That’s an interesting take on it. Thanks. :)

Be careful not to cut yourself on that edge.

*BMW drivers

I am staunchly anti-maglev for different reasons. Firstly, it’s incompatible with other systems. Building it is expensive as hell because of the awkward way you have to build the rails of magnets which the train will then glide upon. Since every centimetre of the train needs magnets to be floating above the rails, the trains themselves are incredibly short and expensive for their capacity. Short version, you need a lot more trains, which are significantly more expensive for the same capacity of a normal train. A hundred years sounds impressive, but for example, a railway tunnel with conventional rails has only the drive wire and the rails, which will need to be exchanged in the future. The tunnel itself can be easily used for hundreds of years most states calculate with 200 though. Speed isn’t everything, capacity is. The Austrian railjet only drives 230 km/h because you don’t need to make the train airtight, meaning for 2 million (2008 money) plus two eurosprinters (5 mil a pop, todays money) you get 500 meters of railjet, which can transport approximately 1,400 people. Also, the railjet can just be separated into two 250m trainsets and the go into two completely different directions. All of these are benefits that Maglev hasn’t got. It’s more expensive and can do less. But it does go fast, admittedly. But at what cost is this speed gained? And is it really the most important thing if 250 people can reach something twice as fast as a contemporary high-speed train? Also, the French TGV has proven it can go 575 km/h, So even in that regard, if you were to reduce it to the engines in the front and the back in a single passenger car, you basically have Maglev, but for a fraction of the price.

The reason I said it is because there are alternatives which are significantly cheaper and more effective. Maglev is expensive, shit ROI and massive downsides over conventional high-speed rail, namely system complexity and maintenance. Short version: expensive AF.

Edit: I’ve made another comment below. Also the French TGV has proven it can go 575 kilometers per hour, why not make regular trains even faster? It would be cheaper, would achieve the same thing and keeps the benefits of regular trains. There are always multiple approaches to the same problem, and the flashiest solution is seldom the best.

As a taxpayer you really don’t.

My comment was a mirror of another user which got removed. And so it doesn’t make sense now. Thanks to the great modding team here. He didn’t say anything harmful, why censor it???

I mirrored your comment, because I think it works backwards. From the way it sounds to me, you started with your conclusion/opinion and searched for proof of why it is right. Real socialism and the Soviet unions were deeply, deeply flawed systems from the start, but only because some implementations failed, due to essentially the same problems as capitalism, does not mean the idea as a whole is rubbish. If you read the communist manifesto and “the capital” from Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, you will read a brilliant critique of our modern contemporary system. There are some very fine ideas in there, and I think it’s dangerous to discard another perspective because some implementations have failed. The USA are the living proof of how two radically different systems can suffer from the same problems and collapse because of them. Why is it such a culture war against some genuinely very fine points that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels have made over a hundred years ago, which are relevant to this day?

Edit: typo. I apologise for forgetting about Friedrich Engels.

Removed by mod

Is-ought fallacy? Understand me correctly, I like the EU system, but to pretend that it’s the end of history and that we’ve reached perfection in this space is wrong.

Definitely a taste that would blow you away.

Have you ever been to an asda?

What do you think would happen if a population stayed within its own cesspit of a gene pool for a thousand years? ;)

Edit: typo.

Aged like fine milk in the sun.

TBO this situation is so ridiculously insane it might as well be.

Send this to Jensen every time he claims that frame generation is real performance.

Edit: typo

I like the crop factor because it essentially makes your optics better for free. Since it will only use the center of the lens, which is its best part. From your experience, does a speed booster actually have a large impact on optical quality, since you are adding an additional glass element?

Firstly, the Nikon cameras just use one mount, the so-called Nikon F mount. You can mount any sort of lens to a DX camera. I usually buy lenses from eBay, so that’s where I checked. I cannot talk about weather-proofing because I have no experience with it. I keep my stuff out of the rain. Maybe think about Buying a cloak in olive green or something that blends in with the natural environment to throw over yourself because it will cloak you and protect the camera and the lens from rain.

• Nikorr Af-S 200-500mm 5.6 ED VR ( AF-S in Nikon speak means the autofocus is internal, so it will be nice and snappy.)
• Nikkor AF-S 70-200 2.8 FL ED VR ( Used it will still be over budget for you, but the quality is absolutely worth it.)
• Tamron 70-200 2.8 DI VC G2 ( Basically the above lenses little brother.)

I think one of those three should meet your criteria.

Well, I wouldn’t say that one market is inherently stronger than the other. You can also buy a mirrorless camera for the price of one Pentax K70. Again, it just depends what’s better for your use case. If you only do wildlife photography and nothing else, a DSLR is the better choice because you get better autofocus for cheaper. But instead of a Pentax K70, I’d actually recommend the Nikon D7100. It was basically Nikon’s semi-professional offering, and the camera is great to this day. Also, Nikon’s product line for wildlife photography is just way better. An additional plus being that the Nikon Bayonet is the most supported bayonet for adapting. Since even with lenses that do not have an aperture ring, you can control the aperture on the adapter if you wish to adapt it to a mirrorless camera, for example. The D7100 also supports Nikon’s slightly older AF-D lenses. This just means the autofocus motor is inside the camera. That just means you sacrifice focus speed for cheaper wildlife lenses. Beyond the lookout for some AF-D Nikon glass. If you’re deterred because it’s older, look at few comments down. I had a conversation with a guy that basically recapitulates both perspectives.

While I agree with you that my claim was exaggerated, my claim remains true. While the differences you have outlined are correct, the differences for the photographer are basically negligible because it means essentially three things:

1. Better zooms
2. Better extreme wide angle optics (< 35 mm)
3. Yes, better coatings (which have a small impact on image quality, compared to optical design)

Well, before computers, all lenses were calculated using geometric optics, and these lessons are still true. The computer just makes it faster.

And on the topic of coatings, yes, we have gained fluoride element lenses, but what about thorium oxide doted lenses? Yes, you can’t use them on digital cameras because the radiation dosage will kill the sensor eventually, but if you have ever seen the image output of a thorium oxide lens, you know what I’m talking about.

Also additionally on the topic of them being bad, alright I’m getting the rare stuff out.

• Auto Rikenon 55/1.4
• Zeiss Distagon 35/2
• Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 58/2

And there are many more where that came from. Old stuff is useful. I’d genuinely like to see a modern post-2000 lens that has optical performance anywhere close to the outlined 3 lenses. Resolution isn’t everything, there are more qualities to a photographic lens. We are artists, not computers, needing the highest resolution lens for machine vision tasks. And I do enjoy more organic lenses, like three-element lenses. Yes, the resolution is rubbish, but everything else is great. The colour reproduction is insanely good, as is the micro-contrast, together with its brilliant, out-of-focus rendering. These are just qualities that you cannot get with an 11 element prime lens where every small bit of spherical aberration or transverse chromatic aberration has been tuned out because in the end you add more elements and kill some of the signal. That’s the natural trade-off and computers cannot fix the fundamental issue of absorption. You cannot buy physics, more elements mean more absorption. This will always remain the same, no matter if it’s 100 years ago, or in 1000 years, the laws of physics stay the same.

Tldr: If you only take away one thing, then just give old lenses a try. There’s no harm in trying the cheaper ones.

Edit: And also, yes, lightweight plastics means the lens will be lighter, but you pay the price in durability. And I will always prefer durability. Also, apochromatic lenses aren’t only possible because of computers. There are apochromatic lenses long before computers were a thing. Mostly today’s preferences have changed. Today means resolution at the cost of everything because that’s what sells products. But lenses are more than just resolution. They have many more qualities that are important as well for aesthetic photography. Again, we’re taking images for aesthetic effect, not for computers that need something for machine vision tasks.