BGD300V1
Senior Member
Most Tesla's run on coal or other fossil fuels.
--
My photo blog: http://birdsnbugs.com
RF Stock Portfolio - http://www.dreamstime.com/resp129611
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
D6
- Thread starter NatureFiles
- Start date
--
My photo blog: http://birdsnbugs.com
RF Stock Portfolio - http://www.dreamstime.com/resp129611
david vella
Senior Member
NOW , I understand where you are coming from - big T and A require big cameras . Okay fair enough .Blah, blah, blah....Sorry 'ol boy but you are just plain wrong .No you dont get it dude not everyone cares about mirrorless or saving a few ounces with the body only to be forced to use an adapter, is it sinking in yet, its a non-issue. Take your marketing BS and try to sell it to someone who cares, I don't .You just don't get it do you ?I think you should tell Nikon the f-mount is dead cause they just started taking pre-orders for the 500mm a few days ago... :-DqNikon is not going to go backwards , expect more Z mount cameras inc a heavy duty Pro model .This tells you everything you need to know.
Until the 300/400/500/600mm primes comes out for the Z-mount, Nikon will keep the D# series going. The guys with those primes are the market for the D# series cameras.
One more clue from today's announcement:
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-p...nses/af-s-nikkor-500mm-f%2f5.6e-pf-ed-vr.html
My money is on the next Summer Olympics for the D6.
The F mount is history in all but name , although it may take 5 /10 years for the transition to become complete but the direction of travel is now clear .
I have seen the new 500mm plus adaptor mounted on the Z7 and it works perfectly .
So transition will be no problem . Nikon do not need to wait for native Z pro telephoto long lenses to produce a super pro Z body as existing F mount primes already available .
That lens works equally well on the Z mount too and that is what the FTZ adapter has been is designed for , and there will be a transition period of 5 / 10 years. The F mount is not going away tomorrow or any time soon , but its successor is already here .
"Do you understand the words coming out of my mouth. "
Latest generation of F mount lenses work on on both F and Z bodies identically and the adapter is neither here nor there, it makes no difference especially on big lenses ,
Why do you think Nikon developed the Z mount , just for fun , because they could ?
No , they have developed the Z mount to guarantee their future in the camera business and that future is going to be mirrorless .
The DSLR is a hangover from film era SLRs, when film had to be protected from light by a shutter and a flipping mirror was part of the light path to the eye /viewfinder . A superior system to the Rangefinder back in the day which had many drawbacks, not least parallax
We now have a new 21st Century superior system of viewing the image straight off the sensor and the flippy mirror is no longer required .
Just as Tesla , and soon all the other major car makers too , no longer require fossil fuel.
Needless to say , you presumably still prefer a horse and cart .
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lickitysplit11111/
david vella
Senior Member
Not directly or locally, and that's the point . Electricity has to be generated anyway.
In the future, I expect battery tech to improve radically with much greater efficiency , and car body shells to become in effect solar/light generators creating constant charge independent of any grid .
Last edited:
Nikon agreed to do more than the suit required before the suit. The $99 discount lawyers did manage to limit the number of D600s covered and Nikon's liability was reduced as a result. If you think that was a great outcome, your ignorance is amazing.Japanese culture = put out a D600 and deny a problem exist until American's haul their butt into court slap them around in public and make them pay, Japs ask for non-disclosure agreement to save face Americans agree and wipe butt with it,OK, so now you have shown you know nothing about the Japanese culture and the concept of loosing face. Do a little research it will be good for you.Blah, blah, blah your like a broken record with the same BS every post , mirrorless is for suckers with xtra cash to throw away if you have to use an adapter with f-mount glass why bother , crap battery life,EVF lag, 1 card, 18 shot buffer and that’s just going by spec just wait till that turd reaches the users and ALL the bugs are exposed..
Nikons lens roadmap basically is telling you you have a long wait ahead of you so you can either walk around in dreamland for the next couple years or join us back on earth , the choice is yours ....
Research over..
You have achieved getting another user putting you on their ignore list.
