On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:09:11 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

nope. only nikon makes af-s lenses.

You are correct. I should have written "AF-S comparable".

the word you want is 'compatible'.

No, "compatible" means they work together.

exactly! tamron's internal focus motor lenses are compatible with nikon
cameras that require af-s lenses. they work together.

Yes, they are compatible with certain Nikon bodies. But, I didn't use
it that way. I said they are comparable to certain Nikon lenses.
They are not compatible with other lenses.

I know this is deep thinking for you, but try think of the "comparable
to" and "compatible with" in order to choose the right word. It is a
more complex thought process than the usage of capitalization.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote:

"Common knowledge" is what everyone knows.

Are you claiming there is *no* common knowledge, not even "sky =
blue" and "grass = green" --- because newborns don't know that?

Maybe your definition is a bit off ...

-Wolfgang

Savageduck wrote:

There is nothing wrong with teaching kids responsibility & respect when
handling other folks property. This is what my father did when raising
me with guns, cameras, tools, motorcycles, trucks, cars, and much else.

And look what became of you. Not even president of the Untied
States. You even turned out to be *honest* and a *good citicen*.
Wasted all that knowledge how to inflict pain on others with guns,
tools, motorcycles, trucks, cars and missed the opportunity to
make pretty snapshots of this your work for the family album ...

Shame on you, Ducky, shame on you.

-Wolf':-)'gang

On 2012-07-11 06:16:56 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:09:11 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

nope. only nikon makes af-s lenses.

You are correct. I should have written "AF-S comparable".

the word you want is 'compatible'.

No, "compatible" means they work together.

exactly! tamron's internal focus motor lenses are compatible with nikon
cameras that require af-s lenses. they work together.

Yes, they are compatible with certain Nikon bodies. But, I didn't use
it that way. I said they are comparable to certain Nikon lenses.
They are not compatible with other lenses.

I know this is deep thinking for you, but try think of the "comparable
to" and "compatible with" in order to choose the right word. It is a
more complex thought process than the usage of capitalization.

I think "nospam" missed the point of your correct use of "comparable"
when he was expecting to see "compatible". Context is everything!
It can certainly be true that there are lenses from Nikon and third
party manufacturers which are "compatible" with contemporary Nikon DSLR
bodies.
It can also be argued that some of these lenses, when compared, deliver
"comparable" performance and/or construction.
Then there are some lenses, which while being "compatible" for use on
Nikon bodies, including some from the Nikkor stable, which cannot be
described as in anyway "comparable" in performance or construction.

Try this:

Compatible:
(of two things) able to exist or occur together without conflict.
(of device) able to be used with a specific piece of equipment without
special adaptation or modification.

Comparable:
(of a person or thing) able to be likened to another; similar
of equivalent quality; worthy of comparison



--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:55:02 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-07-11 06:16:56 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:09:11 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

nope. only nikon makes af-s lenses.

You are correct. I should have written "AF-S comparable".

the word you want is 'compatible'.

No, "compatible" means they work together.

exactly! tamron's internal focus motor lenses are compatible with nikon
cameras that require af-s lenses. they work together.

Yes, they are compatible with certain Nikon bodies. But, I didn't use
it that way. I said they are comparable to certain Nikon lenses.
They are not compatible with other lenses.

I know this is deep thinking for you, but try think of the "comparable
to" and "compatible with" in order to choose the right word. It is a
more complex thought process than the usage of capitalization.

I think "nospam" missed the point of your correct use of "comparable"
when he was expecting to see "compatible". Context is everything!

Yes, he missed "comparable to" another lens as opposed to "compatible
with" a camera body. A lens can be both comparable to another lens
and compatible with a particular type of body, but that wasn't the
context.


It can certainly be true that there are lenses from Nikon and third
party manufacturers which are "compatible" with contemporary Nikon DSLR
bodies.
It can also be argued that some of these lenses, when compared, deliver
"comparable" performance and/or construction.
Then there are some lenses, which while being "compatible" for use on
Nikon bodies, including some from the Nikkor stable, which cannot be
described as in anyway "comparable" in performance or construction.

Try this:

Compatible:
(of two things) able to exist or occur together without conflict.
(of device) able to be used with a specific piece of equipment without
special adaptation or modification.

Comparable:
(of a person or thing) able to be likened to another; similar
of equivalent quality; worthy of comparison

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

nope. only nikon makes af-s lenses.

