Cheap film cameras for film photography beginners, from LEWIS. COLLARD DOT COMSince my page on getting. I figured I'd write a little guide on the best film cameras. Remember I am limiting this to. I own, have used, or come highly recommended by people. It has the same limitations for free users as the web UI: - Only main server used. The ridiculously expensive Texas Instruments graphing calculator is slowly but surely getting phased out. The times they are a-changin’ for the better, but I’m. I trust. All prices are in British Pounds. Sorry guys, while a majority of. USA, I'm from England. Relative prices may.
Here's a picture of a cat with a blanket!!! Not taken with a Trip 3. The Trip 3. 5 is incredible. It's funny, because I'd usually. Land Rover owners. Think the Diana, Holga. Kiev 8. 8, etc. Not so with the. Trip; it's very reliable (being incredibly simple), built as. SLR that would cost a hundred. Best of all: No batteries! Praktica MTL3 and Pentacon 5. Fuji Pro 1. 60. S, pushed to ASA 4. The worst mine suffered - . For example, the renowned Pentacon. I got three of them. Another bonus is that if you don't mind carrying around. MTL3 will work fine without a battery; the. I didn't have time to take a good picture of. T5. 0, so I sent Krystle back in time to 1. It was expensive, but my. Thanks!). The T5. It's also a great. Mushroom cloud. If you want more, get a 2. They often come with a 3. I got one with mine. I use it as a body cap. If your. film camera budget can stretch that far, it's a no- brainer. King's Lynn. A- 1. Kodak Ektar 1. 00. You probably know someone who owns. It's got ergonomics closer to a modern digital SLR, it's tougher. Canon T9. 0 and Canon FD 2. Kodak Ektar 1. 00. It should work. with Canon FL lenses if you hit the stop- down metering switch. I recommend. these only if you have compatible lenses; because lenses that work on. SLRs, they're more. If you're bogged down by. For example, I'd recommend the F5. A- 1. On the other hand, if you don't own a lens for these full- frame. SLRs and with film. For example. the Nikon 5. D. is my favourite portrait lens on Nikon DX digital cameras, and also. F5. 5. The Pentax 5. Pentax. digital SLRs. If you don't have a neck like. Nikon F5. 5 and Nikon AF 5. D. aperture priority at f/9. I recall), shooting a. Some of Nikon's DX lenses, which are designed for. F5. 5, but you'll end up with darkened corners at the shorter focal. Some won't work at all, like the 1. DX. I bought mine as a joke for . Photo by this guy. Commons license. They're in an. EF- S lenses designed for digital cameras will not. EOS 1. 0D digital SLR), you'd destroy your. D Mark II. Cost: Less than . Any of the other less- loved EOS film camera. I don't have a great deal to add to. SLRs are great fun. DA lenses designed for Pentax digital SLRs tend to have even. Nikon DX lenses. do; depending on the lens, you could be stuck at the very longest. On the other hand, all full- frame lenses should. I got my ZX- M for free. It's mostly compatible with your Sony digital SLR. I mentioned in the context of Nikon. It also has horrible ergonomics compared to any of the. I've mentioned above; if I come across a Minolta body. I'll let you all know. Oddly, I. have a Minolta 5. Why so much Canon? Astroturf. of course: Because Canon pays me and a whole lot of people. Actually, it's more simple than that: The three Canon FD cameras. I hinted at this earlier, but Nikon maintained. SLRs), thus, Nikon. Canon FD lenses. FD bodies. Nikon in its class. That's just how it is. Remember, this is about. How to Spot a Psychopath. Well, now we know what it takes to get me to write a new blog post: The gentlest threat of legal action I've ever received! I mean, compare and contrast the start of the Firepower debacle, or these guys, with this genteel and civilised missive. As such I have been made aware recently of a number of subjective blog posts on numerous sites that in many cases start off innocently, but tend to attract commentary that is full of misinformation, untruths and borderline libellous information about the company. Many blog posts are un- moderated and therefore are allowed to fester. Since many blogs continually pump fresh content they index very well on search engines and therein lies the issues. The post on your site which was done back in 2. In the past twelve months however and more specifically when I took over in October, I have made sweeping reforms to the way that data is collected and the type of data that is presented in the marketplace. I have been busy consolidating a new website (This is a link to the staging site) http: //www. Having said that, being highly regulated by the TGA we are closely governed by the Australian Government in both our ISO manufacturing processes as well as our conscionable code of conduct. While much of the commentary is somewhat accurate - it is also quite misleading. The form you have posted has not been accurate since 2. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking the thread down for no other reason than inciting subjective commentary based on outdated information? I am more than happy to assist you in posting accurate information about the company if you wish to do so or since you are in Australia free to come to the HQ for a tour so you can see first- hand what we do and what our medical devices do and how they have helped millions of people since 1. Can you please come back to me on this? Regards. Andy Mc. Cutcheon. Head of Digital Marketing. Australia & New Zealand. Mob: +6. 1 4. 01 7. Tel: +6. 1 7 3. 38. NZ: 0. 80. 0 5. 5 2. Address: 2. 9 Resource Street, Parkinson Q 4. PO Box 6. 98 Archerfield Qld 4. Email: andy. mccutcheon@niagara. Seriously, I'm impressed. This is the way to do it, guys.