Amen to this. The main reason why I recommend Nikon over Canon to new photographers is that they can get an old used body for cheap, and when they are ready to step up to F100 or F80 territory they don't have to worry about lens compatibility. For the most part. There are a few things to consider. If you do have an eye on the future, only get modern glass, as then you can step up to digital SLR or any film body in the Nikon line without problems. Some of the higher end camers, digital ones in particular, are a bit crippled with non-metering lenses.
The next thing I would do is get a Nikkor 50mm 1.8 lens. Do not cheap out on the lens! These will last you a lifetime, and the lens is the most important part of the process. A cheap third-party lens on a $2,000 camera makes that camera look like a cheap starter. A sharp Nikkor on an old body like the N65/55 will put out amazingly good quality pictures.
I recommend the 50mm for three reasons. One it is one of the sharpest lenses on the planet; two, it is light and relatively cheap; and three, it is good for learning on.
For around $200 you can have a complete starter system (with no flash) that will last you years. Good photographers know the fancy cameras are for the fancy shots. They don't take better pictures, they just take better pictures of the way drops of water fall off of a duck rising out of a pond. You'd have to be an awfully fast gun to get that shot on manual, but with the F5 you can get it and then the duck's friend, too.
In my opinion, by the time you are ready for an upgrade, you'll want to go digital SLR. In the meantime get the above system, and expand your arsenal of glass before worrying about fancier bodies.
Society is always changing, that does not mean you have to schizophrenically fling yourself around society to match it. I have never owned a cell phone, and I've never missed not having one. You do realize there are a bounty of alternatives to cellphones -- everywhere. The cell phone does not actually add anything to your life. This is a common misperception. All it does is add a luxury convenience to an existing ability. If you are in the very small minority of people that needs to be reached remotely wherever you are, then beepers have done wonders for decades. The only thing a cellphone adds is the convenience of not getting yourself to the nearest land line. That is all. It does not remove the ability to communicate remotely, if you remove the cell phone.
You assert that it would be a "luddite" step backward to disable cellphones in certain areas. Please. There have been many cases where technology overstepped the bounderies of polite society, and had to be restricted. Everyone used to run their electric devices during airplane takeoff, until it became such a problem that they had to stand up and say, "Okay you need to turn those off now or you'll create a hazard." Is that a "luddite" step backward? No. It is a case where the ignorant (not stupid) masses and their technology overstepped.
Cellphone usage has arrived at that point where the ignorant masses have overstepped the polite bounderies of society. These are bounderies that are not as rapidly shifted as technological constraints. For centuries now, the person who creates a disturbance in an area where others do not wish to be disturbed, is an infraction of polite behavior, and in some places it is even illegal. If a drunk were to cause a scene in a quiet restaurant in any modern era, they would be escorted out of the premise, and told strongly to take a hike.
When you look at the typical disturbance that the average cellphone user causes, their behavior and lack of respect for other people is just as annoying as the drunk who is talking too loud (you have already admitted this yourself in the first post.) And just like the drunk, when people suggest that they take their conversation outside, they claim it is their right to speak and that they are not in the wrong. But of course, they are, and they don't usually realize this until they are out on the street trying to flag a taxi.
You sir, are suffering from a misperception that the technology you own allows you to use it irregardless of the social consequences. If you are annoying the people around you in the theatre, the others do not have to Just Deal, just have they do not have to deal with the raucous being caused by a forty-year old lout who is so out of touch with society and reality, that he doesn't see anything wrong with getting tanked in public and annoying everyone around him. You are guilty of trying to separate causes from identical effect. When the effect is identical, the cause is irrelevant.
You, sir, are the sickness of this world, and you are either going to have to change your ways, or you are just going to have to DEAL when society starts fighting back against your kind.
By analogy, it would take two blind people to survey the surface skin of an elephant, and then two other men to explore the functionality and limitations of its genitalia. It would take the remaining two men to successfully handle the wrinkles of the situation in such a way that they could harvest the productions of the elephant's workflow.
