Robg wrote:
My partner had a Lenovo ThinkPad for general purpose use, that needed way too many repairs. When the extended warranty ran out we happily went back to a dell.
Others may have had more positive experiences, but I will never purchase another Lenovo product.
I've had 4 Lenovo computers over the years and not a problem at all. I'm still using 3 of them.
On the other hand, most of the PC's at military sites I've worked are Dells, and I wouldn't buy one based on experience of using Dells. Back in the day, every one in our office had the floppy drive die (back when floppies were used a lot).
OK, #4 is showing as the overall favorite, but I believe that is because it has the best exposure of all the photos, not the composition. Having good exposure makes the photo look better. #4 is very nice but is just ho-hum. #4 does not adhere to the basic rules of landscapes. (OK, yes, I break the rules and take a lot of what I think are very nice landscapes. But in this case, I think the rules work.). In #4, the V of the mountains create a boring symmetric design. The photo does not follow the rule of thirds. The bottom of the V and the city are smack dab in the middle. The horizon is in the middle.
In #1 and #2, the V and the city are on the right third, the beautiful rocky mountain is centered on the left third, and the horizon is on the top third. The placement of the V breaks the symmetry. Also the valley and mountains beyond get more real estate in the photo and add more drama, color, depth, and beauty. This is why I mentioned that a bit of PP could really fix up the photos. Some work on exposure and contrast would make those 2 photos great.
(The OP offered me the opportunity to see what I could do in PP. I work 12 hour shifts. Maybe on an off day I can find some time to give it a try.)
With a little PP, #1 and #2 would knock #4 into the toilet (though #4 is nice). The composition is so much better on the first 2 photos.
cjc2 wrote:
Respectfully, you really need to better understand what you are talking about. The information you presented is just plain incorrect. Best of luck.
ok, I got the definition of fixed aperture wrong, but I know what I paid for my lenses.
Flickwet wrote:
Mister Big Money missed the boat as it went over his head, There are two versions, an f3.5-5.6 (older) not well reviewed but I like mine (worth maybe $200-300 dollars used) and the f4 (fixed) yes it does have a variable apeture f4-22, but it doesn't vary as focal length increases, sells for say ($350-500 used). I have both, I detect little difference in image quality between the two. Very Happy
Glad you paid top dollar for yours, mine are fine and bought well as used.
Did you see that I said I bought mine new? Reputable dealers have to sell it for the price Nikon says. So I did not pay "top dollar" for my lenses. I paid retail price. I often buy when Nikon has a sale.
Also, I said I would not buy a NEW (get that, NEW) lens in the price range he was quoting. I bet there are a huge number of people on this forum that primarily buy NEW lenses.
That doesn't make us superior to anybody else on this forum and I wasn't trying to be boastful. The person whose post I was responding to did not specify that the prices he was quoting were for new or for used lenses.
My first camera as a very young kid was a Kodak Hawkeye. It used 127 film. I still have it.
It was the perfect camera for me as I was born and grew up in the Hawkeye state.
Gianfranco47 wrote:
you can find two lenses with same focal lenght 24/120 , one has fixed aperture at 4 and costs about 350/400 $, an other has 3.5 /4.5 aperture and you can find about 200/220 , first one is widely better
I have 2 Nikkor 24-120 lenses. One of them was over $1,000 new and the other was in the $700 range. Both were new from B&H. That's not even close to dollar figures you are quoting. And neither one of my lenses has a fixed aperture. The one that is most expensive has an aperture range of f/4 to f/22.
I wouldn't even buy a new lens in the price ranges you are quoting, because I doubt that it would be any good.
rmalarz wrote:
Why do people have to post a response without using the "Quote Reply" function so we know who/what they are addressing in their reply?
--Bob
Because there were more than one, and you know who they are.
Why do people have to post sarcastic answers? Why do you want to be snarky? The OP asked the question, so he was looking for the right thing to do. So he was trying to make sure that he was not making a mistake.
It's because you have an Apple. My Windows PC accepts PDF's in the photos folder with no problems.
If it is so subtle it can't be figured out, it is no good.
johngault007 wrote:
Concealed Carry Permit = CCP
or in Florida Concealed Carry Weapons and Firearms License or CCW for short.
Thanks.
Concealed Carry Permit was not in the Google list. A concealed carry permit would not be very useful as paper won't save me from a thug. I would go for a concealed carry weapon.
OK, what is a CCP? I Googled it and the list of items CCP was an acronym for was large. The only thing that made sense in the list for safety at night was Concrete Cylinder Pipe. Somehow I don't think that is what is meant in this thread because if you are going to use an acronym in a forum post, it should be one that is commonly known and I never have heard of a Concrete Cylinder Pipe before.