BGD300V1
Senior Member
How much does it need? R&D will get spent more on processing than physical packaging. I suspect the Z and F mounts can co-exist for quite some time.
lickity split
Veteran Member
Nikon agreed to do more than the suit required before the suit. The $99 discount lawyers did manage to limit the number of D600s covered and Nikon's liability was reduced as a result. If you think that was a great outcome, your ignorance is amazing.Japanese culture = put out a D600 and deny a problem exist until American's haul their butt into court slap them around in public and make them pay, Japs ask for non-disclosure agreement to save face Americans agree and wipe butt with it,OK, so now you have shown you know nothing about the Japanese culture and the concept of loosing face. Do a little research it will be good for you.Blah, blah, blah your like a broken record with the same BS every post , mirrorless is for suckers with xtra cash to throw away if you have to use an adapter with f-mount glass why bother , crap battery life,EVF lag, 1 card, 18 shot buffer and that’s just going by spec just wait till that turd reaches the users and ALL the bugs are exposed
Nikons lens roadmap basically is telling you you have a long wait ahead of you so you can either walk around in dreamland for the next couple years or join us back on earth , the choice is yours ....
Research over..
You have achieved getting another user putting you on their ignore list.
Are you actively using both?
Care to educate us about the "differentiation", when do you use one or the other and why, etc?
I have a D850, trying to figure out a "need" for D5?
Thanks
Ask Mait
Leading Member
David, I hate you.
Whatever you are saying here sound true.... and I hate to accept the fact.
Rexgig0
Veteran Member
Yes, I use both. The story is quite complex, and a bit of a mess.
Short version: D5 in low light, and D850 in good light. Keep in mind that some folks were howling that the D5 has worse DR at low ISO than its predecessors, the D4s and D4. Some had said it was about as good as a D3s, at low ISO.
Well, much of my shooting is at ISO 3200 and higher, so I was not bothered by the naysayers, regarding low-ISO DR. I was not sure I wanted to add a another large camera body, but finally decided to buy the D5.
The D5 was planned to be my big-buffer action-shooting camera, with a shift to Nikon as my primary bird and wildlife system. The addition of a big Nikon telephoto lens, perhaps a Nikkor 500/4E, that my wife and I could share, was a part of that plan. The shortage of XQD cards in February and March 2018 interrupted that shift, and the super-tele acquisition postponed.
With Spring Migration imminent, and no XQD cards available for my wife’s new D850, I gave her one of the three XQD cards I had bought when I had acquired my D5 a month earlier. My best bird lens, at that moment in time, was still my EF 100-400L II IS. My Canon camera, with best AF, was a 5Ds R, with better AF than my 7D Mark II cameras, but the 5Ds R has a slow frame rate, and a small buffer. I had several fast CF and SD cards. So, for birds and distant wildlife, I quickly added a 5D IV.
Spending money on the 5D IV meant not enough funding was left for a 500/4E, in 2018, but left me with the ability to afford a D850. Re-injuring my aging left shoulder and upper arm made hand-holding a large telephoto problematic, anyway. When the D850 availability situation improved, in July, I added my D850.
Another factor favoring the addition of a D850 is that I have never added a really good wide-angle lens on the Canon side, except for my EF 35/1.4L II. So, rather than shift toward Nikon for birds, the shift to Nikon has become for landscape, and wider-angle nature images. Nikon had already been my low-light system, when not using flash, and that part has been reinforced by adding a D5. My Canon equipment is not going away, but my 5Ds R is rather limited in usefulness, as the D850 has almost as many MP, and is a better general-purpose camera, relegating the 5Ds R to specialist status.
--
I wore a police badge and pistol, and made evidentiary images at night, incorporating elements of portrait, macro, still life, landscape, architecture, and PJ. (Retired January 2018.) I enjoy using Canon and Nikon gear.
Last edited:
jfriend00
Forum Pro
A couple points to this:
- At least most fossil fuel power plants are cleaner for the environment than fossil fuel car engines (particularly natural gas power plants).
- Some Tesla owners (particularly those in California where Teslas are very popular) install home solar and thus a higher percentage of their Tesla electricity comes from their home solar, particularly if they install a solar storage battery at home, but even if not.
- We were on a path to cut back coal until a certain president decided that we need to burn more coal, not less.
- In California in 2017 (again where a lot of Teslas are), the data looks very different than your chart. Coal is 4.1%, Renewables + Hydro is 44%.
- If you believe that California leads the nation in progression to cleaner power, then the future may not look quite like your chart (which provides no reference for where it came from) projects in the future years.
Source: California Entergy Commission: http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html
--
John
Canadianguy
Senior Member
Don't you need coal to make Steel from Iron?A couple points to this:
Here's the 2017 data for California electric power.
- At least most fossil fuel power plants are cleaner for the environment than fossil fuel car engines (particularly natural gas power plants).
