of taking decent pictures under
circumstances where a lessor camera simply doesn't have the capability.

If the images are evaluated on the basis of composition and impact the
better photographer will have a significantly higher percentage of
keepers, regardless of the equipment used. Last year I was watching a
well known bird photographer working. He was discarding images that if
they were mine, would be hanging on the walls. And yes, he does use the
800mm lens, that I don't have. But it's more than the lens. He also has
a stronger sense of anticipation, and creative use of existing lighting
conditions, that I lack.




--
PeterN