The stupidest thing I ever saw

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Uranium Committee, Oct 13, 2004.

  1. I was in a camera shop a few years ago, and two 30 something males
    were buying a camera and tripod system to do landscape work:

    Don't laugh:

    Nikon F5

    35-70 f/2.8 AF Nikkor

    Fucking idiots....
     
    Uranium Committee, Oct 13, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Uranium Committee

    Böwsér Guest

    That's nothing. One time I saw a pathetic troll completely fail to suck a
    group of people into some stupid and useless "film versus digital"
    discussion. Fortunately, since they're both tools, you can use both, either,
    or none at all. Man, was that guy a moron.
     
    Böwsér, Oct 13, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Uranium Committee

    [BnH] Guest

    A few years back ?
    nah .. its quite smart .

    35mm range was considered a wide angle lens ages ago.

    =bob=
     
    [BnH], Oct 13, 2004
    #3
  4. Uranium Committee

    Udie Lafing Guest

    I thought that was a good reply however, Your Anus didn't think soooo.
     
    Udie Lafing, Oct 14, 2004
    #4
  5. Really? Why do you think so?

    The F5 has mirror lockup, which is useful for landscapes, and the 35-70 is
    one of the sharpest Nikon zooms.

    I'd be happy to use that combination for landscapes.
     
    Andrew Koenig, Oct 14, 2004
    #5
  6. Uranium Committee

    Mark M Guest

    You're being trolled...
     
    Mark M, Oct 14, 2004
    #6
  7. Uranium Committee

    jaf Guest

    landscape work?
    How many acres of grass per hour can you mow with a F5?
     
    jaf, Oct 14, 2004
    #7
  8. I can't believe this. Do I have to explain this to you? Are you that stupid?
     
    Uranium Committee, Oct 14, 2004
    #8
  9. I can't believe this. Do I have to explain this to you? Are you that
    stupid?

    This is a set-up for action shooting, not landscape work. Zooms NEVER
    are the equal of single focal lengths.
     
    Uranium Committee, Oct 14, 2004
    #9
  10. Uranium Committee

    Alan Browne Guest

    Micro-hectares per second please.
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 14, 2004
    #10
  11. Uranium Committee

    Mark Roberts Guest

    .:\:/:.
    +-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
    | PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
    | FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
    | | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
    | Thank you, | ( (_) )
    | Management | /`-vvv-'\
    +-------------------+ / \
    | | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
    | | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
    @[email protected]@[email protected] | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
    \||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
    \||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
     
    Mark Roberts, Oct 14, 2004
    #11
  12. Uranium Committee

    Skip M Guest

    Well, you're an entertaining troll, anyway. Not many are stupid enough to
    come back to a thread they started, not to mention stupid enough to make a
    statement silly enough to overshadow their first one.
     
    Skip M, Oct 14, 2004
    #12
  13. I'm not too sure that zooms aren't up there with primes - that was a problem
    with some of the older zooms, but not really with the newer ones. The main
    problems are speed.

    I can see some advantages in using an F5 for landscape work in the rain, but
    otherwise these people are pretty stupid.

    Duncan.
     
    Duncan J Murray, Oct 15, 2004
    #13
  14. stupid?


    I use my F5 for landscapes.....But then, It's the only camera (effectively)
    I have, so I use it for everything....If I were very rich, I would probably
    have a dozen cameras, and I would use a different one for everything I
    take....But then, I am not very rich.......
     
    William Graham, Oct 15, 2004
    #14
  15. Yes....Apparently he was laughing at the choice of lens....But the 35-70 is
    very good, especially when stopped down a little bit, and most architecture
    doesn't move around much, so you can tripod your camera and stop it down as
    far as you please.......Works for me.......
     
    William Graham, Oct 15, 2004
    #15
  16. Especially when you want rectangular buildings to look like eggs or
    pillowcases...

    With most (all?) zooms I've used, the distortion was already visible in
    the viewfinder! I suppose I'm especially intollerant to distortion in my
    pictures.
     
    Chris Loffredo, Oct 15, 2004
    #16

  17. It would have been even more stupid if they had bought a DSLR!
    ; )

    (Thinks - do not feed troll... but can't restrain myself.)
     
    Chris Loffredo, Oct 15, 2004
    #17
  18. Uranium Committee

    TP Guest


    Perhaps you have used consumer-grade zooms, where the design and
    production costings simply don't allow the elimination of distortion.

    If you use Nikon gear, and don't like rectilinear distortion, then the
    35-70mm f/2.8 AF Nikkor is the lens for you.
     
    TP, Oct 15, 2004
    #18
  19. Uranium Committee

    DM Guest

    (Uranium Committee):
    Good choice..
    Referring to yourself perhaps?

    Always entertaining to see a new troll.
     
    DM, Oct 15, 2004
    #19
  20. Uranium Committee

    brian Guest

    Many zooms have barrel distortion at the wide end and pincushion at
    the long end. I think the 35-70/2.8 is one of these. Of course, such
    a lens will have a distortion null somewhere in the middle of its zoom
    range. In the case of the 17-35/2.8 the null is at about 25mm EFL,
    and as a result the distortion in this lens is *much* less in the
    24-28mm range than any corresponding prime lens that Nikon has ever
    made.

    Brian
    www.caldwellphotographic.com
     
    brian, Oct 15, 2004
    #20
    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.