Forum Replies Created
Run the other way.
If you are hearing a rattling, it is probably a small L shaped retainer clip that mounts to the inside of the casing, and provides a pivot point for the zoom mechanism. If the zoom is functioning, it probably won’t be much longer. The clip, even after breaking away from the housing (which is held in place by two tiny screws secured by glue – it is the glue that gives way and allows the screws to loosen), can rest in place because of other parts for quite a while, but will eventually fall out of place. It’s not a terribly difficult fix on older lenses, but anything with AF is a a pain in the a** because of all the internal wiring that has to lay in exactly the right place.
Eventually, the zoom mechanism will jam, and you will have a 24 mm or 35 mm or 50 mm or 63 mm (wherever it happens to jam), non-zoom lens.
BEG (and Sarah):
I started out with an Agfa Super Silette see http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Agfa_Super_Silette, then graduated to a Canon A-1 (whoa, an SLR!) before graduating to an AE-1. Ah, yes, the days of film!
For the gearheads (or not) –
I’d be curious to know – In what do you carry your precious cargo? Are you happy with it? If not, why not? Is there another bag/pack/sack that you lust for?
CC – Think it is a GX-20. Forget the Amazon prices, they aren’t even close to realistic – the GX-10 (Pentax K-10) went out of production in 2008, replaced by the GX-20 (Pentax K-20) which in turn was replaced (by Pentax only) by the K-7, then the K-5, and now the K-5ii (Samsung ended it’s DSLR line with the GX-20). The GX-20 is a decent enough camera, if showing it’s age a little . . . . . but I like mine!
I LOVE idiots like this!
“The contents of this profile are private and legally privileged and confidential information, and the violation of my personal privacy is punishable by law. UCC 1-103 1-308 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE”
How funny! He has placed the information on a public forum, thereby eviscerating any right to confidentiality, whether or not he posts a disclaimer to the contrary. The UCC is inapplicable here, as there is no transaction (contract) between himself and anyone disclosing the information.
Everybody thinks they are a photographer. Everybody thinks they are a lawyer. This guy thinks he is both.
Not saying the client has that kind of control. I am looking at this purely as a legal excercise (as a former corporate/contract attorney). I was saying that, were it to come to it, the judge and jury would have that kind of control. and I was laying out the standards that would be used. Since it is not, apparently, coming to that, and since the OP now says 100 was agreed to – the entire discussion seems moot. (Other than to point out the foible of paying 100 for a wedding photographer)
It does not devolve into a queston of personal taste. It revolves around what is called the “reasonable person” or the “reasonable expections” test. If the fauxtog held themselves out to be a professional photographer, what would the reasonable person have expected? That is the test that would be used. But again, since we have no idea what the (apparently) oral agreement was, what was said, what was or was not proffered as samples or examples of work, no one here can say whether or not the fauxtog met the requirements of the agreement.
Has the fauxtog contacted the OP about payment? I’d be curious to know. If not, why not?
OK, going out on a limb here –
Actually, I don’t agree that the analogy is spot on. It is not as though she ordered a hamburger and expected steak. She ordered a cheap steak, and got a hamburger (chopped steak) – the question is, does this chopped steak conform to the contract? Until and unless we know what was said, what was presented (did the seller show sample photos from previous weddings? If so, this could be considered a sample model, and thus an express warranty, under UCC 2-313 (2)(c)), it is impossible to determine whether the buyer received the benefit of the bargain. The seller promotes herself as a “professional” – thus giving rise to the question of whether the goods/services conform to the expectation of “professional” quality under UCC 2-313 (2)(a):
“(2) Express warranties by the seller to the immediate buyer are created as follows:
(a) Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise.” *
All of this is to say that the issue here is far more complicated that may be realized at first glance. Until it is known EXACTLY what was said, EXACTLY what was contracted for, it is impossible for anyone to determine the extent of the buyers responsibility to the seller, and vice/versa.
* good, as used in the UCC, is implied to include services rendered.
I agree completely with cc – PLEASE lose the music. It is particularly annoying if you already have music playing from another source on your machine, and suddenly have an unwanted tune playing over top. The stop button is not that intuitive – I was looking for the standard “stop music” icon, and it took a while to figure out what you were using for a stop button for the music. It looks more like something to start/stop a slideshow.
@MBC – that brings up a question – is there any way to “lock down” the diopter once you have it right? It drives me crazy sometimes . . . .
@MLP – how is your autofocus set up, single center select point, or multi select point?
Sorry Al – catchlight is real – lip color is real. Skin smoothing? 10 years old . . . . . . didn’t find much need. Did pull freckles, though, just a personal preference.
And his work is NOT that good.
Being the most arrogant SOB on the planet and calling other people stupid, when you cannot even correctly type a simple sentence, is the hallmark of an angry, immature waanabe living in his video-game fantasy world.
“I swear this is the dumbest Internet community I’ve ever in which I’ve ever participated.”
Once more, in English, PLEASE.
“leave them be and don’t butt in”
They are committing an illegal activity, aren’t they? By not paying taxes, when they should be, they are breaking the law. By not paying taxes when they should be, that means everyone else’s taxes are just a little higher than they would otherwise be (especially if there are “thousands” doing the same). If you saw someone robbing a store, would you say “leave them be and don’t butt in”? They ARE robbing the store – your store, my store, everyone’s store. Ism’t there a moral obligation to society, and the rest of your fellow taxpayers, to report them? If you don’t think they should be reported, then I hope you never complain about how much you pay in taxes . . . . .