 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / April 2006The most obnoxious thing with the D200 is...
...the strap. It has a big Nikon D200 on each side of it. Now I'd rather not be at a parade and blatantly advertising that I have a better camera than you. Maybe it can be scraped off? Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms). > ...the strap. It has a big Nikon D200 on each side of it. Now I'd rather > not be at a parade and blatantly advertising that I have a better camera > than you. Well, that's the D200 for you - always making lots of noise. > ...the strap. It has a big Nikon D200 on each side of it. Now I'd rather > not be at a parade and blatantly advertising that I have a better camera [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms). Here's an idea--buy another strap. I'm using a strap from a Contax camera I use on a medical camera. Nice 3/4 inch heavy nylon, black, no graphics. Tom Don Wiss wrote (in article <iph2425bdb4tbptea6v1ahd8aeg7qpho2u@4ax.com>): > ...the strap. It has a big Nikon D200 on each side of it. Now I'd rather > not be at a parade and blatantly advertising that I have a better camera [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms). For about $10 you can have a camera strap that blatantly says "I have a camera for which I am now too poor to buy a good camera strap". :-)  SignatureRandy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw Sounds like time for a black marker pen!! > ...the strap. It has a big Nikon D200 on each side of it. Now I'd rather > not be at a parade and blatantly advertising that I have a better camera [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms). >...the strap. It has a big Nikon D200 on each side of it. Now I'd rather >not be at a parade and blatantly advertising that I have a better camera >than you. > >Maybe it can be scraped off? Maybe...but why not just buy another strap if it irritates you? My strap has the Canon brand on it, and I don't really care to advertise either, but it was "free" with the camera and I don't really care to spend money on a new strap. :-/ If you really want to stir up the fun, buy a Canon strap for your D200!! :-) > ...the strap. It has a big Nikon D200 on each side of it. Now I'd rather > not be at a parade and blatantly advertising that I have a better camera > than you. > > Maybe it can be scraped off? It can be replaced. My problem with camera straps is that I apparently like them longer than anyone else. Of all the straps for sale at B&H, not a single one is as long as I want. I'm using a strap that came with a camera backpack, and it's long enough and non-obnoxious. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > ...the strap. It has a big Nikon D200 on each side of it. Now I'd rather > not be at a parade and blatantly advertising that I have a better camera > than you. > > Maybe it can be scraped off? Buy a Domke "Gripper" strap, it's a better strap than the OEM one. And it doesn't show up six blocks away... >...the strap. It has a big Nikon D200 on each side of it. Now I'd rather >not be at a parade and blatantly advertising that I have a better camera >than you. > >Maybe it can be scraped off? I was hoping someone would post with their experience at having tried to peel it off. Since no one did, and I kind of like the strap, I tried myself. The D200 does peel off without too much effort. You have to pick it off little bit by little bit. And no residue is left behind. The Nikon would be harder to peel off, but I don't mind that one as much. The D is harder to get off than the 200. So when I do the second side I may leave the D. A tweezers didn't seem to be better than the fingernails. Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms). >>Maybe it can be scraped off? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >The D is harder to get off than the 200. So when I do the second side I may >leave the D. A tweezers didn't seem to be better than the fingernails. With practice it gets faster. It took nine minutes to do the other side. Five for the 200, and four for the D. If you want to do this, you want to do the picking in the direction of the length of the strap. That way you are picking in the direction of the threads. And you can be aggressive. After you are done there will be no evidence that the D200 was previously there. Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms). >>>Maybe it can be scraped off? >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > After you are done there will be no evidence that the D200 was previously > there. dude you have way too much time on your hands :P >>>> Maybe it can be scraped off? >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> > dude you have way too much time on your hands :P I began removing the yellow "NIKON" embroidered on one of their wide black Nylon straps. Now it says "NIKOI". That's a lot of work. I blacked out the remainder with a Sharpie. Now it says "NIKOI" in dark yellow. SignatureFrank ess > ...the strap. It has a big Nikon D200 on each side of it. Now I'd rather > not be at a parade and blatantly advertising that I have a better camera > than you. > > Maybe it can be scraped off? You obviously mean scrapped. Definitely, scrap that loud noisy doorstop dslr. Get a 'real' camera, a man's camera instead of that puff's dslr. Get a 5D. Don't forget to ask for a "Canon EOS 5D". > Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms). >> ...the strap. It has a big Nikon D200 on each side of it. Now I'd rather >> not be at a parade and blatantly advertising that I have a better camera [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > dslr. Get a 'real' camera, a man's camera instead of that puff's dslr. Get > a 5D. Don't forget to ask for a "Canon EOS 5D". Mate, that was about the third most intelligent thing said in this group all day, give yourself a cigar. >> You obviously mean scrapped. Definitely, scrap that loud noisy >> doorstop dslr. Get a 'real' camera, a man's camera instead of that >> puff's dslr. Get a 5D. Don't forget to ask for a "Canon EOS 5D". > > Mate, that was about the third most intelligent thing said in this > group all day, give yourself a cigar. While we all agree that the 5D is an exceptionally great camera, the only problem we have with it is Canon has as of yet been able to produce a quality piece of glass that is able to take full advantage of the 5D's awesome FF sensor. If I recall, someone makes an adapter that will allow Nikon lenses to be used on the 5D with limited functionality? If this is the case, the lens that set the standard for quality, the Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-D, should be mated with the 5D for unbeatable optical performance. Someone really needs to come out with an adapter that will allow full functionality of Nikon lenses on Canon bodies. Rita >>> You obviously mean scrapped. Definitely, scrap that loud noisy >>> doorstop dslr. Get a 'real' camera, a man's camera instead of that [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Someone really needs to come out with an adapter that will allow full >functionality of Nikon lenses on Canon bodies. Absolute and total BS. The 135L, the 35L and the 400mm f/5.6L take full advantage of the sensor. Do you actual shoot with a 5D and any L glass? Beside if you want really super glass for a Canon full frame sensor you will get Leica or Zeiss and not bother with Nikon. Signature"I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ >>>> You obviously mean scrapped. Definitely, scrap that loud noisy >>>> doorstop dslr. Get a 'real' camera, a man's camera instead of that [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Beside if you want really super glass for a Canon full frame sensor >you will get Leica or Zeiss and not bother with Nikon. According to people who seem to have fun buying 10 pieces of things like the 21 or 24mm Olympus OM SLR lens and testing them all, it is possible to get examples that are almost as good as Leica lenses. At least that is what some of them have said. I would assume the Nikon lenses would be the same. When people talk about good WA lenses to compliment their FF Canons they talk about most major WA primes as candidates, except for Canon. >>>> You obviously mean scrapped. Definitely, scrap that loud noisy >>>> doorstop dslr. Get a 'real' camera, a man's camera instead of that [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Beside if you want really super glass for a Canon full frame sensor > you will get Leica or Zeiss and not bother with Nikon. Yeah, like what do you think people are using on their Canon 1Ds, etc, coke bottles?? >>> You obviously mean scrapped. Definitely, scrap that loud noisy >>> doorstop dslr. Get a 'real' camera, a man's camera instead of that [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Someone really needs to come out with an adapter that will allow full > functionality of Nikon lenses on Canon bodies. Canon make a variety of lenses that outshine their Nikon counterparts. These include (and are not limited to) the 85 f/1.2 (over the Nikon f/1.4), 135 f/2.8, 28-70 f/2.8 and 80-200 f/2.8 to name a very few. These lenses will beat their Nikon counterpart everytime. In each camera system lens sets there are winners, contenders and dogs; Nikon is no exception. The talent isn't in buying the label but in selecting the right lenses. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. Alan Browne wrote (in article <e1tnfs$f7f$1@inews.gazeta.pl>): > Canon make a variety of lenses that outshine their Nikon counterparts. And vice versa. > These include (and are not limited to) the 85 f/1.2 (over the Nikon > f/1.4), It's not *all* about speed. The Nikon 85f/1.4 is one of the finest lenses is an outstanding lens. Arguably better on 35mm than sub-frame digital, but still a fantastic lens. In order to claim the Canon variant "outshines" it would require the Canon to walk on water and they pay you take it off their hands. > 135 f/2.8, 28-70 f/2.8 and 80-200 f/2.8 to name a very few. I dunno, I have zero to complain about with the 80-200 AF-S in my bag. > These lenses will beat their Nikon counterpart everytime. Why? Those addicted to IS/VR are the only ones likely to have a legitimate dog in this fight. > In each camera system lens sets there are winners, contenders and dogs; > Nikon is no exception. True. The 24-120 "consumer zoom" is an absolute dog. But, they don't pretend otherwise. If you stick with the pro lenses in either you'll be very well served in general. > The talent isn't in buying the label but in > selecting the right lenses. True enough. SignatureRandy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw > Alan Browne wrote > (in article <e1tnfs$f7f$1@inews.gazeta.pl>): > >>Canon make a variety of lenses that outshine their Nikon counterparts. > > And vice versa. Already said. >>These include (and are not limited to) the 85 f/1.2 (over the Nikon >>f/1.4), > > It's not *all* about speed. The Nikon 85f/1.4 is one of the > finest lenses is an outstanding lens. Since Canon do not make a f/1.4 85mm, it is the point of comparison. The f/1.2 (surprisingly) is a bit sharper than the Nikon f/1.4 (at least with both stoped down a few stops; wide open the Nikon is most likely sharper than the Canon wide open). I never said it was all about speed (with or without "*"). Arguably better on 35mm > than sub-frame digital, but still a fantastic lens. In order to > claim the Canon variant "outshines" it would require the Canon [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I dunno, I have zero to complain about with the 80-200 AF-S in > my bag. I never said you should. Rita's ignorant assumption that Nikon means best of all lenses regardless of specific lens types is silly, strike that, annoying. The basic fact is that the 80-200 Canon is slightly sharper than the Nikon (And, gasp, the Minolta 80-200 is a hair sharper than the Canon, Oh my God, how can it BE!?!?!?!?). So her declaration that Nikon glass is the only glass worthy of all those 5D pixels is annoying misinformation. In the 70|80-200 f/2.8's there are no dogs from Nikon, Canon or Minolta, but of course one of them has to be "the sharpest" and one has to be "the least sharp" ... but it's a photo finish <g>. >>These lenses will beat their Nikon counterpart everytime. > > Why? Those addicted to IS/VR are the only ones likely to have a > legitimate dog in this fight. No. IS/VR lenses are actually a little less sharp than the non IS/VR lenses. The addition of an optical element to counter pitch and yaw movement of the lens reduces the optical sharpness slightly. They are, of course, much better for handholding. Now, handhold a 80-200 IS or VR for any length of time then repeat the mantra: "I shall not leave my mono/tripod in the car. I shall not leave my mono/tripod in the car. I shall not ..." >>In each camera system lens sets there are winners, contenders and dogs; >>Nikon is no exception. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. Alan Browne wrote (in article <e1trld$rmg$1@inews.gazeta.pl>): >>> These include (and are not limited to) the 85 f/1.2 (over the Nikon >>> f/1.4), [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with both stoped down a few stops; wide open the Nikon is most likely > sharper than the Canon wide open). Given that the Nikon 85 has historically always been seen as a portrait lens, I don't see much point in wanting it sharper. No distortion, fast focusing, not a problem. I don't recall ever hearing anyone complain about sharpness with that lens. The 1.8 is a different story, but at about 1/3 the price, that's not a surprise. >> I dunno, I have zero to complain about with the 80-200 AF-S in >> my bag. > > I never said you should. Rita's ignorant assumption that Nikon means > best of all lenses regardless of specific lens types is silly, strike > that, annoying. Okay, I'll give that it is silly. Anytime someone claims every product from vendor A is better than every product from vendor B, you have to pay close attention. In most cases, it will be wrong. However, if you were comparing Ferrari to Trebant, you might be safe in doing so. :-) Clearly that isn't the case with any pairing from Canon, Minolta, Nikon, Pentax, etc. > The basic fact is that the 80-200 Canon is slightly sharper than the > Nikon (And, gasp, the Minolta 80-200 is a hair sharper than the Canon, > Oh my God, how can it BE!?!?!?!?). It's a miracle. No other solution is readily apparent. :-; > So her declaration that Nikon glass is the only glass worthy of all > those 5D pixels is annoying misinformation. It was clearly either tongue-in-cheek or trolling, so it didn't seem worth getting upset about. I shoot Nikon. I have far too much invested in it (unless someone magically wants to buy me out someday) to switch at this point. Still, there are times when I wish I had access to a Canon lens, or a Canon body, or both. There are other times when I am glad to have what I have now. It's not a slam dunk either way. But, just like rednecks arguing Ford vs. Chevy, this nikon vs. canon thing is never going to go away. > In the 70|80-200 f/2.8's there are no dogs from Nikon, Canon or Minolta, > but of course one of them has to be "the sharpest" and one has to be > "the least sharp" ... but it's a photo finish <g>. *groan* >> Why? Those addicted to IS/VR are the only ones likely to have a >> legitimate dog in this fight. > > No. IS/VR lenses are actually a little less sharp than the non IS/VR > lenses. I didn't make myself clear. I was not referring to sharpness. I was referring more generally to the Nikon/Canon wars, and that Canon generally is much stronger overall in image stabilization across their line, although nikon seems to be trying to catch up. I just don't know if they have the resources to do it anytime soon. If I really needed it, I'd probably be shooting Canon now. As digital cameras get better and better at noise-free high ISO shooting, it will probably become less and less important. I wouldn't be surprised to see digital bodies a few years from now that can shoot ISO 3200 as good or better than ISO 200 on pro bodies now, in which case it won't matter anymore. Just about every lens will be a winner if that happens. > "I shall not leave my mono/tripod in the car. I shall not > leave my mono/tripod in the car. I shall not ..." hehe. I thought I was being silly when I bought a Gitzo CF tripod when they first came out. I never go anywhere without it anymore, and it's definitely paid for itself many times over. SignatureRandy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw > It was clearly either tongue-in-cheek or trolling, so it didn't > seem worth getting upset about. I shoot Nikon. I have far too [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > arguing Ford vs. Chevy, this nikon vs. canon thing is never > going to go away. Of course it was tongue-in-cheek. It's amazing how people in this group get so excited over nothing. Like I always said in the past, choosing between Canon and Nikon can come down to a flip of a coin since both systems are pretty much equal. The only thing Canon got over Nikon that I want is that fancy 5x macro lens. It might even be worth buying a 5D just for that one lens. Rita > Alan Browne wrote > (in article <e1trld$rmg$1@inews.gazeta.pl>): [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > that lens. The 1.8 is a different story, but at about 1/3 the > price, that's not a surprise. Roll back a few posts. The whole issue is Rita's assertion that only Nikon make glass that's "sharp enough" for the 5D's resolution. The rebutal of mine is to point out that Canon make many lenses that are more than adequately sharp for the 5D sensor, and for that matter several that are a bit sharper than the corresponding Nikon. That does not mean that Nikon don't make fine lenses. For that matter Minolta make (er, made) a few that beat Nikon and Canon, and I would not be surprised if Oly and Pentax and others had best of class lenses as well. Is sharpness the end all and be all of a lens? Of course not. Other qualities may be more or less important according to the shooters needs. Bokeh, vignetting, distortion, build, etc. etc. may be of more importance shooter to shooter. But no one company has it locked up across all lenses in all, most or even some respects. >>>I dunno, I have zero to complain about with the 80-200 AF-S in >>>my bag. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > It was clearly either tongue-in-cheek or trolling, so it didn't Rita has blasted her ray guns before. Mirrors up - fried Rita. > seem worth getting upset about. I shoot Nikon. I have far too > much invested in it (unless someone magically wants to buy me [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > up. I just don't know if they have the resources to do it > anytime soon. Nikon = slow and deliberate. Canon were much faster in the intro of IS than Canon. Canon have blasted Nikon in the sports PJ world (and other PJ pursuits). Nikon had some lean financials over many years and it tells in their slower pace. They will not disappear anytime soon (unlike Minolta). > If I really needed it, I'd probably be shooting Canon now. As > digital cameras get better and better at noise-free high ISO [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > bodies now, in which case it won't matter anymore. Just about > every lens will be a winner if that happens. It was rare that I shot above ISO 200, so it's not like low noise 800 and up is such an important thing... but now I have it (although not as clean as a 20D). >>"I shall not leave my mono/tripod in the car. I shall not >>leave my mono/tripod in the car. I shall not ..." > > hehe. I thought I was being silly when I bought a Gitzo CF > tripod when they first came out. I never go anywhere without it > anymore, and it's definitely paid for itself many times over. I just got a Manfrotto 055MF but haven't had the chance to use it. Damn work. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Roll back a few posts. The whole issue is Rita's assertion that only > Nikon make glass that's "sharp enough" for the 5D's resolution. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > importance shooter to shooter. But no one company has it locked up > across all lenses in all, most or even some respects. Hey Jasper, roll back a few posts and quote where I even mention "sharp enough." I never said such a thing. I did say, "Canon has as of yet been able to produce a quality piece of glass that is able to take full advantage of the 5D's awesome FF sensor." Here is the exact quote. "While we all agree that the 5D is an exceptionally great camera, the only problem we have with it is Canon has as of yet been able to produce a quality piece of glass that is able to take full advantage of the 5D's awesome FF sensor. If I recall, someone makes an adapter that will allow Nikon lenses to be used on the 5D with limited functionality? If this is the case, the lens that set the standard for quality, the Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-D, should be mated with the 5D for unbeatable optical performance. Someone really needs to come out with an adapter that will allow full functionality of Nikon lenses on Canon bodies." That said, you are "rebutting" yourself on this one. Rita > Since Canon do not make a f/1.4 85mm, it is the point of comparison. > The f/1.2 (surprisingly) is a bit sharper than the Nikon f/1.4 (at least > with both stoped down a few stops; I don't believe it. The photodo measurements of these lenses stopped down are nearly identical: one is f4 0.84. f8 0.86. the other f4 0.86. f8 0.87. I don't believe that anyone alive has the visual acuity to tell the difference. Also, I suspect that different samples of the same lens vary by at least as much as this. Andrew. > >> ...the strap. It has a big Nikon D200 on each side of it. Now I'd rather > >> not be at a parade and blatantly advertising that I have a better camera [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Mate, that was about the third most intelligent thing said in this group all > day, give yourself a cigar. Might be dangerous. Since he talks out of the wrong orifice, he might try to put a cigar in there. > ...the strap. It has a big Nikon D200 on each side of it. Now I'd rather > not be at a parade and blatantly advertising that I have a better camera [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms). Easier to just buy a generic strap. I've replace all of my "Canon Digital" straps with Tamrac straps. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>...the strap. It has a big Nikon D200 on each side of it. Now I'd rather >>not be at a parade and blatantly advertising that I have a better camera [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Easier to just buy a generic strap. I've replace all of my "Canon Digital" > straps with Tamrac straps. I'm worried that walking around advertising that I use Tamrac straps is just asking for someone to steal the strap when I'm distracted using the camera! >>>...the strap. It has a big Nikon D200 on each side of it. Now I'd rather >>>not be at a parade and blatantly advertising that I have a better camera [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > just asking for someone to steal the strap when I'm distracted using the > camera! Well, I have a couple of American Luggage straps I could let you have cheap, but someone might mistake your camera for a suitcase. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>...the strap. It has a big Nikon D200 on each side of it. Now I'd rather >>>not be at a parade and blatantly advertising that I have a better camera [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > just asking for someone to steal the strap when I'm distracted using the > camera! LOL. According to Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net>: > > ...the strap. It has a big Nikon D200 on each side of it. Now I'd rather > > not be at a parade and blatantly advertising that I have a better camera [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Easier to just buy a generic strap. I've replace all of my "Canon Digital" > straps with Tamrac straps. I have no idea who *really* made the strap which I am currently using on my Nikon D70. It is a blue fabric on foam rubber sandwich, with no printing -- but it is about twice as wide as the D70 strap, so it is more comfortable for me. The only part of it which bears any text are the plastic "seat belt buckle" snaps, which are marked as being made by "Tifco". I've had this strap for a number of years -- it used to serve with a Nikon F (though is much newer than the F), and later with a Nikon N90s as converted to digital by Kodak in the NC2000e/c -- and *that* is one which *really* needs the wider strap, even with a 50mm f1.4 lens mounted. :-) some of these days the foam rubber will disintergrate, and it will be time to look for a new(er) strap. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- DoN. Nichols wrote (in article <e1us8m2s6u@news4.newsguy.com>): > I have no idea who *really* made the strap which I am currently > using on my Nikon D70. It is a blue fabric on foam rubber sandwich, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > *that* is one which *really* needs the wider strap, even with a 50mm > f1.4 lens mounted. :-) I think I have one of those somewhere, I used to use it on an F5 when I had a 400mm AF-S mounted on it, but I never really trust any neck strap when it has something heavy costing the price of a nice used car hanging off of it. SignatureRandy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw >...the strap. It has a big Nikon D200 on each side of it. Now I'd rather >not be at a parade and blatantly advertising that I have a better camera [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms). Get a Domke strap and be done with it. You can also stick some gaffer tape over the name or in your case the red swoosh thing. I've done that so people would quit reading the name of the camera and then saying, "Oh, how do you like the Canon. I'm thinking about getting one. Should I....." Signature"I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ >...the strap. It has a big Nikon D200 on each side of it. Now I'd rather >not be at a parade and blatantly advertising that I have a better camera >than you. You could always fit a Sigma strap... SignatureIan G8ILZ > >...the strap. It has a big Nikon D200 on each side of it. Now I'd rather > >not be at a parade and blatantly advertising that I have a better camera > >than you. > > You could always fit a Sigma strap... <sarcasm> The Sigma strap is only 1/8" wide, but they claim it's 2" wide ;) </sarcasm> > ...the strap. It has a big Nikon D200 on each side of it. Now I'd rather > not be at a parade and blatantly advertising that I have a better camera [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms). Get a Carrysafe 100 camera strap from Pacsafe. Anonymous, well padded, and it doubles as a security cable. >...the strap. It has a big Nikon D200 on each side of it. Now I'd rather >not be at a parade and blatantly advertising that I have a better camera >than you. My favoured Nikon strap is the AN-4B - narrow and black with no logo. Narrow straps are in my experience more likely not to slip off my shoulder, and black with no logo is the most likely not to attract attention. The AN-4B is like most of the smaller Nikon accessories difficult to find, but on my latest visits to Tokyo I have managed to pick up a few in the larger stores. I still have one or two unused ones stored for future use, and they are most definitely _not_ for sale. Signature- Helge Nareid Nordmann i utlendighet, Aberdeen, Scotland For e-mail, please use my initials with the same domain as the posted address Website: http://www.nareid-web.me.uk/ > ...the strap. It has a big Nikon D200 on each side of it. Now I'd rather > not be at a parade and blatantly advertising that I have a better camera > than you. The free straps that come with most cameras are promotional items, and have been for years. What's the big deal? > Maybe it can be scraped off? Well, maybe; it doesn't appear to be woven in, anyway. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.