You are correct. I should have written "AF-S comparable".

the word you want is 'compatible'.

No, "compatible" means they work together.

exactly! tamron's internal focus motor lenses are compatible with nikon
cameras that require af-s lenses. they work together.

Yes, they are compatible with certain Nikon bodies.

yes they are and that's what is important.

But, I didn't use
it that way. I said they are comparable to certain Nikon lenses.
They are not compatible with other lenses.

they're comparable to nikon afs lenses but that's not what matters. a
lens can be comparable but not compatible. canon lenses are comparable
to nikon lenses and will obviously not work. lenses without motors
(e.g., 1st version of tokina 12-24 for nikon) are comparable to lenses
with motors (e.g., 2nd version of tokina 12-24 for nikon), but only the
latter one will work.

what matters is that the lenses are *compatible* with the camera bodies
he owns or will own because they include a focus motor.

I know this is deep thinking for you, but try think of the "comparable
to" and "compatible with" in order to choose the right word. It is a
more complex thought process than the usage of capitalization.

the proper word is compatible. in fact, if you google "nikon comparable
lenses", google will show results for "nikon compatible lenses". maybe
you should go tell google they're wrong.

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:00:59 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

nope. only nikon makes af-s lenses.

You are correct. I should have written "AF-S comparable".

the word you want is 'compatible'.

No, "compatible" means they work together.

exactly! tamron's internal focus motor lenses are compatible with nikon
cameras that require af-s lenses. they work together.

Yes, they are compatible with certain Nikon bodies.

yes they are and that's what is important.

But, I didn't use
it that way. I said they are comparable to certain Nikon lenses.
They are not compatible with other lenses.

they're comparable to nikon afs lenses but that's not what matters. a
lens can be comparable but not compatible. canon lenses are comparable
to nikon lenses and will obviously not work. lenses without motors
(e.g., 1st version of tokina 12-24 for nikon) are comparable to lenses
with motors (e.g., 2nd version of tokina 12-24 for nikon), but only the
latter one will work.

what matters is that the lenses are *compatible* with the camera bodies
he owns or will own because they include a focus motor.

I know this is deep thinking for you, but try think of the "comparable
to" and "compatible with" in order to choose the right word. It is a
more complex thought process than the usage of capitalization.

the proper word is compatible. in fact, if you google "nikon comparable
lenses", google will show results for "nikon compatible lenses". maybe
you should go tell google they're wrong.

The comment I made was "Other brands of lenses have the AF-S feature",
and you corrected me - properly - that "AF-S" is Nikon's proprietary
term. I replied that I should have said other lenses were AF-S
comparable.

This compares lenses. It does not address comparability with bodies,
although the other lenses are also compatible with certain bodies.

The "proper" word depends on context. Nikon's usage refers to
compatibility to bodies. My usage refers to comparability of the
motorized focus feature in each. Nikon would not use "comparable"
because Nikon does not feel that any other maker's lens is comparable
to theirs. They, as you would expect a manufacturer to do, ignore the
fact the comparability is based on the availability of the function.

In fact, Tamron makes lenses that are comparable in function to the
AF-S lenses, but are not compatible to Nikon bodies. They are
compatible only to Canon bodies. That's why you don't use the wrong
word as you suggest.

Don't try to struggle further understanding this distinction. You
aren't mentally equipped for it.

Google, by the way, is neither right nor wrong in any search. Google
merely turns up instances of term you are searching for. Google does
not initiate an instance. This seems to be another area of ignorance
on your part.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:45:45 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:00:59 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

nope. only nikon makes af-s lenses.

You are correct. I should have written "AF-S comparable".

the word you want is 'compatible'.

No, "compatible" means they work together.

exactly! tamron's internal focus motor lenses are compatible with nikon
cameras that require af-s lenses. they work together.

Yes, they are compatible with certain Nikon bodies.

yes they are and that's what is important.

But, I didn't use
it that way. I said they are comparable to certain Nikon lenses.
They are not compatible with other lenses.

they're comparable to nikon afs lenses but that's not what matters. a
lens can be comparable but not compatible. canon lenses are comparable
to nikon lenses and will obviously not work. lenses without motors
(e.g., 1st version of tokina 12-24 for nikon) are comparable to lenses
with motors (e.g., 2nd version of tokina 12-24 for nikon), but only the
latter one will work.

what matters is that the lenses are *compatible* with the camera bodies
he owns or will own because they include a focus motor.