In short, Zoology is a fascinating area of fascination. And I truly believe that the analogous contents of its correlation to the market-headed working world are profound, and merit successful books written around them.
A better analogy would be to say that it is like comparing cheese with lettuce. The two are not so radically different that they would deserve chalk to cheese obstructions.
So, by analogy, your analogy was somewhat like a red chair that never gets sat in.
Slashdot Mirror
The next thing I would do is get a Nikkor 50mm 1.8 lens. Do not cheap out on the lens! These will last you a lifetime, and the lens is the most important part of the process. A cheap third-party lens on a $2,000 camera makes that camera look like a cheap starter. A sharp Nikkor on an old body like the N65/55 will put out amazingly good quality pictures.
I recommend the 50mm for three reasons. One it is one of the sharpest lenses on the planet; two, it is light and relatively cheap; and three, it is good for learning on.
For around $200 you can have a complete starter system (with no flash) that will last you years. Good photographers know the fancy cameras are for the fancy shots. They don't take better pictures, they just take better pictures of the way drops of water fall off of a duck rising out of a pond. You'd have to be an awfully fast gun to get that shot on manual, but with the F5 you can get it and then the duck's friend, too.
In my opinion, by the time you are ready for an upgrade, you'll want to go digital SLR. In the meantime get the above system, and expand your arsenal of glass before worrying about fancier bodies.
And have fun!
You assert that it would be a "luddite" step backward to disable cellphones in certain areas. Please. There have been many cases where technology overstepped the bounderies of polite society, and had to be restricted. Everyone used to run their electric devices during airplane takeoff, until it became such a problem that they had to stand up and say, "Okay you need to turn those off now or you'll create a hazard." Is that a "luddite" step backward? No. It is a case where the ignorant (not stupid) masses and their technology overstepped.
Cellphone usage has arrived at that point where the ignorant masses have overstepped the polite bounderies of society. These are bounderies that are not as rapidly shifted as technological constraints. For centuries now, the person who creates a disturbance in an area where others do not wish to be disturbed, is an infraction of polite behavior, and in some places it is even illegal. If a drunk were to cause a scene in a quiet restaurant in any modern era, they would be escorted out of the premise, and told strongly to take a hike.
When you look at the typical disturbance that the average cellphone user causes, their behavior and lack of respect for other people is just as annoying as the drunk who is talking too loud (you have already admitted this yourself in the first post.) And just like the drunk, when people suggest that they take their conversation outside, they claim it is their right to speak and that they are not in the wrong. But of course, they are, and they don't usually realize this until they are out on the street trying to flag a taxi.
You sir, are suffering from a misperception that the technology you own allows you to use it irregardless of the social consequences. If you are annoying the people around you in the theatre, the others do not have to Just Deal, just have they do not have to deal with the raucous being caused by a forty-year old lout who is so out of touch with society and reality, that he doesn't see anything wrong with getting tanked in public and annoying everyone around him. You are guilty of trying to separate causes from identical effect. When the effect is identical, the cause is irrelevant.
You, sir, are the sickness of this world, and you are either going to have to change your ways, or you are just going to have to DEAL when society starts fighting back against your kind.
Good day.
By analogy, it would take two blind people to survey the surface skin of an elephant, and then two other men to explore the functionality and limitations of its genitalia. It would take the remaining two men to successfully handle the wrinkles of the situation in such a way that they could harvest the productions of the elephant's workflow.
In short, Zoology is a fascinating area of fascination. And I truly believe that the analogous contents of its correlation to the market-headed working world are profound, and merit successful books written around them.
A better analogy would be to say that it is like comparing cheese with lettuce. The two are not so radically different that they would deserve chalk to cheese obstructions. So, by analogy, your analogy was somewhat like a red chair that never gets sat in.