Nikon D40 with 300mm lens AND teleconverter (Nikkor AF-STeleconverter TC-20E II)

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Guest, Jan 9, 2008.

  1. If I said "the D40 is designed for those who buy it with the kit
    lens or a pair of kit lenses" you tell me I said that the D40
    can only mount 2 kit lenses?

    If I said "the D40 is designed for those who wnat an entry level
    DSLR" you tell me I said professionals and advanced hobbyists
    cannot use the D40, no way, no how?

    I can live with that, but you'll have to live with me insisting
    you should read again in that case.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 30, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
    Canon can, Nikon cannot?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 30, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
    It was.
    Poor Rita, your penis envy is a bit to obvious. Sour grapes and
    all that. Are you sure the 50mm was never meant as an ultra wide
    angle and is thus a failure?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 30, 2008
  4. Well, an interesting toy perhaps. But I suppose it's possible to use a toy
    as a tool so I won't quibble about that.

    I'm afraid I have so little interest in the Lensbaby I really haven't formed
    an opinon about it, so neither agree nor disagree.
    Right. Only with lenses the other 99.973% of users might be interested in.
    None. The "just" was implied. (Uh . . . "eludification"?)
    Well, I wouldn't say expressly *designed* for such people, but I have a
    fairly large (and growing) collection of Nikon lenses and I have a D40 as
    well, which I like very much. Of course I have a couple of other Nikon
    bodies too, as I suppose many people do who have Nikon lens collections.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Jan 30, 2008
  5. I see your 99.973% ... now you just have to cite a source.
    No, "pulled out of your behind", does not count as reliable
    or repeatable.
    As the author, I have it on the best source, the *authoritative*
    source even, that, no, "just" was not implied.

    I do, however, see _you_ implying that you know better what I
    wrote and meant than I do.
    The action by which the way the meaning that eludes you went is
    made known to you formally.
    I have a collection of Canon lenses and a point & shoot, which
    I like very much. Which proves that your liking your D40
    says nothing about it's compliance with Nikon lenses.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 31, 2008
  6. I'm sorry, but it will have to serve.
    As the author you can only say what was *intentionally* implied. A thing may
    be said to be implied when others may reasonably draw a certain inference
    from it.
    See above.
    That would not be an expected definition of "eludification." If such a word
    ever actually comes into existence, it should mean the process of having
    something elude one.
    Your comment to which that was a direct reply says nothing about that
    either, for that matter -- especially in your case, since you are inclined
    to deny implications that others might regard as fairly obvious. There is no
    *explicit* connection between any camera and "a large lens collection."

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Jan 31, 2008
  7. If that's the quality of your arguments in general ...
    Ah, yes, an author can in no way interpret his own texts.
    But you are perfectly free to read anything into anything.

    Thank you for not telling me from the beginning that you
    won't be moved by neither logic nor truth.
    "prejudice beats reading".

    Since you already know what I want to say and what I mean, why
    do you continue to oppose my position, or bring real arguments?

    Noone, except you just now, ever accused English to be an
    expectable, logical lanugage.
    If wishes were fishes ...

    Since you say I invented the word, by what right are you telling
    me what the word means, should mean and so on?
    Oh, I forgot, you know what I mean and want to say ...
    *which was exactly the point*
    Thank you for seeing and still not getting it.
    Ah, yes, the old "I never said that" routine _you_ want to
    pin on me. Yet I see you using it without qualms.

    If you don't have the cojones to say in plain text that you find
    your D40 useful with your lens collection, do kindly refrain from
    deniably implying so.
    So your point was?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 1, 2008
  8. The "99.973%" of course was intended as a metaphysical teminological
    inexactitude. I feel bad about having to explain that.
    Certainly you can, as can anyone else. Interpret to your heart's content.
    Some interpretations are more valid than others, of course.


    [ . . . ]
    It's not particularly logical but it does have rules, which are expected to
    be followed. And speaking of English, there is no such word as "noone"
    either. Were you attempting to use some form of antique English for "mid
    day"?

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Feb 1, 2008
  9. "metaphysical teminological inexactitude", indeed!

    It's the metaphysical terminally inebriated obnoxious, throwing
    up left and right at the wedding of any semi-rational discussion.
    Also known as Mr. 100% Truthiness.

    Now go and wash your mouth out with soap.
    And your's are more valid, of course. At least by your
    meter of validity --- or would you knowingly offer less valid
    interpretations? Hence that is proof that your meter of validity
    is FUBAR, and you are unable to even notice it, lacking the
    metadata and meta-point-of-view to calibrate it.

    Unfortunately, in the course of this discussion, you used lots
    of time and skill to defend the _imagined_ needs of the OP,
    down to the highly intelligent, well thought out suggestion of
    a 17-55mm for birding. I even understand _how_ you came up with
    the suggestion and except for requiring a highly interesting and
    and extremely selective interpretation of everything the OP wrote
    --- basically negating his every sentence and any and all implied
    or explicitely written out wants and needs), I cannot fault it in
    the least.

    Thus, I have my doubts wether the rectifications outlined in
    http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
    can be made to work, since it needs the flexibility to alter ones'
    mind and a certain rigidity in interpretating clearly stated facts,
    rather than rigidity when altering ones' mind and a liberal and
    flexible interpretation.

    Except when they are not.

    Shall we start with basic English, like irregular verbs? As in
    "verbs that do emphatically not follow the rules which are expected
    to be followed"?
    Or will you rather claim them following their own, special rules,
    with you deciding what is and isn't allowed a special rule?

    Ah, yes, spelling flames!
    The penultimative low stop on the argument ladder of the rascals
    and incompetents, just before name calling, insult, defamation
    and grievous bodily harm.

    Please excuse me from no longer attending to such discussions
    with you. I cannot stand up to your skill in the direction this
    discussion is now going.

    Thank you for ending the discussion in such a friendly, lucid way.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 3, 2008
  10. My, my. Aren't we having a little snit for ourselves though.
     
    Neil Harrington, Feb 3, 2008
    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.