I know this is deep thinking for you, but try think of the "comparable
to" and "compatible with" in order to choose the right word. It is a
more complex thought process than the usage of capitalization.

the proper word is compatible. in fact, if you google "nikon comparable
lenses", google will show results for "nikon compatible lenses". maybe
you should go tell google they're wrong.

The comment I made was "Other brands of lenses have the AF-S feature",
and you corrected me - properly - that "AF-S" is Nikon's proprietary
term. I replied that I should have said other lenses were AF-S
comparable.

This compares lenses. It does not address comparability

Ouch. That should be "compatibility" there.

with bodies,
although the other lenses are also compatible with certain bodies.

The "proper" word depends on context. Nikon's usage refers to
compatibility to bodies. My usage refers to comparability of the
motorized focus feature in each. Nikon would not use "comparable"
because Nikon does not feel that any other maker's lens is comparable
to theirs. They, as you would expect a manufacturer to do, ignore the
fact the comparability is based on the availability of the function.

In fact, Tamron makes lenses that are comparable in function to the
AF-S lenses, but are not compatible to Nikon bodies. They are
compatible only to Canon bodies. That's why you don't use the wrong
word as you suggest.

Don't try to struggle further understanding this distinction. You
aren't mentally equipped for it.

Google, by the way, is neither right nor wrong in any search. Google
merely turns up instances of term you are searching for. Google does
not initiate an instance. This seems to be another area of ignorance
on your part.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

Google, by the way, is neither right nor wrong in any search. Google
merely turns up instances of term you are searching for. Google does
not initiate an instance. This seems to be another area of ignorance
on your part.

actually it does not 'merely turn up instances of the term you are
searching for.' this is yet another instance of you talking out your
ass.

google interprets what you mean when searching for something. it looks
at the context of your search phrase and also your search history to
decide what links are likely to be the ones you are most interested in.
two people searching for the same thing may (and probably will) get
different results.

google will also correct spelling errors and usage errors and may use
location data. it's actually *very* sophisticated and they have an
entire team dedicated to tweaking results.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:01:30 -0700, nospam wrote:

the d50 has a focus motor. the others do not.

you can tell by a mechanical coupling pin around the 7 o'clock position
when looking into the mirror box, or by just trying a non-afs lens.

Ah, I see.
a) My Nikon D5000 & D60 do not have the mechanical coupling pin
b) But, I can clearly see the coupling hole for my D50

Here is a shot, taken by the D5000, of the D50 and D60 side by side:
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/...40/8705051.jpg

Thanks for that. I will continue reading on!

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:01:30 -0700, nospam wrote:

it's unlikely you have any of those lenses or ever will because they're
so old, so i wouldn't worry too much about it.

True.

All my Nikon (Nikkor?) lenses are from Nikon camera kits at Costco.

So I wouldn't have any older lenses or cameras that don't 'know' about AF-
S.

It seems I received two lenses with each of the three Nikon SLRs so I
have six lenses, two of which are non AF-S, the rest are AF-S.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 22:45:15 -0400, tony cooper wrote:

"Common knowledge" is what everyone knows. This guy doesn't. I suspect
there are hundreds of cameras that require AF-S lenses sold every year
to people who like Arklin have no idea that the motor is in the lens.

I concur. I had no idea where the motor was in any of my Nikon SLRs from
Costco.

I now realize why my Nikon D50 is so much heavier than my Nikon D60 and
D5000! And, why the lenses didn't work when I tried using them initially.

It wasn't common knowledge to me but I never did any research. Just like
when I bought my BMW, I just 'assumed' it was designed well. (The BMW is
a whole 'nother story because it breaks so much that I was forced to
learn how to fix it.)

The Nikons broke but I didn't know how to fix them.

Now, with the new bayonet mounts on their way, I can at least fix the
most common breakage of the lenses!

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:45:45 -0400, tony cooper wrote:

The comment I made was "Other brands of lenses have the AF-S feature",
and you corrected me - properly - that "AF-S" is Nikon's proprietary
term.

I got the point.

There are lenses that are not made by Nikon with 'will work' with the
Nikon camera bodies that I have.

For my Nikon D60 and D5000, those non-Nikon lenses will need to have an
internal motor in order to autofocus.

For my Nikon D50, any non-Nikon lenses don't need a motor to work with
the autofocus.

Thanks!

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:02:57 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

Google, by the way, is neither right nor wrong in any search. Google
merely turns up instances of term you are searching for. Google does
not initiate an instance. This seems to be another area of ignorance
on your part.

actually it does not 'merely turn up instances of the term you are
searching for.' this is yet another instance of you talking out your
ass.

google interprets what you mean when searching for something. it looks
at the context of your search phrase and also your search history to
decide what links are likely to be the ones you are most interested in.
two people searching for the same thing may (and probably will) get
different results.

google will also correct spelling errors and usage errors and may use
location data. it's actually *very* sophisticated and they have an
entire team dedicated to tweaking results.

Searching for the phrase "the world is flat" results in 43,400,000
hits. Is Google right or wrong? Is the world flat?


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

Google, by the way, is neither right nor wrong in any search. Google
merely turns up instances of term you are searching for. Google does
not initiate an instance. This seems to be another area of ignorance
on your part.

actually it does not 'merely turn up instances of the term you are
searching for.' this is yet another instance of you talking out your
ass.

google interprets what you mean when searching for something. it looks
at the context of your search phrase and also your search history to
decide what links are likely to be the ones you are most interested in.
two people searching for the same thing may (and probably will) get
different results.

google will also correct spelling errors and usage errors and may use
location data. it's actually *very* sophisticated and they have an
entire team dedicated to tweaking results.

Searching for the phrase "the world is flat" results in 43,400,000
hits. Is Google right or wrong? Is the world flat?

what does that have to do with what i said? nothing.

try to stay on topic, for once.

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 22:47:13 -0400, tony cooper wrote:

The date has to be changed manually on mine when the month is less than
31 days. It's PItA, so I no longer set it. It keeps good time,
but I'm not worried about my watch being off a minute or so. There's
nothing on my agenda that requires any more exactitude.

Mine too. I stopped setting the date also. It was a waste of time because
a month later, it would be wrong again.

And, mine wouldn't keep time to five minutes in a week!

I had the back open so much to adjust it that I think that was the real
reason the fumarole in Greece destroyed the watch. It must have leaked.

Anyway, the story is actually longer. I paid $800 to have it fixed
(remember, the original price was thousands) and then my kid dropped it
on the kitchen floor and it just stopped working (the minutes hand fell
off and is still inside the crystal).

I gave up. You'd think a watch as expensive and seemingly rugged as a
Rolex Oyster Perpetual (this was the gold and stainless one, not the pure
gold one nor the pure stainless one) would handle a simple drop from a 6
year old kid to the kitchen tile floor.

Sigh.

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 19:47:26 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

Google, by the way, is neither right nor wrong in any search. Google
merely turns up instances of term you are searching for. Google does
not initiate an instance. This seems to be another area of ignorance
on your part.

actually it does not 'merely turn up instances of the term you are
searching for.' this is yet another instance of you talking out your
ass.

google interprets what you mean when searching for something. it looks
at the context of your search phrase and also your search history to
decide what links are likely to be the ones you are most interested in.
two people searching for the same thing may (and probably will) get
different results.

google will also correct spelling errors and usage errors and may use
location data. it's actually *very* sophisticated and they have an
entire team dedicated to tweaking results.

Searching for the phrase "the world is flat" results in 43,400,000
hits. Is Google right or wrong? Is the world flat?

what does that have to do with what i said? nothing.

Just asking. You seem to think that Google can be right or wrong.

Google does not correct spelling errors. Google leads you to
instances that resemble the word you typed, but it does not correct
the spelling.

It's a bit like reading one of your posts. We can determine what you
meant even if you did not write what you meant.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

Google, by the way, is neither right nor wrong in any search. Google
merely turns up instances of term you are searching for. Google does
not initiate an instance. This seems to be another area of ignorance
on your part.

actually it does not 'merely turn up instances of the term you are
searching for.' this is yet another instance of you talking out your
ass.

google interprets what you mean when searching for something. it looks
at the context of your search phrase and also your search history to
decide what links are likely to be the ones you are most interested in.
two people searching for the same thing may (and probably will) get
different results.

google will also correct spelling errors and usage errors and may use
location data. it's actually *very* sophisticated and they have an
entire team dedicated to tweaking results.

Searching for the phrase "the world is flat" results in 43,400,000
hits. Is Google right or wrong? Is the world flat?

what does that have to do with what i said? nothing.

Just asking. You seem to think that Google can be right or wrong.

i never said that.

Google does not correct spelling errors. Google leads you to
instances that resemble the word you typed, but it does not correct
the spelling.

it can correct spelling and there's a way to disable it for those who
prefer it to be off.

It's a bit like reading one of your posts. We can determine what you
meant even if you did not write what you meant.

except that you seem to always come up with things i did not say or
mean.

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 22:45:59 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

Google, by the way, is neither right nor wrong in any search. Google
merely turns up instances of term you are searching for. Google does
not initiate an instance. This seems to be another area of ignorance
on your part.

actually it does not 'merely turn up instances of the term you are
searching for.' this is yet another instance of you talking out your
ass.

google interprets what you mean when searching for something. it looks
at the context of your search phrase and also your search history to
decide what links are likely to be the ones you are most interested in.
two people searching for the same thing may (and probably will) get
different results.

google will also correct spelling errors and usage errors and may use
location data. it's actually *very* sophisticated and they have an
entire team dedicated to tweaking results.

Searching for the phrase "the world is flat" results in 43,400,000
hits. Is Google right or wrong? Is the world flat?

what does that have to do with what i said? nothing.

Just asking. You seem to think that Google can be right or wrong.

i never said that.

You said: "the proper word is compatible. in fact, if you google
"nikon comparable lenses", google will show results for "nikon
compatible lenses". maybe you should go tell google they're wrong."

It's a bit like reading one of your posts. We can determine what you
meant even if you did not write what you meant.

except that you seem to always come up with things i did not say or
mean.

Q.E.D.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

Just asking. You seem to think that Google can be right or wrong.

i never said that.

You said: "the proper word is compatible. in fact, if you google
"nikon comparable lenses", google will show results for "nikon
compatible lenses". maybe you should go tell google they're wrong."

google thinks your use of the word comparable is wrong (which it is),
therefore it substituted the correct word when searching for that
phrase.

as i said, they have a search quality team dedicated to stuff like
that. go argue with them. i'm sure they'll get a big kick out you.

On 2012-07-11 22:53:14 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 22:45:59 -0700, nospam
wrote:
Le Snip



You said: "the proper word is compatible. in fact, if you google
"nikon comparable lenses", google will show results for "nikon
compatible lenses". maybe you should go tell google they're wrong."

Actually they are wrong if they confuse "compatible" & "comparable". It
seems their search engine didn't do too well at English 101.
"compatible " and "comparable" have two very specific meanings and the
results returned should actually have a mix of both, as some lenses
would be "comparable, some compatible and some both.

For example the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VRII and the Canon
70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM are not compatible but they are certainly
"comparable".

Then there is the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM (available with
both Canon and Nikon mount versions) can be described as comparable and
compatible with both the Nikon or Canon, depending on version.
Though I will concede that a proper comparison for any of these lenses
can only be made on the same brand of body.

Also a properly worded Google search reveals that Google will indeed
lead you to comparisons.

http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8



Q.E.D.

Yup! Q.E.D.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-07-11 06:38:49 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg
said:

Savageduck wrote:

There is nothing wrong with teaching kids responsibility & respect when
handling other folks property. This is what my father did when raising
me with guns, cameras, tools, motorcycles, trucks, cars, and much else.

And look what became of you. Not even president of the Untied
States. You even turned out to be *honest* and a *good citicen*.
Wasted all that knowledge how to inflict pain on others with guns,
tools, motorcycles, trucks, cars and missed the opportunity to
make pretty snapshots of this your work for the family album ...

Shame on you, Ducky, shame on you.

-Wolf':-)'gang

Sad, isn't it?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-07-11 06:38:49 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Savageduck wrote:

There is nothing wrong with teaching kids responsibility & respect when
handling other folks property. This is what my father did when raising
me with guns, cameras, tools, motorcycles, trucks, cars, and much else.

And look what became of you. Not even president of the Untied
States. You even turned out to be *honest* and a *good citicen*.
Wasted all that knowledge how to inflict pain on others with guns,
tools, motorcycles, trucks, cars and missed the opportunity to
make pretty snapshots of this your work for the family album ...

Shame on you, Ducky, shame on you.

-Wolf':-)'gang

Sad, isn't it?

Sic transit gloria mundi.

-Wolfgang