landrider

[Filmboard]

Originally posted by \"El Paisano\

Be fair with the analogies. What is the ***same-priced***
alternative that is vastly superior to my point-and-shoot.
Matthew

There are hundreds of examples. (I thought I'd find an example in the same budget range as I paid for a Landrider, and I'll stay away from used items for the time being). B&H Photo is currently featuring a Nikon 35mm camera $350 with a $50 rebate. $400 without the rebate. It has a 28-80mm lens and you'll see that it has a nice piece of glass on the front which should collect plenty of light for your images. It shoots on 35mm film which can easily net you 28 megapixel images. There are WalMarts and Walgreens all over the nation that will give you one-hour processing and convert your film to digital if that's a need.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...il&Q=&sku=199520&is=USA&si=spec#goto_itemInfo

Without going to Circuit City or Costco, on the same site I find a digital point and shoot. In fact, to be as fair in the comparison as possible I took the first Nikon on the list for the same $400: a Nikon Coolpix 3700, 3.2 Megapixel, 3x Optical/4x Digital Zoom, Point-and-shoot, Digital Camera. This has a 5.4-16.2mm (35-105mm equivalent ) lens. What that means is that the diagonal dimension of the acquisition chip (replacing the film) is about 7.5 mm or about 1/3 of an inch as opposed to the 1.8 inches diameter of a frame of 35mm film. And it comes with a wimpy 16MB digital card which will only hold about 2 of the 3.2 megapixel images, so you'll have to spend another $50 minimum to get a bigger digital card.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...il&Q=&sku=304026&is=REG&si=spec#goto_itemInfo

Now, lest you try to pin some other motive on me, because you've not read the entire thread. My point is that I'm not going to be critical of you for your choice of auto point-and-shoot camera as long as it gets you out there capturing some photos. And if you asked me what I thought about your purchasing the second Nikon, I'd probably conclude, just because you're asking that it may be the best camera for you (unless I know of another similar one for about the same price that could do something else you want to do with it. But, the photos you get with the second Nikon will not be publishable at anywhere near the sizes or resolutions of what I could shoot with the first Nikon. There are good reasons for wanting an automatic digital camera (size, speed of getting images into your computer and up on the web or attached to an email (tho I've known plenty of folks who've never figured out the part of the process that gets the image out of the camera). But if I was going to limit myself to the same $400 expenditure, I'd choose the first Nikon in a heartbeat because of the added capability, and because I can't understand what all the fuss is about setting the exposure and focus manually is all about. I know you'll be able to dream up all kinds of holes to poke in my analogy, but I think it's fairer than you'd like to admit.
I have only one gripe that I feel I've been consistent in maintaining and that is that there is a knee-jerk negative reaction to a bike that most of you have never seen or riden.

 

[\"El Paisano\]

"Filmboard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> \"El Paisano\ wrote:
> > Be fair with the analogies. What is the ***same-
> > priced*** alternative that is vastly superior to my
> > point-and-shoot. Matthew
>
> There are hundreds of examples. (I thought I'd find an
> example in the same budget range as I paid for a
> Landrider, and I'll stay away from used items for the
> time being). B&H Photo is currently featuring a Nikon
> 35mm camera $350 with a $50 rebate. $400 without the
> rebate. It has a

Sorry for being unclear. I paid $70 for my Olympus Stylus
Epic (no zoom) point-and-shoot film camera. Is there another
camera at that price-point that would be superior? I ask
this question because most of the people reading this group
could point you to a superior bike for the same amount you
paid for the Landrider.

Matthew

 

[Filmboard]

Originally posted by \"El Paisano\
Sorry for being unclear. I paid $70 for my Olympus Stylus
Epic (no zoom) point-and-shoot film camera. Is there another
camera at that price-point that would be superior? I ask
this question because most of the people reading this group
could point you to a superior bike for the same amount you
paid for the Landrider.

Matthew

Nope. Have no recommendation for a better camera in that price range; you've done great, because you stuck to film in that low-end range. And I'm sure you don't have a better recommendation for the bike that I bought from Sears in that price range (which is a true pile of junk. Look back in this thread, though. Do you see anyone coming forward with a single recommendation. Don't try to alter my point, which I reiterated in the prior message. I think this group is negatively over-reactive about a bike for it sounds to me they have no personal knowledge. No one offered a suggestion for a better bike. But there were criticisms that it comes in only one frame size, which is not true. There were criticisms about the weight, which I've found plenty of other bikes that weigh the same or more as mine. I'm happy with my Landrider, it gets me out; I've admitted I may have been able to do better, but I can afford it, so what's the big deal?

 

[Bernie]

Filmboard wrote:

>\"El Paisano\ wrote:
> > Sorry for being unclear. I paid $70 for my Olympus
> > Stylus Epic (no zoom) point-and-shoot film camera. Is
> > there another camera at that price-point that would be
> > superior? I ask this question because most of the
> > people reading this group could point you to a superior
> > bike for the same amount you paid for the Landrider.
> > Matthew
>
>
>
>Nope. Have no recommendation for a better camera in that
>price range; you've done great, because you stuck to film
>in that low-end range. And I'm sure you don't have a better
>recommendation for the bike that I bought from Sears in
>that price range (which is a true pile of junk. Look back
>in this thread, though. Do you see anyone coming forward
>with a single recommendation. Don't try to alter my point,
>which I reiterated in the prior message. I think this group
>is negatively over-reactive about a bike for it sounds to
>me they have no personal knowledge. No one offered a
>suggestion for a better bike. But there were criticisms
>that it comes in only one frame size, which is not true.
>There were criticisms about the weight, which I've found
>plenty of other bikes that weigh the same or more as mine.
>I'm happy with my Landrider, it gets me out; I've admitted
>I may have been able to do better, but I can afford it, so
>what's the big deal?
>
>
The best point(s) you make about your bike are:
1) YOU like it
2) it gets you out Can't argue with that. In Vancouver BC
this year and last year at least, bike shops are selling
beach cruiser bikes like there's no tomorrow. I'd never
consider one, but I believe "each to his own taste"
should always apply. I hope you continue to enjoy the
ride. Bernie

 

[jj3pa]

Originally posted by BanditManDan
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.

I'm curious ... have you ever actually seen one in person ? Not the autobike, which from what I understand had parts that weren't as good as what they are putting in the landrider.

Even if its easier to shift from one gear to another, it is still daunting to some to know when to shift or what to shift to ..
How do you explain to a new person what is first, second .. etc on a bike with 6 on the back and 3 on the front (18) ? That part still isnt simple.

 

[Pete]

"jj3pa" <[email protected]> wrote

> Even if its easier to shift from one gear to another, it
> is still daunting to some to know when to shift or what to
> shift to .. How do you explain to a new person what is
> first, second .. etc on a bike with 6 on the back and 3 on
> the front (18) ? That part still isnt simple.

I've instructed a couple of newbies (kids, first time
adults) thusly:

1. Normal riding, leave it in the middle up front.
2. Make gross changes with the front rings (Uphill =
smaller, downhills = larger)
3. Adjust up and down with the back. If it's getting too
hard to pedal, go to the next bigger one in the back. Too
easy to pedal? Go to the next smaller.
- Due to the instant feedback through the feet and legs
(pedalling way too hard or easy), they know instantly if
they've shifted to the wrong gear. ("Brain - Don't do that
next time!")

They figure it out soon enough.

Pete

 

[Raoul Duke]

"jj3pa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Even if its easier to shift from one gear to another, it
> is still daunting to some to know when to shift or what to
> shift to .. How do you explain to a new person what is
> first, second .. etc on a bike with 6 on the back and 3 on
> the front (18) ? That part still isnt simple.

Gimme a break. If shifting gears on a bicycle is too tough
for you, have one of the eight year olds in your
neighborhood explain it to you.

Dave

 

[BanditManDan]

Originally posted by Pete
"jj3pa" <[email protected]> wrote

> Even if its easier to shift from one gear to another, it
> is still daunting to some to know when to shift or what to
> shift to .. How do you explain to a new person what is
> first, second .. etc on a bike with 6 on the back and 3 on
> the front (18) ? That part still isnt simple.

I've instructed a couple of newbies (kids, first time
adults) thusly:

1. Normal riding, leave it in the middle up front.
2. Make gross changes with the front rings (Uphill =
smaller, downhills = larger)
3. Adjust up and down with the back. If it's getting too
hard to pedal, go to the next bigger one in the back. Too
easy to pedal? Go to the next smaller.
- Due to the instant feedback through the feet and legs
(pedalling way too hard or easy), they know instantly if
they've shifted to the wrong gear. ("Brain - Don't do that
next time!")

They figure it out soon enough.

Pete

I think this pretty much sums up what I wanted to say. I was able to teach my kids how to shift with no problems at around the age of 7. But I do think my kids are gifted, or at least smarter than most of the adult population.

Dan.

 

[Leo Lichtman]

Does the Landrider understand about headwinds and hills, or
does it select a gear based on what some absentee designer
thought would be best "on average?"

 

[David Kerber]

In article <2hrzc.66992$Gx4.36143@bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
[email protected] says...
> Does the Landrider understand about headwinds and hills,
> or does it select a gear based on what some absentee
> designer thought would be best "on average?"

It understands your speed, is all. When you slow down, it
shifts down.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in
the newsgroups if possible).