J
John Everett
Guest
On Fri, 7 May 2004 09:52:44 -0400, <[email protected]> wrote:
>Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider" bikes..pro or cons
Any info you're likely to find here will be all con.
jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3
>Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider" bikes..pro or cons
Any info you're likely to find here will be all con.
jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3
M
Mark Tranchant
Guest
John Everett wrote:
>>Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider" bikes..pro or cons
> Any info you're likely to find here will be all con.
I can't work out whether that's a condemnation of landrider, or a general
comment on the pessimism of this group...
--
m.
>>Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider" bikes..pro or cons
> Any info you're likely to find here will be all con.
I can't work out whether that's a condemnation of landrider, or a general
comment on the pessimism of this group...
--
m.
R
Rich Clark
Guest
"Mark Tranchant" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John Everett wrote:
>
> >>Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider" bikes..pro or cons
>
> > Any info you're likely to find here will be all con.
>
> I can't work out whether that's a condemnation of landrider, or a general
> comment on the pessimism of this group...
It's a condemnation of Landrider, which is an overpriced, low-quality,
ill-conceived solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
Any decent bike shop can sell you a better bike for less money.
RichC
news:[email protected]...
> John Everett wrote:
>
> >>Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider" bikes..pro or cons
>
> > Any info you're likely to find here will be all con.
>
> I can't work out whether that's a condemnation of landrider, or a general
> comment on the pessimism of this group...
It's a condemnation of Landrider, which is an overpriced, low-quality,
ill-conceived solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
Any decent bike shop can sell you a better bike for less money.
RichC
B
BanditManDan
Guest
clutccargo69 wrote:
> Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider" bikes..pro or cons
If you go to thier
http://www.healthandbeautydirect.com/landrider/faq.htmlwebsite and read
the FAQ it will only take a few seconds to realize how stupid their
arguments are.
For example;
* They claim that shifting gears is confusing on regular bikes.
* They claim the Land Rider is faster than a 21 speed bike because you
arn't wasting time shifting.
* They claim to be safer since your not focused on shifting and can
focus better on the road.
Come on, those are way exagerated or all out false claims. Shifting
isn't really a big issue, and this is more of a gimick than anything
else. Stick with a regular bike, they are much more reliable and
better quality.
Dan.
--
> Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider" bikes..pro or cons
If you go to thier
http://www.healthandbeautydirect.com/landrider/faq.htmlwebsite and read
the FAQ it will only take a few seconds to realize how stupid their
arguments are.
For example;
* They claim that shifting gears is confusing on regular bikes.
* They claim the Land Rider is faster than a 21 speed bike because you
arn't wasting time shifting.
* They claim to be safer since your not focused on shifting and can
focus better on the road.
Come on, those are way exagerated or all out false claims. Shifting
isn't really a big issue, and this is more of a gimick than anything
else. Stick with a regular bike, they are much more reliable and
better quality.
Dan.
--
M
Marlene Blanshay
Guest
"Rich Clark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mark Tranchant" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > John Everett wrote:
> >
> > >>Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider" bikes..pro or cons
> >
> > > Any info you're likely to find here will be all con.
> >
> > I can't work out whether that's a condemnation of landrider, or a
general
> > comment on the pessimism of this group...
>
> It's a condemnation of Landrider, which is an overpriced, low-quality,
> ill-conceived solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
>
> Any decent bike shop can sell you a better bike for less money.
>
> RichC
Absolutely. I can't believe how much they charge for those things, based on
the gimmick that it makes things 'easier.' Yeah, easier for the shmucks
getting rich on ripping off the gullible!
For that money,get a mountain bike! I can't remember if it was here,or
somewhere else, but someone posted about finding one IN THE TRASH! And was
barely able to scavenge any decent components. Maybe some nuts or bolts.
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mark Tranchant" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > John Everett wrote:
> >
> > >>Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider" bikes..pro or cons
> >
> > > Any info you're likely to find here will be all con.
> >
> > I can't work out whether that's a condemnation of landrider, or a
general
> > comment on the pessimism of this group...
