On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 19:01:08 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
wrote:

abelard wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 18:45:50 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
wrote:

abelard wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 18:30:34 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
wrote:

NY wrote:
"Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein" wrote in message
...
rbowman wrote:

My wife held advanced degrees and was quite competent in her field. She
volunteered to prepare our tax return one year. Fortunately I checked
her work before it was submitted.

My wife is brilliant at maths, and has a household budget spreadsheet
that if printed, would probably be three metres wide. Every single
shekel is accounted for, which is a good thing. If I were in charge of
the household spending, I'd blow it all on a Bianchi Intenso Disc
Ultegra and a new lens for my camera - I have my eye on a Nikkor f/1.4
105 mm... and on other 'toys'.

Yes, my wife, who works for a financial institution though on the
software test management rather than financial side, has got our finances
on Microsoft Money and has records of her earnings and spendings going
back years, from which she can predict what future bills will be (based
on bill for same time last year). It's good that she does it, because
although I can see how useful it is, that never manages to outweigh the
fact that I find the whole subject bores me rigid.

I suggested something like MS Money. 'Don't need it', she says. I can't
fault her, as we get three or four international holidays a year, and if I
were in charge, we'd be lucky to afford a falafel on Jaffa Street.

If I had money to spare I might blow it on a new lens too. When I bought
my Nikon D90 it came with an 18-200 f5.6 which is convenient in terms of
only needing one lens, but a wider lens would allow faster shutter speeds
and a prime (or shorter zoom) may be sharper. At least this lens has less
distortion than the two shorter-range zooms 28-70 and 70-210 IIRC that I
bought for my 35mm film camera years ago.

Kit lenses are ****. I bought my D810 without lenses, and went from there.
My favourite is a 35 mm - it's an older model with aperture ring on the
barrel, but I just lock that at f/22 and the camera takes care of setting
aperture in the normal way

how the blazes does it do that when f22 is probably the smallest
aperture on your lens, more of your math education?

Is this a serious question?

It's an older lens, with a 'ring' on the barrel to set aperture. But the
Nikon D810 is a modern DSLR where aperture is set via a rotating 'knob'
(for want of a better word) on top of the camera (unless you change the
settings to use another control). So one leaves the aperture ring at f/22
(I think there's a little button to lock it, but everything is downstairs.
I'll look later), and control of the aperture is then passed to the usual
control on the camera body.

no, it's a statement

It ended with a question mark.

i don't know what sort of prehistoric equipment you have...but f22 is
still probably the smallest aperture on your lens...

And this is somehow relevant, because ..?

you may know that 22 is 'bigger' that 2.8....but an aperture of
22 is smaller than 2.8...not knowing that's a good definition of
innumerate!

You really don't handle being made to look like a fool, do you? Then
again, in your defence - few people do.

I am well aware of the relationship between 'f' number and aperture. I am
also aware of the mathematical formulae which underpin this relationship.

of course you are...of course you are


--
www.abelard.org