Well, the E on all my Olympus cameras stands for E-volt. Think electricity might be at the center of their cameras?
Sounds good. What's SF syrup?
For sale is a complete semi-professional Olympus photography kit in great shape:
>E-3, weather sealed, magnesium alloy, shock proof, professional DSLR camera body. Articulated LCD, 5fps, less than 20K clicks on 150K shutter. Absolutely one of the toughest bodies out there.
>14-54mm 2.8-3.5 weather sealed, all metal, fast wide/tele-zoom lens
>50mm 2.0 weather sealed macro (1:2) lens - very fast, sharp, prime lens
>40-150mm 3.5-4.5 all metal, solid, relatively fast, sharp tele-zoom lens
>70-300mm 4.0-5.6, all metal, solid, long reach, sharp, macro, tele-zoom lens (crack in plastic housing near metal mount -repaired)
>EX-25 2X macro converter, full auto focus and auto exposure - turns any lens into a macro (great with 40-150)
>FL-36 TTL tilt swivel zoom flash, with high shutter speed, focal plane capability
>FL-CB05 TTL off camera flash cord - mounts from hot shoe, full auto controls
>RM-351 Remote shutter release cable - dedicated to E-3/E-5
Dome flash diffuse
Four Batteries (2 OEM batteries and 2 Wasabi batteries )
Three aftermarket chargers (including 1 Wasabi)
8GB Transcend CF memory card
USB Cable
Lens hoods, lens caps, body cap.
This is wonderful equipment, everything works perfectly and is capable of producing tack sharp photos with that famous Olympus color. Unfortunately I must sell it all for financial reasons. (Still leaves me with my 40D and X10 so it's not all too terrible)
I am selling all this gear separately on Amazon for over $1800 and as a bundle on Craigslist for $1599,discounted, but offering it here for $1500, plus freight.
rpavich wrote:
OH...thanks for mentioning that...I wasn't aware that I gave that impression....but you are correct! :)
No problem. Just don't want anyone to think that Taubes (or anyone learned on this subject) would advocate calories in = calories out. Now that is tough cow to put down.
T
rpavich wrote:
That's cool...but remember...Doctors are human and they have limited time to research and evaluate data, and they are even more reluctant to "change up" something that they've been spouting since medical school....old habits die hard.
Listen to Peter Attia, a doctor at Johns Hopkins who did the same thing until one day he woke up and decided to study for himself and he came to the same conclusion as the Swedes...we've been fed a load of bull.
It's a short video....check it out.
It starts with the reason that "everyone knows that spinach is a great source of iron"....which came about due to a math error by a researcher...but became the "dogma" just like this did.
http://www.dietdoctor.com/taubes-attia-debunks-food-myths-on-the-stossel-show
That's cool...but remember...Doctors are human and... (
show quote)
:thumbup: :thumbup:
Just clarify one thing you said (and I know you know) : it wasn't Taubes who recommended starvation diets. In case anyone misunderstood you.
sb wrote:
Well - the Calories per se aren't bad, since a "Calorie" is simply a measurement of the energy content of food, but certainly the fact that so many foods are high in simple carbs and bereft of any serious nutritional benefit makes some things pretty lousy in terms of putting them in our bodies, that's for sure!
I don't want to beat this to death, but if the calories
from some things are "pretty lousy" then I will consider those calories to be "bad". Now, it depends upon the circumstances. If you are getting ready to run a 400m race then maybe a Snickers bar right before the event is useful. But not afterwards. And certainly not as an "energy boost" in the mid-afternoon for the typical person.
sb wrote:
Well - Calories ARE Calories, no matter where they come from. But - the problem with carbohydrates (sugars and starches that are broken down into sugar in our intestines) is that they stimulate insulin production in the body, and insulin does a number of things, along with helping the sugar get into our cells. It tells the body that there is food around and that we should start making fat. The problem with our diet is that we have carbs around all the time, and our body gets that message virtually all day long. Insulin also tells people to get hungry again. A big problem with diabetics is that when we get to the point where they have to go on insulin, it is bad, because insulin makes them gain weight. People tend to be less hungry on a low-carb diet. Interestingly, the Framingham Study, which was the original long-term study of a population where we learned that high blood cholesterol was associated with increased risk of heart disease - NEVER found a relationship between what people ate and heart disease!
Well - Calories ARE Calories, no matter where they... (
show quote)
Well, then, there ARE differences, there are good calories and bad calories, as Gary Taubes puts it. Truly bad calories are processed foods and simple carbs, from the white sugar you put in your coffee to the white bread that holds your Big Mac together (but NOT the burger per se). And now there is solid evidence that high blood sugar (in everyone, not just diabetics) is the real culprit behind hypertension and atherosclerosis. And, of course, obesity, which is a symptom, not a cause.
The truth is a bitter pill to swallow for people who accepted this myth for most of their lives. Try getting our "experts" to even discuss this. The tide is slowly turning, too slowly for most to regain their health. Thanks for this.
MN
rhculverwell wrote:
Since the implosion of film/Kodak and the like, electronic camera designers/producers have blossomed in a geometric fashion. At the moment, within the same price ranges, what company does the average professional or advanced hobby photographer perceive as the best value given a choice of only two - Canon or Nikon?
Ha! I love it. Now the fur will fly, the mud will sling and the tears will fall. You mischievous fellow. :shock:
Apparently the idea is that the static electricity generated by live AF contacts will attract dust. I can't imagine this being a problem unless the shutter is open.
Just checked two Canon manuals and they make no mention of turning off the camera when changing lenses. Must be a Nikon thing.
I've never done this or turned the camera off when changing lenses and never noticed a problem. Olympus and Canon.
rayford2 wrote:
Because you don't use these functions doesn't mean other people won't take notice.
There's probably more people that use them than you think.
I'll wager most of their sales (as well as Canon's) are made in Walmart, Targets, Best Buys etc and this (IMHO) dumb decision will affect few of their customers. Present company excepted, most DSLR users I meet don't even know they can change their lenses. :!: