Subject: Re: Ah well...
Full headers:
From: PeterN <"peter,newdelete">
Subject: Re: Ah well...
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 12:55:46 -0500
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $23.95
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <>
References: <otqt5l$l8u$>
<otrp3r$9q9$> <071120170952032256%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
In-Reply-To: <ou0us0$98p$>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Received-Body-CRC: 2902722846
X-Received-Bytes: 2510
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/9/2017 2:07 AM, Noons wrote:
> On 8/11/2017 1:52 @wiz, nospam wrote:
>>> No.  They build the same boring old cameras that were great news 55
>>> years ago: slrs.  The "D" in front is just for marketing.
>> nonsense. the d is for digital. there weren't digital cameras 55 years
>> ago.
> But there were slrs.  And that is old news.
>>> Nowadays?  No way!
>> considering what it can do, it's cheap.
> Like I said: nowadays? No way!
>> nikon lenses are quite good.
> when they work...
>>> Aww, let me see...
>>> Lack of modern products at a reasonable price, capable of keeping them
>>> afloat while other companies sell a better product and stay on the 
>>> market?
>> nonsense.
> Good.  Keep using their crap.
> I won't.

That's your choice. I own a bunch of Nikon lenses, some of them dating 
back to about 1974. IIRC one lens I purchased was defective. It was 
replaced on the spot. I recently had an issue with my D500, which is now 
out of warranty. Nikon took care of the repair, at no cost. The original 
reasons I went with Nikon were: at that time, they were the only ones 
making a zoom lens in a range that I considered perfect for snapshots of 
my kids. (43-86 f3.5, yes I know it is considered a crap lens, but it 
was perfect for my use.) and the Nikon repair facility was about ten 
minutes from my house.
I had tested other systems, and just didn't like the feel, or couldn't 
afford them.