Where to get parts for a Nikon D5000 SLR, with DX VR: AF-S Nikkor

On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 20:40:54 -0400, tony cooper wrote:

Is there a ding anywhere on the rim?

Absolutely not. Only the glass is cracked. I doubt the rim contacted
anything because a close inspection shows it to be pristine.

On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 04:42:43 -0500, Neil Ellwood wrote:

The thing to remember is that a camera is a precision instrument and
should be treated as such.

That statement confuses me because folks have established that the more
rugged cameras 'can' handle the boo boos of life.

Are you saying that only the plastic cameras are precision?

If the rugged cameras aren't precision instruments, then I'm confused why
people buy them.

Can you explain?

On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 17:13:49 -0500, Chemiker wrote:

No offense intended, but have you considered taking up embroidery
rather than photography?

nope!

I think that I simply need a more rugged SLR.

Nothing more complicated than that!

I'm done with cheap Nikon plastic!

In article , Arklin K.
wrote:

full frame, or a full 35mm sized sensor, not a 1.5x crop as with the
ones you have. add an extra digit to the price

For me, would Full Frame add any value to my pictures?
(I'm ok with the quality - I just want a more rugged SLR.)

probably not. you'll just end up breaking a more expensive camera.

On 2012-07-08 16:19:29 -0700, "Arklin K." said:

On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 14:14:50 -0700, nospam wrote:

full frame, or a full 35mm sized sensor, not a 1.5x crop as with the
ones you have. add an extra digit to the price

For me, would Full Frame add any value to my pictures?
(I'm ok with the quality - I just want a more rugged SLR.)

Probably not. However many of the professional level cameras with
weather & dust sealing and metal frames are full frame.

Another suggestion would be for you go back to film and to invest in a
used Nikon F, but even then I have my doubts that you would be able to
keep it in operating condition.

Another suggestion would be to delegate photographic duties to some
individual who might actually care for the equipment by keeping it out
of your hands.

....or a camera bearer perhaps?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-07-08 16:24:03 -0700, "Arklin K." said:

On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 11:14:42 -0500, Chemiker wrote:

If you think I might have been an Exacta, it was likely the Exacta

I remember it said it was made in East Germany, and it had a heavy metal
body, with bumps on the black part (sort of like fake leather). Of
course, it was a film camera, and it had no light meter, so I had to
carry a light meter around with me when I could finally afford one. I had
it since I was about 12 years old, and it lasted well into college.

Now, the plastic cameras last about a year or two at the max.

They last "YOU" about a year or two, other folks seem to keep them
going much longer.


What a difference!

I think you should consider your cameras a consumables rather than as
major equipment. Your experience says that is pretty much the case
anyway ....

I think, in the end, I 'should' have bought a 'war camera' and it would
have been cheaper than all the cameras I broke already. It's amazing how
cheaply they're made - but it's my fault - nobody elses - for buying them.

There is no such thing as a "war camera" just the pro level, and in
some cases prosumer cameras which are available for, in some cases
considerable cost.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-07-08 16:28:36 -0700, "Arklin K." said:

On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 04:42:43 -0500, Neil Ellwood wrote:

The thing to remember is that a camera is a precision instrument and
should be treated as such.

That statement confuses me because folks have established that the more
rugged cameras 'can' handle the boo boos of life.

Are you saying that only the plastic cameras are precision?

If the rugged cameras aren't precision instruments, then I'm confused why
people buy them.

Can you explain?

Nobody has said that any camera wasn't a precision instrument. Folks
will buy what they can afford, and/or what they need. Many make
compromises and compensate for that.

I have a feeling there is no camera which will survive the boo-boos of
your life.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-07-08 16:29:50 -0700, "Arklin K." said:

On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 17:13:49 -0500, Chemiker wrote:

No offense intended, but have you considered taking up embroidery
rather than photography?

nope!

I think that I simply need a more rugged SLR.

Nothing more complicated than that!

I'm done with cheap Nikon plastic!

Then be prepared to pay for expensive Nikon, Canon, & Leica pro level
cameras and the lenses to go with them. Don't expect miracles from
budget lenses.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-07-08 16:37:52 -0700, nospam said:

In article , Arklin K.
wrote:

full frame, or a full 35mm sized sensor, not a 1.5x crop as with the
ones you have. add an extra digit to the price

For me, would Full Frame add any value to my pictures?
(I'm ok with the quality - I just want a more rugged SLR.)

probably not. you'll just end up breaking a more expensive camera.

....and we will be able to read about those broken, crappy, expensive,
cameras, which cannot withstand the abuse he dishes out, right here.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-07-08 16:25:01 -0700, "Arklin K." said:

On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 20:40:54 -0400, tony cooper wrote:

Is there a ding anywhere on the rim?

Absolutely not. Only the glass is cracked. I doubt the rim contacted
anything because a close inspection shows it to be pristine.

You could probably still have a usable lens if you fill the chip with
black India ink. This will reduce any flare caused by the chip &/or
scratches.
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...condition.html

This is somewhat simplified, but spells out the idea.
http://www.ehow.com/how_4899282_fix-...mera-lens.html

Not perfect, but one way to salvage a working lens out of one you are
about to write off.


--
Regards,

Savageduck