Reviews Written By: A1FHUYGO3OWWRFprovided by Amazon.com |
 | ||
 | Concealed Carry : The Shooter's Guide to Selecting Handguns | |
 | "Not so great" | 2009-08-21 |
| Quite disappointing. I guess someone who knows nothing at all about firearms would get something out of it but for anyone with the least bit of experience in using guns this is not worth the effort. I thought some of the information was off target (pun intended). Photos did not match captions in some instances. The same old dogma about .45 caliber being the best choice. And, yes, the photo on the cover is Wiley Clapp's favorite snubnose revolver--despite the vast number of other reviewers who report you risk nerve damage in your hand by shooting magnum loads in such a lightweight handgun.
Oh, well.... | ||
 | The Concealed Handgun Manual: How To Choose, Carry, And Shoot A Gun In Self Defense | |
 | "Better than I expected" | 2009-08-21 |
| Quite frankly, I did not expect much from this book. It surprised me. The accounts of people defending themselves were heartfelt and the lack of dogma was refreshing. I highly recommend this book to those who are considering carrying a firearm for self defense purposes. It's a realistic view of what you might expect should you ever have to use that gun. | ||
 | Swift 8.5x44 Audobon Binocular HHS, Roof Prism, Phase Coated, Waterproof with Case | |
| "My current favorite binoculars" | 2008-12-23 |
| I've had these binoculars for over one year. I use them mainly for birding. My previous binoculars were my almost 25 year old Leitz Trinovid 10x40's. The Trinovids were excellent binoculars in their day but they are definitely getting long in the tooth. I'll keep them because, let's face it, I'll never be able to afford the current Leica binoculars. I tried several brands before settling on the Swift Audubon roof prisms. What I found was that some binoculars excel in some areas but fall short in others. Of those I tried, the Audubons were the most comfortable to use with good depth of field, brightness and sharpness. Oddly, the Audubons do not really seem to excel in any area--they simply provide a combination of attributes that make them pleasant to use. I give these binoculars my highest recommendation. Unfortunately, the only way to tell if a binocular fits your vision and handling characteristics is to try them. That's impossible when ordering online so be sure to order from a place like Amazon--a place that will take them back if they don't work for you. | ||
 | HP Premium Plus Photo Paper, Glossy | |
| "This is the best choice for use in HP printers" | 2008-12-22 |
| I've used HP photo printers for several years. I've used quite a few brands of papers over that time and none consistently look as good or work with less frustration than HP's own Premium Plus glossy. I really like to shoot black and white--both digitally and with film. Other brands will dry down with some strange off-color tints. In color or black and white, sometimes the prints dry so slowly they stick together when they feed from the printer. And sometimes the prints fade out pretty fast. the Premium Plus glossy papers simply work better with the HP printers. With the Vivera inks, HP says your photos will last longer than photofinisher prints. I can't verify that assertion. But the prints always look good and, with proper storage, they should serve the majority of home photographers well. While many will complain about the cost of this paper, they surely haven't done any chemical photo processing. The price of a 25-sheet package of high quality fiber-based black and white silver-based photographic paper will usually cost considerably more than a 50-sheet box of the HP Premium Plus. The inks are costly as well but photo chemicals are also expensive and require a dedicated area to make your prints. Printing with ink is more convenient, produces adequate quality and can be done economically and consistently. | ||
 | HP Premium Plus Photo Paper, Glossy (50, 8.5x11 Inch Sheets) | |
| "This is the best choice for use in HP printers" | 2008-12-22 |
| I've used HP photo printers for several years. I've used quite a few brands of papers over that time and none consistently look as good or work with less frustration than HP's own Premium Plus glossy. I really like to shoot black and white--both digitally and with film. Other brands will dry down with some strange off-color tints. In color or black and white, sometimes the prints dry so slowly they stick together when they feed from the printer. And sometimes the prints fade out pretty fast. the Premium Plus glossy papers simply work better with the HP printers. With the Vivera inks, HP says your photos will last longer than photofinisher prints. I can't verify that assertion. But the prints always look good and, with proper storage, they should serve the majority of home photographers well. While many will complain about the cost of this paper, they surely haven't done any chemical photo processing. The price of a 25-sheet package of high quality fiber-based black and white silver-based photographic paper will usually cost considerably more than a 50-sheet box of the HP Premium Plus. The inks are costly as well but photo chemicals are also expensive and require a dedicated area to make your prints. Printing with ink is more convenient, produces adequate quality and can be done economically and consistently. | ||
 | Personal Exposures | |
| "Anti-photographs" | 2008-11-14 |
| Elliott Erwitt has made more enjoyable photographs than any other photographer, in my opinion. I have numerous books of his photos and I can't help but smile everytime I take one off the shelf and thumb through it. It really brightens up my day. If you're not familiar with his work--hard to imagine that--this is a good book to get a selection. Also "Snaps" is highly recommended. I didn't buy "Personal Best" due to the price and now it's even more expensive as an out-of-print book. That one is probably a good choice too if it gets reprinted at a reasonable price. | ||
 | Streamlight 88103 TL-3 3-Cell Lithium Tactical Flashlight | |
| "Replacement for the Maglite" | 2008-11-12 |
| I've owned Maglites for more than two decades but I've always found them to be heavy and clumsy in use. That didn't matter because they were powerful and very durable. But now I've found a replacement that is more powerful, not heavy and not clumsy to use. The Streamlight TL-3 punches out a beam that can reach far and deep. Another poster said it's almost too powerful for some tasks and that is correct. The TL-3 is in its element when you need a lot of light on a subject in the distance. I keep a less powerful light available along with the TL-3. One reviewer complained of the tailcap switch. The switch is fairly common these days for "tactical" lights. Law enforcement and military personnel who need to use lights to locate threats use the tailcap switch for momentary-on purposes by just lightly pressing the switch for a quick blip. The TL-3 can also be used in constant-on status by pressing the switch until it clicks. The tailcap rotates to prevent accidental switching on while being carried. It's really a simple and straightforward switch but it might be a little confusing to those unfamiliar with its purpose. Some lights, are switched to constant-on by twisting the tailcap clockwise. My particular TL-3 clicks on and off with the tailcap button. The TL-3 is a great replacement for a big Maglite. Buy the batteries at a savings online--I use Battery Junction but there are others who advertise good prices as well. If you buy at the local Home Depot, Lowe's or drugstore, the price of 123A lithium cells will be prohibitive. | ||
 | Streamlight 88102 TL-2 2-Cell Lithium Tactical Flashlight | |
| "Great light at a great price" | 2008-09-11 |
| Wow! I just bought this light from Amazon a couple of weeks ago and now there's been a price reduction that makes it an even better deal. Streamlight produces well-made and well-respected lights at a reasonable price. In the area of "cop-lights", they compete with SureFire. SureFire is probably the number one flashlight for military/law enforcement applications but Streamlight is right up there with them in quality and function. Streamlights are usually a little bit lower in price. The TL-2 is a basic "tactical" light. It's an incandescent light with a focusable beam and a tailcap momentary-on switch that can be locked on by twisting the tailcap down. The ability to focus the light is really not very important. What you really do is de-focus the beam to spread it out a little and what you also get is a dark hole in the middle. Forget the focus application. Focus it to a bright center beam and use the spill for the surrounding area. The TL-2 uses a Xenon bulb. It's very powerful and it puts out a lot of light--more than my 3D-cell Maglites in a size you can hold in the palm of your hand. The trade-off for the power is that the batteries in the TL-2 will have a shorter lifespan. And the 123A batteries are pretty expensive if you buy them at Walmart or Walgreen's. Order them online. There are several sources that offer them at substantial discounts. Xenon bulbs will burn out over time and will need to be replaced. There's a spare in the TL-2 head, behind the silver cap. That's nice to have access to a spare because you know the bulb will blow at the most inopprotune time. The body of the flashlight is aluminum. It has raised, coarse alligator skin cleats that give you a very grippy surface. It has a removeable pocket clip that I find handy. It has a cord you can attach to the clip that I find useless. Streamlight also has an LED version of this light. Actually, I think there are three generations of the TL-2 LED light. I have the second generation model. It's not quite as bright as the Xenon-bulb model but I like the quality and color of the LED model's beam a bit more. The current generation LED TL-2 is advertised to be about the same power as the Xenon model but it costs more. The LED model has the upper hand in the fact that you will never need to change the bulb, the batteries will last longer and the LED is almost impervious to shock. Overall an LED light will be more economical in the long run, however, the standard TL-2 is now selling for about half the price of of the TL-2 LED. For the price, you will not be disappointed. | ||