- Some Tesla owners (particularly those in California where Teslas are very popular) install home solar and thus a higher percentage of their Tesla electricity comes from their home solar, particularly if they install a solar storage battery at home, but even if not.
- We were on a path to cut back coal until a certain president decided that we need to burn more coal, not less.
- In California in 2017 (again where a lot of Teslas are), the data looks very different than your chart. Coal is 4.1%, Renewables + Hydro is 44%.
- If you believe that California leads the nation in progression to cleaner power, then the future may not look quite like your chart (which provides no reference for where it came from) projects in the future years.
Source: California Entergy Commission: http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html
And isn't the Model 3 made out of Steel?
Last edited:
madecov
Veteran Member
Not too mention the heavy metals in batteries that are just dumped. Again, there is no free lunch.Don't you need coal to make Steel from Iron?A couple points to this:
Here's the 2017 data for California electric power.
- At least most fossil fuel power plants are cleaner for the environment than fossil fuel car engines (particularly natural gas power plants).
- Some Tesla owners (particularly those in California where Teslas are very popular) install home solar and thus a higher percentage of their Tesla electricity comes from their home solar, particularly if they install a solar storage battery at home, but even if not.
- We were on a path to cut back coal until a certain president decided that we need to burn more coal, not less.
- In California in 2017 (again where a lot of Teslas are), the data looks very different than your chart. Coal is 4.1%, Renewables + Hydro is 44%.
- If you believe that California leads the nation in progression to cleaner power, then the future may not look quite like your chart (which provides no reference for where it came from) projects in the future years.
Source: California Entergy Commission: http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html
And isn't the Model 3 made out of Steel?
--
Police Officer (Retired)
No plan survives first contact with the enemy.
david vella
Senior Member
Except there will be far less air pollution in congested cities . That is a benefit surely .Not too mention the heavy metals in batteries that are just dumped. Again, there is no free lunch.Don't you need coal to make Steel from Iron?A couple points to this:
Here's the 2017 data for California electric power.
- At least most fossil fuel power plants are cleaner for the environment than fossil fuel car engines (particularly natural gas power plants).
- Some Tesla owners (particularly those in California where Teslas are very popular) install home solar and thus a higher percentage of their Tesla electricity comes from their home solar, particularly if they install a solar storage battery at home, but even if not.
- We were on a path to cut back coal until a certain president decided that we need to burn more coal, not less.
- In California in 2017 (again where a lot of Teslas are), the data looks very different than your chart. Coal is 4.1%, Renewables + Hydro is 44%.
- If you believe that California leads the nation in progression to cleaner power, then the future may not look quite like your chart (which provides no reference for where it came from) projects in the future years.
Source: California Entergy Commission: http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html
And isn't the Model 3 made out of Steel?
madecov
Veteran Member
While the water table is destroyed manufacturing and disposing of batteriesExcept there will be far less air pollution in congested cities . That is a benefit surely .Not too mention the heavy metals in batteries that are just dumped. Again, there is no free lunch.Don't you need coal to make Steel from Iron?A couple points to this:
Here's the 2017 data for California electric power.
- At least most fossil fuel power plants are cleaner for the environment than fossil fuel car engines (particularly natural gas power plants).
- Some Tesla owners (particularly those in California where Teslas are very popular) install home solar and thus a higher percentage of their Tesla electricity comes from their home solar, particularly if they install a solar storage battery at home, but even if not.
- We were on a path to cut back coal until a certain president decided that we need to burn more coal, not less.
- In California in 2017 (again where a lot of Teslas are), the data looks very different than your chart. Coal is 4.1%, Renewables + Hydro is 44%.
- If you believe that California leads the nation in progression to cleaner power, then the future may not look quite like your chart (which provides no reference for where it came from) projects in the future years.
Source: California Entergy Commission: http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html
And isn't the Model 3 made out of Steel?
--
Police Officer (Retired)
No plan survives first contact with the enemy.
david vella
Senior Member
Hate ? That's a bit strong !
Nikon, and the camera industry in general, must generate profits or cease to exist . New inventions, new products , new generations of users , it was ever thus .
david vella
Senior Member
That obviously cannot be allowed and will be addressed .While the water table is destroyed manufacturing and disposing of batteriesExcept there will be far less air pollution in congested cities . That is a benefit surely .Not too mention the heavy metals in batteries that are just dumped. Again, there is no free lunch.Don't you need coal to make Steel from Iron?A couple points to this:
Here's the 2017 data for California electric power.
- At least most fossil fuel power plants are cleaner for the environment than fossil fuel car engines (particularly natural gas power plants).
- Some Tesla owners (particularly those in California where Teslas are very popular) install home solar and thus a higher percentage of their Tesla electricity comes from their home solar, particularly if they install a solar storage battery at home, but even if not.
- We were on a path to cut back coal until a certain president decided that we need to burn more coal, not less.
- In California in 2017 (again where a lot of Teslas are), the data looks very different than your chart. Coal is 4.1%, Renewables + Hydro is 44%.
- If you believe that California leads the nation in progression to cleaner power, then the future may not look quite like your chart (which provides no reference for where it came from) projects in the future years.
Source: California Entergy Commission: http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html
And isn't the Model 3 made out of Steel?
jfriend00
Forum Pro
Nowhere did I say that the manufacture of a Tesla requires no fossil fuel resources. I'm not sure where you got that from. I'm disputing the validity of the energy statistics of the first one to bring this up. From the 50,000 foot view here, I think everyone agrees that an electric car (of any brand) contributes less pollution to the environment than a fossil fuel car and that's a generally good direction to be moving in. That should be the main point here.Don't you need coal to make Steel from Iron?A couple points to this:
Here's the 2017 data for California electric power.
- At least most fossil fuel power plants are cleaner for the environment than fossil fuel car engines (particularly natural gas power plants).
- Some Tesla owners (particularly those in California where Teslas are very popular) install home solar and thus a higher percentage of their Tesla electricity comes from their home solar, particularly if they install a solar storage battery at home, but even if not.
- We were on a path to cut back coal until a certain president decided that we need to burn more coal, not less.
- In California in 2017 (again where a lot of Teslas are), the data looks very different than your chart. Coal is 4.1%, Renewables + Hydro is 44%.
- If you believe that California leads the nation in progression to cleaner power, then the future may not look quite like your chart (which provides no reference for where it came from) projects in the future years.
Source: California Entergy Commission: http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html
And isn't the Model 3 made out of Steel?
This has strayed far, far off-topic so I will cease to be involved in this side discussion.
--
John
Last edited:
david vella
Senior Member
You actually bought a D600 ?Lol , as a result of the suit which I was part of Nikon called me an asked me where would I like my New D610 delivered too, get your facts straight then distort them as you which--Nikon agreed to do more than the suit required before the suit. The $99 discount lawyers did manage to limit the number of D600s covered and Nikon's liability was reduced as a result. If you think that was a great outcome, your ignorance is amazing.Japanese culture = put out a D600 and deny a problem exist until American's haul their butt into court slap them around in public and make them pay, Japs ask for non-disclosure agreement to save face Americans agree and wipe butt with it,OK, so now you have shown you know nothing about the Japanese culture and the concept of loosing face. Do a little research it will be good for you.Blah, blah, blah your like a broken record with the same BS every post , mirrorless is for suckers with xtra cash to throw away if you have to use an adapter with f-mount glass why bother , crap battery life,EVF lag, 1 card, 18 shot buffer and that’s just going by spec just wait till that turd reaches the users and ALL the bugs are exposed
Nikons lens roadmap basically is telling you you have a long wait ahead of you so you can either walk around in dreamland for the next couple years or join us back on earth , the choice is yours ....
Research over..
You have achieved getting another user putting you on their ignore list.
BGD300V1
Senior Member
The chart and projections came from the US Energy Information Agency (eia.gov). Their logo is at the top right.
While CA only has one remaining coal fired plant they still rely a lot on imported coal fired and NG power.
jfriend00
Forum Pro
The imported power in CA is in that chart as separate columns and the numbers I posted include that. The total for coal (including imports) is still only 4.1%.
Yes, there is sizable Natural Gas as that is still the most effective power source that can turn its generation up and down quickly vs. demand and, in the middle of the day, some regions in CA get a ton from solar and have to dial the NG down to almost zero. To work with the solar better, PG&E is installing several large battery farms (from Tesla, I believe) to store the excess solar produced in the middle of the day for use later in the day which is certainly a beneficial thing to do.
I think most people believe that while Natural Gas produces CO2, it's way cleaner overall than burning coal. And, there's more and more solar and wind coming on line in CA too. With our more regular droughts, we will hopefully invest in more dams for water storage (still controversial with some environmentalists, though one kind of has to pick your poison here since the alternative of not building more dams may be worse for the environment) which usually come with a side benefit of additional hydro power generation too.
--
John
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum