Nikon D2x: A look at the first Japanese Mag Review

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by deryck lant, Jan 27, 2005.

  1. deryck  lant

    deryck lant Guest

    deryck lant, Jan 27, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. deryck  lant

    me Guest

    What part of *OT* do you not understand? You persist in posting your
    promotion of digital capture devices in the wrong NG. This is a NG for film
    cameras not digitoys. At least take this OT crap over to rec.photo.digital.
    See below, visit the link and *read it* this time!

    OT in this NG, please see:
    A search (press ctrl+f) for the word "digital" on this page reveals that
    only those groups with digital in their title are cited as appropriate for
    that item. Look here: http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm
    Sign,
    me
     
    me, Jan 27, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. deryck  lant

    jimkramer Guest

    Dear me, you seem confused.

    From the page you sited -

    "rec.photo.equipment.35mm - 35mm cameras and lenses

    This group is for the discussion of all aspects of 35mm camera
    equipment. This includes 35mm SLR camera bodies and lenses, 35mm
    point-and-shoot cameras, 35mm rangefinder cameras, 35mm scale focus
    cameras and 35mm half-frame cameras.

    All postings made to this group should conform to existing Usenet
    guidelines (see news.announce.newusers for guideline documents). This
    group explicitly prohibits the posting of commercial advertisments or
    other promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related to
    photography. Binary postings (i.e. non text postings) are
    prohibited."

    Absolutely nothing about not discussing digital cameras that use 35mm
    lenses.

    Once again you are incorrect; please visit a Doctor and discuss with him
    your delusions. I am confident that with proper medication you can become a
    productive member of society.

    Hoping that you get well soon,

    Jim
     
    jimkramer, Jan 27, 2005
    #3
  4. deryck  lant

    me Guest

    Dear Jim,
    Incorrect. The OP is OT even for rec.photo.equipment.misc. See following
    from page I cited.

    rec.photo.equipment.misc: [snip] Equipment related to digital photography or
    home darkroom use should be posted to either rec.photo.digital or
    rec.photo.darkroom respectively, rather than in this group.

    Hoping your reading skills improve soon.
    Sign,
    me
     
    me, Jan 27, 2005
    #4
  5. deryck  lant

    jimkramer Guest

    Dear me, you once again seem confused. This time about which newsgroup you
    are posting to.

    Again, a trip to the doctor might help.

    Thanks for your concern about my reading abilities.

    Wishing you a speedy recovery,
    Jim
     
    jimkramer, Jan 27, 2005
    #5
  6. deryck  lant

    Paul Bielec Guest

    If the doctor needs him to take some x-rays, he should make sure that
    they use film only, not a digital image as they do in hospitals today...
    Just imagine how badly the diagnostic could be affected an image altered
    by digital processing!!!
     
    Paul Bielec, Jan 27, 2005
    #6
  7. deryck  lant

    Alan Browne Guest

    Regardless, as such systems are pretty much 35mm SLR's with a digital back.
    Otherwise they are little different to a film 35mm SLR. While detailed
    discussion about file formats, software, pixel specifics, etc. are certainly
    more appropriate to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, general discussion about
    photography with DSLR's shouldn't be unwelcome here, exp. when it goes to lens,
    flash and exposure issues...

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 27, 2005
    #7
  8. deryck  lant

    me Guest

    Dear Jim,
    Note that I said the OP is OT *even for* (as in the OP would have been OT
    even if it had been posted in rec.photo.equipment.misc)
    rec.photo.equipment.misc in my previous post.

    Once again Jim and please try to stay focused this time, the OP is OT for
    *all* NG's except those that contain the word *digital* in their title.

    Get your glasses checked too Jim.

    Sign,
    me
     
    me, Jan 27, 2005
    #8
  9. deryck  lant

    me Guest

    In the interests of clarity Alan I copied that text from:
    http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm As for the rest of your reply we
    must agree to disagree (amiably if possible).
    Film best,
    me
     
    me, Jan 27, 2005
    #9
  10. deryck  lant

    jimkramer Guest

    We clearly have a difference of opinion.

    From the quoted site:

    "rec.photo.equipment.misc Other formats, tripods, projectors, bags
    etc.

    This group is for the discussion of equipment not covered by any other
    equipment group. This would include tripods, projectors and screens,
    camera bags, lighting equipment, batteries, flash equipment, light
    meters, filters. Equipment related to digital photography or home
    darkroom use should be posted to either rec.photo.digital or
    rec.photo.darkroom respectively, rather than in this group. Postings
    about cameras not covered by the other equipments groups (e.g.
    subminiature) may be made in this group. Postings about movie cameras
    using film (but not video cameras, which are covered in the rec.video
    groups) would also be appropriate."

    Your logic is flawed. You have quoted out of context in reference to a
    completely different newsgroup. Your logic has no true basis on the
    completely quoted text above or merit by any extension. You are in error.
    Your basis is solely your own unsupported opinion.

    My logic is that the digital body (D2x) was designed to use lenses (i.e.
    equipment) that were originally designed for use on 35mm film bodies. Thus
    the digital body designed to use 35mm lenses is also 35mm equipment even
    though no film is exposed in the process.

    Once again, I wish you better health, as it is clear that you are suffering
    from some sort of dementia that has fogged your ability to construct a
    cogent or rational argument and you are entrapped in your own fallacies.

    Jim
     
    jimkramer, Jan 27, 2005
    #10
  11. deryck  lant

    Roxy Durban Guest

    Why not go and **** yourself? Again.
     
    Roxy Durban, Jan 28, 2005
    #11
  12. deryck  lant

    me Guest

    <short bus prattle deleted>

    Jim,
    The document cited is written to describe a series of groups that are of an
    increasing specificity as such and for the purposes of brevity certain
    restrictions are assumed to be carried over and applied to the whole. This
    means that anyone who is capable of reading ***and*** retaining the entire
    document simultaneously will easily understand that discussions of DI are
    only appropriate in those NG's with the word "digital" in the title. Since
    you lack the capacity to comprehend and retain the entire document you will
    have to take my word as to it's contents and meaning.
    Patiently Yours,
    me

    PS: See thread "I thought 35mm is a Film Camera" on 1/27/05 for more
    information or Google for an answer if you are still confused. I have no
    more time to waste on your education.
     
    me, Jan 28, 2005
    #12
  13. deryck  lant

    jimkramer Guest

    At last, we are in agreement about somethings.

    The groups are listed in increasing specificity and as such it clearly (or
    perhaps not for you) states that rather than posting a query to the
    R.P.E.Misc. group, you post to a more appropriate group if such a group
    exists and sites two examples. You have again taken the entire section out
    of context and base your opinion about your wants, not on what the charter
    says.

    And I agree you can not spend any more time on my education, as I could not
    learn from someone who takes text out of context to prove poorly held
    opinion; and you clearly need to invest your time in your own education,
    might I suggest a class in logic, assuming that English is your primary
    language.

    I do hope that by signing "Patient(ly) Yours" you have consulted a physician
    and will be better soon.
    Wishing you the best,
    Jim
     
    jimkramer, Jan 28, 2005
    #13
  14. deryck  lant

    Alan Browne Guest

    Don't presume you're "educating" anyone. Leastwise yourself.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 28, 2005
    #14
  15. deryck  lant

    me Guest

    You may recommend Google but I may not (see below).
    Sign,
    me

    Did you try to

    GGG OOO OOOO GGG L EEEE ???
    G G O O O O G G L E ? ?
    G O O O O G L EEE ?
    G GGG O O O O G GGG L E ?
    GGGG OOO OOOO GGGG LLLLL EEEE
    First?
     
    me, Jan 31, 2005
    #15
  16. deryck  lant

    me Guest

    I'm sick to death of trying to be your friend. That condescending jackoff
    Jim started his shit with me first. I'm telling you the same thing you told
    me, if you don't like what I have to say then don't read it. **** you and
    him.
    Cheers,
    me
     
    me, Feb 1, 2005
    #16
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.