>
> It's a condemnation of Landrider, which is an overpriced, low-quality,
> ill-conceived solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
>
> Any decent bike shop can sell you a better bike for less money.
>
> RichC
Absolutely. I can't believe how much they charge for those things, based on
the gimmick that it makes things 'easier.' Yeah, easier for the shmucks
getting rich on ripping off the gullible!
For that money,get a mountain bike! I can't remember if it was here,or
somewhere else, but someone posted about finding one IN THE TRASH! And was
barely able to scavenge any decent components. Maybe some nuts or bolts.
C
Claire Petersky
Guest
"Mark Tranchant" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John Everett wrote:
>
> >>Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider" bikes..pro or cons
>
> > Any info you're likely to find here will be all con.
>
> I can't work out whether that's a condemnation of landrider,
Condemnation of the Landrider.
> or a general
> comment on the pessimism of this group...
We love cycling, and love to share our enthusiasm with others. That's why
we're down on this Piece O' S---.
--
Warm Regards,
Claire Petersky
Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
news:[email protected]...
> John Everett wrote:
>
> >>Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider" bikes..pro or cons
>
> > Any info you're likely to find here will be all con.
>
> I can't work out whether that's a condemnation of landrider,
Condemnation of the Landrider.
> or a general
> comment on the pessimism of this group...
We love cycling, and love to share our enthusiasm with others. That's why
we're down on this Piece O' S---.
--
Warm Regards,
Claire Petersky
Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
A
AustinMN
Guest
BanditManDan
>
> * They claim to be safer since your not focused on shifting and can
> focus better on the road.
* keyboard *
The last time I spent more than ten seconds thinking about shifting, it was
my first ten-speed, oh, about 1974.
Austin
>
> * They claim to be safer since your not focused on shifting and can
> focus better on the road.
* keyboard *
The last time I spent more than ten seconds thinking about shifting, it was
my first ten-speed, oh, about 1974.
Austin
P
Peter Cole
Guest
"Marlene Blanshay" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> For that money,get a mountain bike! I can't remember if it was here,or
> somewhere else, but someone posted about finding one IN THE TRASH! And was
> barely able to scavenge any decent components. Maybe some nuts or bolts.
I think that was me. I salvaged pretty much only the frame from a trash-day
example of its predecessor, the "AutoBike". Of course, it had hardly been
ridden, no wear on rim walls, tires or (clean) sprockets. Same idea, automatic
shifting. People get conned into buying these after watching an infomercial,
somehow being convinced that shifting was the thing that made bicycling so
difficult in the dim past. If someone can't deal with today's indexed shifting
then perhaps they should consider another pastime. These bikes are made to be
garage ornaments.
I replaced: the cranks, wheels, BB, pedals, tires, stem, bars, brakes, brake
levers, shifters, chain, cables, grips, saddle, seatpost. I added fenders,
rear rack, front bar-bag, and grocery pannier. It's now a pretty nice bike.
Damn frame/fork is awfully heavy, and the headset is junk, though. Perhaps
after I swap those out it'll be perfect.
>
> For that money,get a mountain bike! I can't remember if it was here,or
> somewhere else, but someone posted about finding one IN THE TRASH! And was
> barely able to scavenge any decent components. Maybe some nuts or bolts.
I think that was me. I salvaged pretty much only the frame from a trash-day
example of its predecessor, the "AutoBike". Of course, it had hardly been
ridden, no wear on rim walls, tires or (clean) sprockets. Same idea, automatic
shifting. People get conned into buying these after watching an infomercial,
somehow being convinced that shifting was the thing that made bicycling so
difficult in the dim past. If someone can't deal with today's indexed shifting
then perhaps they should consider another pastime. These bikes are made to be
garage ornaments.
I replaced: the cranks, wheels, BB, pedals, tires, stem, bars, brakes, brake
levers, shifters, chain, cables, grips, saddle, seatpost. I added fenders,
rear rack, front bar-bag, and grocery pannier. It's now a pretty nice bike.
Damn frame/fork is awfully heavy, and the headset is junk, though. Perhaps
after I swap those out it'll be perfect.
E
[email protected] wrote:
> Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider" bikes..pro or cons
I think that most people who say that a bicycle is too difficult or confusing
to shift either....
A. Have only ridden a bike from many years ago with friction shifting.
B. Ridden a bike with poorly adjusted indexed shifting.
Before I bought a good bicycle with indexed shifting, my only experiences were
with a Huffy w/friction shifting, a Murray with a double chainring only, an
old bike with a Sturmey Archer 3 speed, and finally single speeds with coaster
brakes.
An infomercial company could probably make money selling bikes with *indexed*
shifting as the main selling point since many people don't realize the
technology has changed over the years!
--
---
Eric Yagerlener
[email protected]
> Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider" bikes..pro or cons
I think that most people who say that a bicycle is too difficult or confusing
to shift either....
A. Have only ridden a bike from many years ago with friction shifting.
B. Ridden a bike with poorly adjusted indexed shifting.
Before I bought a good bicycle with indexed shifting, my only experiences were
with a Huffy w/friction shifting, a Murray with a double chainring only, an
old bike with a Sturmey Archer 3 speed, and finally single speeds with coaster
brakes.
An infomercial company could probably make money selling bikes with *indexed*
shifting as the main selling point since many people don't realize the
technology has changed over the years!
--
---
Eric Yagerlener
[email protected]
M
Marlene Blanshay
Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider" bikes..pro or cons
>
> I think that most people who say that a bicycle is too difficult or
confusing
> to shift either....
>
> A. Have only ridden a bike from many years ago with friction shifting.
> B. Ridden a bike with poorly adjusted indexed shifting.
>
> Before I bought a good bicycle with indexed shifting, my only experiences
were
> with a Huffy w/friction shifting, a Murray with a double chainring only,
an
> old bike with a Sturmey Archer 3 speed, and finally single speeds with
coaster
> brakes.
>
> An infomercial company could probably make money selling bikes with
*indexed*
> shifting as the main selling point since many people don't realize the
> technology has changed over the years!
>
I think the landrider is definelty aimed at those who have outmoded or
outdated or just wrong ideas about bikes, that they're 'complicated' or
'fancy'. JUst this weekend there was an article about 'funny bikes' in our
local paper, ie bents, electrics, cruisers, and other odd looking bikes, and
why people like them. One woman said she liked her cruiser because she
didn't want a 'fancy' mountain bike. Well, whatever suits her, she probably
just rides the bike a few blocks here and there, but I'd hardly call my
mountain bike fancy. And truthfully,with the shape some of our roads in the
city,you're better off with a mountain bike. I'd be nervous going over a
pothole or bump with one of those cruisers!
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider" bikes..pro or cons
>
> I think that most people who say that a bicycle is too difficult or
confusing
> to shift either....
>
> A. Have only ridden a bike from many years ago with friction shifting.
> B. Ridden a bike with poorly adjusted indexed shifting.
>
> Before I bought a good bicycle with indexed shifting, my only experiences
were
> with a Huffy w/friction shifting, a Murray with a double chainring only,
an
> old bike with a Sturmey Archer 3 speed, and finally single speeds with
coaster
> brakes.
>
> An infomercial company could probably make money selling bikes with
*indexed*
> shifting as the main selling point since many people don't realize the
> technology has changed over the years!
>
I think the landrider is definelty aimed at those who have outmoded or
outdated or just wrong ideas about bikes, that they're 'complicated' or
'fancy'. JUst this weekend there was an article about 'funny bikes' in our
local paper, ie bents, electrics, cruisers, and other odd looking bikes, and
why people like them. One woman said she liked her cruiser because she
didn't want a 'fancy' mountain bike. Well, whatever suits her, she probably
just rides the bike a few blocks here and there, but I'd hardly call my
mountain bike fancy. And truthfully,with the shape some of our roads in the
city,you're better off with a mountain bike. I'd be nervous going over a
pothole or bump with one of those cruisers!
A
Alex Rodriguez
Guest
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>John Everett wrote:
>>>Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider" bikes..pro or cons
>> Any info you're likely to find here will be all con.
>I can't work out whether that's a condemnation of landrider, or a general
>comment on the pessimism of this group...
landriders are a bad idea. The reason is quite simple. A human is not a
machine that puts out the same power all the time. When you start out
riding you are probably feeling nice and strong. As your ride progresses
and you get tired, the shifting stays the same, which is not going to be
optimal and you will find the bike is in the wrong gear all the time.
Shifting gears is not that complicated. It only takes a little practice
to learn how to do it. Why pay extra for an inferior product with inferior
results? For the price of a landrider you can get a decent bike.
---------------
Alex
says...
>John Everett wrote:
>>>Does anyone out there have any info on "landrider" bikes..pro or cons
>> Any info you're likely to find here will be all con.
>I can't work out whether that's a condemnation of landrider, or a general
>comment on the pessimism of this group...
landriders are a bad idea. The reason is quite simple. A human is not a
machine that puts out the same power all the time. When you start out
riding you are probably feeling nice and strong. As your ride progresses
and you get tired, the shifting stays the same, which is not going to be
optimal and you will find the bike is in the wrong gear all the time.
Shifting gears is not that complicated. It only takes a little practice
to learn how to do it. Why pay extra for an inferior product with inferior
results? For the price of a landrider you can get a decent bike.
---------------
Alex
F
Filmboard
Guest
There seems to be an incredible amount of knee-jerk animosity for the
Landrider on bicycling enthusiast forums like this one. Oddly, it
doesn't seem to come from first hand experience with this bike. I'll
agree that it may be possible to find a better bike for the same or less
money at a good bike shop. But, you know, we don't have a good bike shop
in my community, and what Sears and Walmart have to offer here is
pathetic. I have a Landrider, have used it daily since I got it, it
holds up, it's a fun ride, I can adjust the cadence anywhere from about
35 RPM to not quite 70 RPM. For the terrain in my valley where we have
very mildly rolling country, but at a tilt (about 200 feet difference in
a mile of travel), the bike doesn't shift much and I'm pleased to ride
at the level it puts me at. I'm not brain-dead, I don't find it
difficult to use another method of adjusting a derailleur, I just happen
to prefer riding the Landrider when I'm out looking for a photo.
I'm a video professional and a digital photography enthusiast, and if
you posed a question about any number of television sets, camcorders or
digital cameras that I'm sure many of you have, I find it difficult to
imagine many of my peers giving you the verbal finger like I see here in
this and other bicycle enthusiast forums.
By the way, when I was twelve I travelled from Colorado to St Louis on a
3-speed Raleigh that cost me $12 at the local hardware store. The
following year, I two-wheeled from Central Kansas to New York and back.
The bike shouldn't have lasted the trip, but every night I heated a cup
of oil and used it to clean and soak the chain. But I have no interest
in doing that kind of ride now at age 60. Did I research my purchase
thoroughly? Probably not. But I could afford the bike, it arrived almost
immediately at my doorstep in the boonies, it went together easily and
it's proving itself daily. That from someone who's touched one.
Peace!
--
Landrider on bicycling enthusiast forums like this one. Oddly, it
doesn't seem to come from first hand experience with this bike. I'll
agree that it may be possible to find a better bike for the same or less
money at a good bike shop. But, you know, we don't have a good bike shop
in my community, and what Sears and Walmart have to offer here is
pathetic. I have a Landrider, have used it daily since I got it, it
holds up, it's a fun ride, I can adjust the cadence anywhere from about
35 RPM to not quite 70 RPM. For the terrain in my valley where we have
very mildly rolling country, but at a tilt (about 200 feet difference in
a mile of travel), the bike doesn't shift much and I'm pleased to ride
at the level it puts me at. I'm not brain-dead, I don't find it
difficult to use another method of adjusting a derailleur, I just happen
to prefer riding the Landrider when I'm out looking for a photo.
I'm a video professional and a digital photography enthusiast, and if
you posed a question about any number of television sets, camcorders or
digital cameras that I'm sure many of you have, I find it difficult to
imagine many of my peers giving you the verbal finger like I see here in
this and other bicycle enthusiast forums.
By the way, when I was twelve I travelled from Colorado to St Louis on a
3-speed Raleigh that cost me $12 at the local hardware store. The
following year, I two-wheeled from Central Kansas to New York and back.
The bike shouldn't have lasted the trip, but every night I heated a cup
of oil and used it to clean and soak the chain. But I have no interest
in doing that kind of ride now at age 60. Did I research my purchase
thoroughly? Probably not. But I could afford the bike, it arrived almost
immediately at my doorstep in the boonies, it went together easily and
it's proving itself daily. That from someone who's touched one.
Peace!
--
B
BanditManDan
Guest
Filmboard wrote:
> There seems to be an incredible amount of knee-jerk animosity for the
> Landrider on bicycling enthusiast forums like this one. Oddly, it
> doesn't seem to come from first hand experience with this bike. I'll
> agree that it may be possible to find a better bike for the same or less
> money at a good bike shop. But, you know, we don't have a good bike shop
> in my community, and what Sears and Walmart have to offer here is
> pathetic. I have a Landrider, have used it daily since I got it, it
> holds up, it's a fun ride, I can adjust the cadence anywhere from about
> 35 RPM to not quite 70 RPM. .............
> I'm a video professional and a digital photography enthusiast, and if
> you posed a question about any number of television sets, camcorders or
> digital cameras that I'm sure many of you have, I find it difficult to
> imagine many of my peers giving you the verbal finger like I see here in
> this and other bicycle enthusiast forums...........
First let me say that I'm glad that your happy with your landrider and
arent just using it for garage decorations. But let me explain the
reason for the negative comments. The comments come from experience,
perhaps not first hand experience but experience just the same. I have
ridden enough bikes over the years to know what features are important
and which are just pure marketing hype. Shifting is not a big problem on
todays average bike and adding a auto-shifting derailer is just another
thing that will eventually need adjusting/fixing.
You also mentioned that your cadence ranges from 35 to 70 rpm's, but
what about people with bad knee's? I personally will get pain in my
knees if I pedal slower than 70 rpm's for extended periods of time. In
my case the auto-shifting bike would make biking painful an thus prevent
me from riding for more that about 30 minutes a day.
Since your a video professional I would hope that you would give an
honest opinion when someone asks for it. For example, I'm planning on
buying an expensive digital camera ($1000). Perhaps you could tell me if
it's worth the money. It has 640 x 480 resolution (low I know) but I
really like this new "auto" zoom feature. I would like to take pictures
mainly for my family albumn and perhaps my bike clubs news letter.
Should I buy it?
Enjoy your riding
Dan.
--
> There seems to be an incredible amount of knee-jerk animosity for the
> Landrider on bicycling enthusiast forums like this one. Oddly, it
> doesn't seem to come from first hand experience with this bike. I'll
> agree that it may be possible to find a better bike for the same or less
> money at a good bike shop. But, you know, we don't have a good bike shop
> in my community, and what Sears and Walmart have to offer here is
> pathetic. I have a Landrider, have used it daily since I got it, it
> holds up, it's a fun ride, I can adjust the cadence anywhere from about
> 35 RPM to not quite 70 RPM. .............
> I'm a video professional and a digital photography enthusiast, and if
> you posed a question about any number of television sets, camcorders or
> digital cameras that I'm sure many of you have, I find it difficult to
> imagine many of my peers giving you the verbal finger like I see here in
> this and other bicycle enthusiast forums...........
First let me say that I'm glad that your happy with your landrider and
arent just using it for garage decorations. But let me explain the
reason for the negative comments. The comments come from experience,
perhaps not first hand experience but experience just the same. I have
ridden enough bikes over the years to know what features are important
and which are just pure marketing hype. Shifting is not a big problem on
todays average bike and adding a auto-shifting derailer is just another
thing that will eventually need adjusting/fixing.
You also mentioned that your cadence ranges from 35 to 70 rpm's, but
what about people with bad knee's? I personally will get pain in my
knees if I pedal slower than 70 rpm's for extended periods of time. In
my case the auto-shifting bike would make biking painful an thus prevent
me from riding for more that about 30 minutes a day.
Since your a video professional I would hope that you would give an
honest opinion when someone asks for it. For example, I'm planning on
buying an expensive digital camera ($1000). Perhaps you could tell me if
it's worth the money. It has 640 x 480 resolution (low I know) but I
really like this new "auto" zoom feature. I would like to take pictures
mainly for my family albumn and perhaps my bike clubs news letter.
Should I buy it?
Enjoy your riding
Dan.
--
F
Filmboard
Guest
Dan,
You're absolutely right; I would give you an honest opinion when asked,
even on your hypothetical camera. Something on the order of. . .
"So from what I understand as the primary specifications of your
hypothetical camera. . . If you have intentions of mainly producing
photos for email and the web, a 640x480 camera with a large acquisition
chipset (which I expect you'll find in a camera of that resolution with
a $1000 price tag) will actually give you better color quality images
than a 4-megapixel with a tiny acquisition chip. On the other hand if
your bike club newsletter is printed by a commercial printer, you'll
find that the printer will likely require an image of a minimum of 200
dpi (dots per inch) at whatever image size you want to use in the
newsletter and will probably even request a 300 dpi image. Now if your
640x480 pixel camera has a large chip, it will probably store these
images at about 144 dpi, so you will be able to have 6"x4.5" uncropped
images in your newsletter that look fairly nice (proportionally smaller
at 300dpi). If it uses a tiny chip and stores images at 72 dpi, your
uncropped images will only be able to be a little over 3"x2" in your
newsletter without looking pixelated; that's something you'd want to
keep in mind, as it may be a reason to look for a camera that has a
larger pixel resolution. As to the auto-zoom feature (I bet you thought
they don't exist, Dan, but they do). If the feature sounds good to you,
and you can afford it, go for it. The two that I've used allow you to
have the camera memorize a face or other feature in the veiwfinder, by
drawing a box around it, and then the auto-zoom feature keeps the
framing fairly accurate as the memorized subject moves closer and
farther from the camera. The framing will not always be as aesthetic as
framed by a good professional photographer, but some do a decent job.
Because of the nature of the beast, an auto-zoom lens will be
considerably more expensive than a manual or standard power zoom.
Hopefully if enough people who have interest in this feature demonstrate
their interest through purchases and information requests, the cost will
eventually come down as the quality improves, and more people can
benefit from this technology.
I get asked for a lot of advice on cameras and that's about the way my
responses really come out. But I doubt that I would respond by saying:
"What you're looking at is an overpriced, low-quality, ill-conceived
solution to a problem that doesn't exist; the last time I thought about
how to use a manual zoom must have been with my first 35mm camera some
45 years ago. Come on, auto zoom is way exagerated and a false claim.
Zooming isn't really a big issue, This is more of a gimick than anything
else. Stick with a manual or power zoom camera, they are much more
reliable and better quality. I can't believe how much they charge for
those automated cameras, based solely on the gimmick that it makes
things 'easier' for the gullible! It's because I love photography that I
can't let you use this Piece O' S---. Any decent camera shop could sell
you a better camera for less money."
Dan, I feel I've made my point. If you don't agree, then I won't labor
over this issue. Thanks for your response.
--
You're absolutely right; I would give you an honest opinion when asked,
even on your hypothetical camera. Something on the order of. . .
"So from what I understand as the primary specifications of your
hypothetical camera. . . If you have intentions of mainly producing
photos for email and the web, a 640x480 camera with a large acquisition
chipset (which I expect you'll find in a camera of that resolution with
a $1000 price tag) will actually give you better color quality images
than a 4-megapixel with a tiny acquisition chip. On the other hand if
your bike club newsletter is printed by a commercial printer, you'll
find that the printer will likely require an image of a minimum of 200
dpi (dots per inch) at whatever image size you want to use in the
newsletter and will probably even request a 300 dpi image. Now if your
640x480 pixel camera has a large chip, it will probably store these
images at about 144 dpi, so you will be able to have 6"x4.5" uncropped
images in your newsletter that look fairly nice (proportionally smaller
at 300dpi). If it uses a tiny chip and stores images at 72 dpi, your
uncropped images will only be able to be a little over 3"x2" in your
newsletter without looking pixelated; that's something you'd want to
keep in mind, as it may be a reason to look for a camera that has a
larger pixel resolution. As to the auto-zoom feature (I bet you thought
they don't exist, Dan, but they do). If the feature sounds good to you,
and you can afford it, go for it. The two that I've used allow you to
have the camera memorize a face or other feature in the veiwfinder, by
drawing a box around it, and then the auto-zoom feature keeps the
framing fairly accurate as the memorized subject moves closer and
farther from the camera. The framing will not always be as aesthetic as
framed by a good professional photographer, but some do a decent job.
Because of the nature of the beast, an auto-zoom lens will be
considerably more expensive than a manual or standard power zoom.
Hopefully if enough people who have interest in this feature demonstrate
their interest through purchases and information requests, the cost will
eventually come down as the quality improves, and more people can
benefit from this technology.
I get asked for a lot of advice on cameras and that's about the way my
responses really come out. But I doubt that I would respond by saying:
"What you're looking at is an overpriced, low-quality, ill-conceived
solution to a problem that doesn't exist; the last time I thought about
how to use a manual zoom must have been with my first 35mm camera some
45 years ago. Come on, auto zoom is way exagerated and a false claim.
Zooming isn't really a big issue, This is more of a gimick than anything
else. Stick with a manual or power zoom camera, they are much more
reliable and better quality. I can't believe how much they charge for
those automated cameras, based solely on the gimmick that it makes
things 'easier' for the gullible! It's because I love photography that I
can't let you use this Piece O' S---. Any decent camera shop could sell
you a better camera for less money."
Dan, I feel I've made my point. If you don't agree, then I won't labor
over this issue. Thanks for your response.
--
B
BanditManDan
Guest
Filmboard wrote:
> As to the auto-zoom feature (I bet you thought they don't exist,
> Dan, but they do). If the feature sounds good to you, and you can
> afford it, go for it. .......... ........ Dan, I feel I've made my
> point. If you don't agree, then I won't labor over this issue.
> Thanks for your response.
Good response, and you've made your point. After going back and reading
my original post I guess it was somewhat condesending, I'm not trying to
put anyone's choices down. But it still doesnt change my opinion on the
benifits of the bike itself. Bottom line, as I've stated before, having
a mechanism that auto selects my cadance is not desirable for most
cyclists. In my case it actually would cause great discomfort to my
knees and therefore would limit my riding time. Not to mention the
possible problems in getting it serviced if need be.
And BTW, no I didn't know that camera's had auto-zoom. But that's
very cool.
Dan.
--
> As to the auto-zoom feature (I bet you thought they don't exist,
> Dan, but they do). If the feature sounds good to you, and you can
> afford it, go for it. .......... ........ Dan, I feel I've made my
> point. If you don't agree, then I won't labor over this issue.
> Thanks for your response.
Good response, and you've made your point. After going back and reading
my original post I guess it was somewhat condesending, I'm not trying to
put anyone's choices down. But it still doesnt change my opinion on the
benifits of the bike itself. Bottom line, as I've stated before, having
a mechanism that auto selects my cadance is not desirable for most
cyclists. In my case it actually would cause great discomfort to my
knees and therefore would limit my riding time. Not to mention the
possible problems in getting it serviced if need be.
And BTW, no I didn't know that camera's had auto-zoom. But that's
very cool.
Dan.
--
F
Filmboard
Guest
Dan, I can tell you're a decent guy. I just felt that there's a kind of
anger in the bicycling forums; perhaps it comes from cyclists being a
target on the road every day. Perhaps the group as a whole doesn't like
people who bike in their chinos as opposed to Spandex. And it's not just
this forum.
I was the producer of a 13-week PBS series that ran in 95-96 about the
Internet. On the program we solicited email comments about the show. On
the whole we got a lot of positive comments but there seemed to be a
rather large contingent of negative email from people claiming we were
misrepresenting the Internet experience, among other things. I requested
a statistical analysis of the email responses, and a pattern screamed
out at us; I'll never forget these numbers, because I use them in
marketing talks all the time. The negative email responses were about
35% of all email received. Of the negative responses 93% were from
people with AOL in their email address. Of the positive responses, only
about 7% were from people with AOL ISP accounts. I'm convinced to this
day, that something about the AOL Internet experience during that time
period had something to do with those extreme ratios. I've had a bit of
the same concern about all the cycling forums I've haunted lately.
The unfortunate thing is that, having seen the vitriolic feedback about
Landrider bikes, I'm afraid to pose the question I started searching
forums for advice on. I guess I need to start a cycling forum for the
casual rider as opposed to the serious hobbyist or professional.
Forum leader out there. . . I promise I'll stop with the long posts.
--
anger in the bicycling forums; perhaps it comes from cyclists being a
target on the road every day. Perhaps the group as a whole doesn't like
people who bike in their chinos as opposed to Spandex. And it's not just
this forum.
I was the producer of a 13-week PBS series that ran in 95-96 about the
Internet. On the program we solicited email comments about the show. On
the whole we got a lot of positive comments but there seemed to be a
rather large contingent of negative email from people claiming we were
misrepresenting the Internet experience, among other things. I requested
a statistical analysis of the email responses, and a pattern screamed
out at us; I'll never forget these numbers, because I use them in
marketing talks all the time. The negative email responses were about
35% of all email received. Of the negative responses 93% were from
people with AOL in their email address. Of the positive responses, only
about 7% were from people with AOL ISP accounts. I'm convinced to this
day, that something about the AOL Internet experience during that time
period had something to do with those extreme ratios. I've had a bit of
the same concern about all the cycling forums I've haunted lately.
The unfortunate thing is that, having seen the vitriolic feedback about
Landrider bikes, I'm afraid to pose the question I started searching
forums for advice on. I guess I need to start a cycling forum for the
casual rider as opposed to the serious hobbyist or professional.
Forum leader out there. . . I promise I'll stop with the long posts.
--
D
Doug Huffman
Guest
"Filmboard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
||
| Forum leader out there. . . I promise I'll stop with the long posts.
|
|
"Forum leader"? You misunderstand - a lot.
news
[email protected]...||
| Forum leader out there. . . I promise I'll stop with the long posts.
|
|
"Forum leader"? You misunderstand - a lot.
B
BanditManDan
Guest
David Reuteler wrote:
> Doug Huffman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Filmboard" <[email protected]> wrote in message newsB-
> > [email protected]BKqc.21521$DE4.20501@f-
> > e08.usenetserver.com...
> > ||
> > | Forum leader out there. . . I promise I'll stop with the long posts.
> >
> > "Forum leader"? You misunderstand - a lot.
> no, no. that would be me. the man behind the curtain.
> now be nice or i'll pull your access.
> --
> david reuteler [email protected]
If you guys paid attention you might have noticed that she posted from
[email protected]. Perhaps thats why she mentioned the
forum leader, she may not have even known that she was posting outside
the forum.
Dan.
--
> Doug Huffman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Filmboard" <[email protected]> wrote in message news
B-> > [email protected]
BKqc.21521$DE4.20501@f-> > e08.usenetserver.com...
> > ||
> > | Forum leader out there. . . I promise I'll stop with the long posts.
> >
> > "Forum leader"? You misunderstand - a lot.
> no, no. that would be me. the man behind the curtain.
> now be nice or i'll pull your access.
> --
> david reuteler [email protected]
If you guys paid attention you might have noticed that she posted from
[email protected]. Perhaps thats why she mentioned the
forum leader, she may not have even known that she was posting outside
the forum.
Dan.
--
D
David Reuteler
Guest
BanditManDan <[email protected]> wrote:
> If you guys paid attention you might have noticed that she posted from
> [email protected]. Perhaps thats why she mentioned the
> forum leader, she may not have even known that she was posting outside
> the forum.
question me again and i'll revoke your permission to post.
--
david reuteler
[email protected]
> If you guys paid attention you might have noticed that she posted from
> [email protected]. Perhaps thats why she mentioned the
> forum leader, she may not have even known that she was posting outside
> the forum.
question me again and i'll revoke your permission to post.
--
david reuteler
[email protected]