(Oh, and yes, it took me more than a week to even notice he'd sent me this. So it goes.)Of course, Andy, I'm not going to take that blog post down. The gentleness of your language makes clear, I hope, that you know that actual legal threats would be ridiculous in this situation, if I have good faith, public interest and truth on my side. I remind you that defamation law in Australia was relatively recently changed to make truth alone a sufficient defence against a libel action. While you make reference to . Without such specific complaints, you seem to me to just be unhappy about people's expression of their opinions based on disclosed information. Suing critics for this reason is popular, but wrong. That previous post had three main points. One, I got a really impressive piece of junk mail from Niagara, except they didn't even admit what their name was on the junk- mail. Which, as you say, was probably not a good policy, and I'm glad you're changing it. Two, Niagara not only concealed their name, but also kept their prices a secret. This seems to be because the prices are really, really high, and you don't want to scare off customers with a price tag before you can explain the many excellent qualities of your products which make them well worth the money. Three, Niagara have, as you say, been in business for an awfully long time, but have in that time found it difficult to take a moment to prove that their products actually are better than many far cheaper massage- y things. That's really the clincher. Like the makers of a zillion other odd health products, Niagara said they had scientific evidence that their products were worth buying, but that evidence was actually.. Glad to be of service! The core of the whole thing remains the evidence, so let's check out the new and improved Niagara Medical Research pages (which I presume will in due course move to here.)I downloaded the 1. Medical Research pages. Many of them actually are published medical studies, or a review of groups of studies. So that's a good start. Some of this is stuff I talked about in the last post, but because my only real function in the world is processing information and attending to the needs of five cats, I read everything again and will write anew about it here. In no particular order, I started my reading with . If something worked in 1. It tests the effect of . There is, however, some kind of control; some of the subjects just laid down quietly with no massage, which actually by itself seemed to slightly help trunk flexibility. More importantly, however, and I'm afraid I'm going to be saying this rather a lot of times in this post, this study made no test of a simple vibrating massager versus a fancy . This one's from 1. There was again at least a partial control, because this was a crossover study - the control . But did they test a simple vibrating massager against a cycloid device? And did they get any information relevant to Niagara's core pain- reduction and illness- treatment claims? Also, so far as I can see, no. OK, on we go to . It's also quite recent, having been done in 2. It's never been published in a peer- reviewed journal, though, and its two primary authors aren't exactly monsters of academic publishing.(Here's the first primary author's current two lonely Medline hits. I suspect the . Merritt doesn't seem to deal with many study subjects large enough to see with the naked eye.)None of this should be taken to mean that I think the Thermo Cyclopad. Not the right. I think you'll find that anybody who's done science and stats can tell you that a result like this is a classic indicator that you're measuring nothing. So far as I can see, the rest of the normal- participant results, all faithfully graphed, bear out this interpretation. Various things changed a little bit, some in a direction that'd be good if these subjects actually had lymphoedema, others in directions that wouldn't be. I think my favourite . Researchers try to control for this, but unless you keep all your study subjects locked up in a panopticon, you can never perfectly keep up with their behaviour. Okay, who cares about that first part of the study, those people were already fine, it didn't hurt to buzz 'em about a bit and see if anything happened. What about the subjects who actually have lymphoedema? Well, there are plenty of graphs in the, deep breath, . The first of those graphs, of leg volume - the measurement that was so weird with the . And left and right legs changed in the same way, which was no doubt good news for the sanity of the researchers. Not much actually happened to the lymphoedema subjects' leg volume during the treatment period, but the follow- up four weeks later showed a considerable leg- volume reduction, suggesting that some kind of structural improvement may have happened.(Or, once again, the participants may have tended to do some other thing that helped with their leg volume, like for instance getting a prescription for diuretics, or bandaging, or exercise. And again, having been part of a study may have changed their behaviour in other ways. The study says it controlled for this and the statistically- significant results still stood.. And lie.)All the rest of the graphs in this section are pretty much flat. Overall they slope a teeny bit in a promising direction - blood pressure is the best of these, but blood pressure isn't what this study is supposed to be about; measure enough things and you're guaranteed to find something you can spin as news. But, overall, not much of anything actually changed. On to the Venous Oedema section. It starts with . If you're paying people to say your product is great, they may not write a transparent work of banana- republic election propaganda that says 1. President- For- Life, but they also won't start whole chapters of the report with, .
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
October 2017
Categories |