Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Posts for: rmorrison1116
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 412 next>>
Apr 20, 2019 11:51:20   #
leftj wrote:
You contradicted your own argument by saying the loss of the bridge didn't stop the USPS. They went the long way around. None of what you are describing causes delivery of a package to be delayed 30 days. If a package delivery is delayed 30 days it's not caused by weather, it's caused by some other factor, usually mishandling.

You may be arguing but I was trying to have a conversation. Obviously you are closed minded and a 3 percenters. I'd say I feel sorry for you but I don't. I really don't give a rats tail. Luckly for the majority of us, life isn't really all that bad. I'd wish you a good day buy why waste a good wish. If you want to be miserable, go for it...
Apr 20, 2019 11:43:59   #
LWW wrote:
For the same reason I ordered a $2K cue stick.

Wow, I can shoot just as bad with a $30 queue stick. Will a $2 grand queue improve my game?!
Apr 20, 2019 11:39:09   #
nadelewitz wrote:
I have been very impressed with USPS's deliveries. They are as good as anyone.
I have also seen bad. B&H, for example, is a quick shipper. But delivery time varies a lot with who they ship WITH. DHL from them to me is TERRIBLE. A package goes from B&H in New Jersey to Ohio, where it apparently sits for a week. Somewhere it gets transferred to USPS, who brings it to me in central NY in a day.
I called B&H customer service about this. They use numerous shippers, for whatever reasons. I told them to stop using DHL, and use USPS door-to-door.
I have been very impressed with USPS's deliveries.... (show quote)

Like I said from my shipping days, USPS has a 97% good track record. There will always be the 3% bad and unfortunately it seems to happen to mostly grumpy old men. Oh well, such is life...
Apr 20, 2019 11:34:37   #
leftj wrote:
Not 30 day delays.

Again, irrelevant. Weather can and does cause major delays, even delays of 30 days or more. Here's a simple single case of weather causing delays. Not far from here a bridge was destroyed by heavy rain. That's weather. The road over the bridge was the main route between two towns and the main route to several businesses. People on one side couldn't get to work without going several miles out of their way. One of the businesses affected was a campground. The only way for large trailers to get to the campground was on the road that was closed because the weather destroyed the bridge. There was another business that had to lay off many employees because they couldn't get materials to or from the plant. Ironically, the local post office was on the wrong side of the bridge. Did that stop them? No, they simply sent the postal vehicles the long way around. It took almost 3 months to build the new bridge. In this case the weather caused almost 90 days of delays.
Yes, weather can and does cause major delays.
Apr 20, 2019 11:10:51   #
wds0410 wrote:
Never thought I see the day that brought USPS apologists. What’s next? Can we get someone to defend Amtrak?

Not defending anyone or anything. I've ridden Amtrak several times and I've always gotten to where I was going pretty much when they said we'd get there. And now that they are upgrading the rails, Amtrak service may even improve. I'm just glad I'm not one of the 3 percenters.
Apr 20, 2019 11:03:21   #
leftj wrote:
None of those things happened in the cases that were cited.

Irrelevant. The statement and response was about weather causing delays, not about specific incidents. Weather can and does cause delays, it's that simple.
Apr 20, 2019 10:58:33   #
Kmgw9v wrote:
You are absolutely correct. Many, many people—grumpy old men as well, experience a small slice of life and have no concept what is really happening in the world. The bigger picture is just not relevant.
Politics as well.

I may be getting older, a fate I gladly accept given the alternative, and I'm so glad I'm not one of the grumpy ones. There's more to the news than FAUX 😀
Apr 20, 2019 10:50:06   #
leftj wrote:
That's total BS. Weather does not cause 30 day delays. That is the worst excuse in the world.

What about floods? Floods are caused by weather and floods can be quite disruptive and devastating. What about tornadoes? Tornadoes are weather and they can wipe out whole towns. What about hurricanes? Hurricanes are weather and they can wipe out whole countries. What about blizzards? Blizzards are weather and they can wreak havock on transportation infrastructures and destroy houses and delay life in general. Yes, weather can and does cause major delays from time to time and there's usually little we can do about it so, not BS, not even bad excuse.
Apr 20, 2019 10:24:56   #
Haydon wrote:
Sorry morrison, I did not articulate that well. I met at guy while shooting roses at Elizabeth Park just outside of Hartford. He came over to me leering at my 5D3. He asked how I kept the body is such great condition. I told him I'm just very careful where I place it. Mine is gripped btw. He pulled his ungripped 5D3 out of his bag and showed me his. The bottom and sides of the 5D3 body were NOT black. It was completely void of a black finish showing a coarse white abrasion in almost a third of the body. I really wanted to take a picture of his camera but I felt it might create animosity. My apology, I wasn't referring to my 500F4.
Sorry morrison, I did not articulate that well. I ... (show quote)

That makes sense. I don't have a 5D3, I have a 5DSr and a 5D4 with grips for both but I only use them when I need to. I don't coddle my gear and I try not to abuse it either. All my bodies pretty much look like the day I bought them. I clean them periodically and put them away, except for the 5D4, when not being used. I generally don't use camera bags, I use cases. They do a much better job of protecting the gear and are stackable.
The semi trashed body says something about Canon gear. It's built to take a lickin and keep on clickin.
Apr 20, 2019 10:06:12   #
Dannj wrote:
Look at this way: the USPS processes nearly HALF A BILLION pieces of mail per day. Something is bound to get lost in the process. Overall, the USPS does a great job.

Grumpy old men don't usually see or even care to see the big picture. They are only concerned with their own little tiny piece of reality, nothing else really matters. If the USPS was bad by them then the USPS is bad for all. Not really the case but, it is what it is. G. O. M. usually don't have something nice to say. It can happen, but it's rare.
Apr 20, 2019 09:45:09   #
Years ago, before I decided to become a full time programmer, I ran the shipping department of the company I worked for. We shipped all different size packages all over the US and Canada, 363 days a year, twice a day. Some days there would be a few hundred items and some days there would be tens of thousands of items. Some shipments were as small as a single 8.5 by 11 envelope and some shipments consisted of dozens of boxes. We limited the maximum weight of a box to 70 pounds.
Since we shipped to all over North America, we used multiple carriers from Airborne to USPS, including Greyhound and Trailways bus. All our shipments were tracked and logged and we logged mis-shipments. A mis-shipment was anything that went to the wrong recipient, was delivered late or not delivered at all. Our clients were not individuals, they were banks, investment companies and trust companies. The content of the packages were all kind of reports used for investment purposes and statements, lots and lots of reports and statements. Since most of this material was time critical, we tried to ship the best way possible. Some of the air freight companies would drop of the aircraft shipping containers for us to load.
Anyway, where I'm going with this is, I'm somewhat familiar with the package shipping and delivery industry in North America.
The bulk of the smaller packages, items under 20 pounds, and sometimes larger shipments, were sent via the USPS. If recall serves me correctly, 97 percent of the thousands upon thousands of packages we sent via USPS every week, 52 weeks of the year, were delivered intact and on time. Ninety Seven percent. Which of course means that 3 percent were late. Packages lost in shipping were very rare.
Bottom line; most folks shipments fall into the 97 percent but some folks shipments will fall into the 3 percent. No, the USPS does not suck or blow or whatever, you are simply one of the statistical 3 percenters. It ain't a perfect world so no sense getting angry over something that statistically must be.
Apr 20, 2019 08:30:56   #
TriX wrote:
Exactly. Our USPS service has been excellent, but they all screw up occasionally - I’ve had terrible deliveries from UPS and even FedX (which I’ve always considered the gold standard). I have to say that Amazon Prime’s delivery service has been first rate so far.

You do realize one of Amazon Primes delivery carriers is the USPS.
Apr 20, 2019 08:13:35   #
Blurryeyed wrote:
That Tamron is supposed to be excellent, I have the Canon II version and it is my understanding that DXOmark rates that Tamron as optically superior. Build is a different story.

I wouldn't say it's superior. On par with the Canon yes, but superior?! There are some categories the Tamron does slightly surpass the Canon but in the end, the Canon is the better lens. The build quality of the Tamron is quite good. Tamron SP lenses are kind of like Canon L lenses. Bottom line, unless one is a lens snob or a pixel peeper, the Tamron SP 70-200 Di USM is on par with its Canon equivalent.
Apr 20, 2019 08:03:04   #
Haydon wrote:
I bought my Canon 500F4 new right at the end of the version one cycle in 2012. This was just before the v2 was to be released. After seeing the new price, I had mine shipped from Canada. Before it was used more than one time I wrapped the entire lens and hood with Lens Coat and cut the window out to make the switches easily accessed. My lens looks brand new and with the money spent, I knew keeping it in great shape was a priority. It's inevitable when shooting birds, brambles and other unforgiving objects can the mar the white unless there is protection.

I concur some long lenses look they narrowly escaped an explosion. I met one guy several years ago with a 5DIII ungripped and he asked me how I kept mine in such xgreat shape. I didn't think much of his comment until he pulled his out. The bottom and sides looked like he cleaned it with coarse sandpaper. To this day, I have never figured out how he managed to deface it on that level.

Prior to Canon discontinuing support above cleanings on that lens, I saw a hood new priced at $750.00. Definitely an eye opener.
I bought my Canon 500F4 new right at the end of th... (show quote)

I'm curious. All of my larger lenses have lens coats on them so I'm familiar with lens coats. If your lens is wrapped in a lens coat, how did the other guy know it is in great shape? I don't know about you but I never take the coats off my lenses and with a coat on, you can't see what the lens looks like underneath.
Apr 20, 2019 07:41:47   #
Chris T wrote:
Ah, I see - you meant the Nikkor one ... got it! ... When you put it like that, R - 13 doesn't sound so much.
Shame about that lens. Well, look at the good side - at least, it was ONLY the lens ... you didn't lose a camera, too. I guess, with all those bodies, it might have been a good idea to carry two - one with the tele-zoom mounted, and the other with a UWA mounted. In retrospect - solutions come easy - huh? How do you like that Tamron, compared to the Canon lens you dropped? Is it on a par, or better, or worse?
Ah, I see - you meant the Nikkor one ... got it! .... (show quote)

I didn't have 13 Canon bodies at the time. If I remember correctly my only full frame body at the time was a 6D. I did have two cameras with me that day. A 6D with the 70-200 and a 70D with an EF 400L + EF 1.4X III mounted. Yes, shame about the lens. It's the only lens I ever lost in action.
The EF 70-200L II had been on the market for a few years when I destroyed my lens. The Tamron was brand new to the market and had quite impressive specs. The day before my wife and I left for a trip to Assateague island I went to the local Camera Shop to get a new EF 70-200L II but they were out of them. They did have the Tamron SP 70-200 in stock and at $1499, it was $500 cheaper than the Canon. Optically it was better than my old lens and on par with the new one. Build quality was good although not quite as good as the Canon and although the AF was not as fast, it wasn't bad either. I decided to get that lens. I could always return it after the trip and get the Canon. It performed well enough for me so I kept it. I still use it for a lot of indoor photography when a flash is not permitted or not a good idea. Plus, since the Tamron lens is black, it's not as obvious as the off white Canon lens.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 412 next>> - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.