 | The Gun Digest Book of the Glock: A Comprehensive Review: Design, History, Use | |
 | "Second Edition "...Book of the Glock"" | 2008-07-23 |
| Previous reviews appear to be concerned with the first edition of this book. Despite this, the criticisms presented by those reviews are valid for the second edition. A significant portion of the book concerns the 1911 Government Model in its various incarnations. While I can appreciate the comparisons between the Glock and the 1911--I also have a fondness for the 1911--there really is too much time spent in this area. Another point to make is how much of the book is devoted to various competitions. Many books concerning firearms tend to lean heavily toward promoting shooting competitions. Nothing wrong with this if that is your interest, however, if competition sports is not your particular interest (it's not mine), another significant portion of this book will be wasted on you. Glocks are simple, straightforward firearms that don't allow for much in the way of modification or gunsmithing improvements. If you write a book about them, I suppose you have to digress into other areas of general firearms interests. Otherwise, the book would be rather short. There's not much you can say after saying that Glocks work great right out of the box, seldom stop working no matter how they are abused, generally are easy to shoot well with minimum training and they have been a phenomenon in their acceptance by shooters worldwide. Oh, yeah...you could say they are kind of ugly. That's about the only real criticism you can come up with for the Glock. I like the book although I admit that I did skip over some sections and I only skimmed through others. | ||
 | Canon EOS 30D 8.2MP Digital SLR Camera (Body only) | |
| "A very nice camera" | 2007-12-24 |
| I'm really a film photographer at heart. I just like the process of developing film, printing photos and looking at a black and white pictures printed on fiber-based photographic paper. I initially resisted digital photography as a poor imitation of "real" photography. While using the EOS 30D has not totally changed that belief, it has made me realize that photography encompasses more than my own narrow viewpoints.
I've been using Canon EOS film cameras and Canon EF lenses (among numerous other 35mm and medium format cameras and lenses) for about nine years. In that time, Canon equipment has proven to be reliable, precise and well made. When I decided to buy a digital camera, I knew it would be a Canon DSLR. Surprisingly, it was simple for me to learn the basics of digital photography despite my lack of computer savvy. Not surprisingly, the 30D got little use in the first several months of ownership due to my innate distrust of new equipment. After a bit of doodling around with the camera, I learned to trust it and I'm using it more and more. If you've used an EOS SLR in the past, you will find the 30D to feel very familiar. It's a comfortable camera to use despite it being rather small and my hands being pretty large. Like all Canon models above the Rebel level, control buttons and wheels are all in natural positions and easily manipulated. The viewfinder is smaller than Canon 35mm and full frame digital SLRs and it has taken some getting used to. Initial trepidation with using CF cards instead of film has proven to be without basis. After experimenting with the camera's built-in software, I am getting nice, sharp, saturated color photos and some very impressive monochromes. Using a dedicated photo printer, I am impressed with inkjets that simply look stunning. Will I give up film for digital? Certainly not--at least for my black and white work. I still prefer a fiber and silver-based black and white photograhic print over an inkjet and I don't intend to shut down my darkroom or give up my film cameras. I will admit, as a general rule, digital photographs are now acceptable me when the circumstances are appropriate. | ||
 | Canon EOS 30D 8.2MP Digital SLR Camera Kit with EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS Lens | |
| "A very nice camera" | 2007-12-24 |
| I'm really a film photographer at heart. I just like the process of developing film, printing photos and looking at a black and white pictures printed on fiber-based photographic paper. I initially resisted digital photography as a poor imitation of "real" photography. While using the EOS 30D has not totally changed that belief, it has made me realize that photography encompasses more than my own narrow viewpoints.
I've been using Canon EOS film cameras and Canon EF lenses (among numerous other 35mm and medium format cameras and lenses) for about nine years. In that time, Canon equipment has proven to be reliable, precise and well made. When I decided to buy a digital camera, I knew it would be a Canon DSLR. Surprisingly, it was simple for me to learn the basics of digital photography despite my lack of computer savvy. Not surprisingly, the 30D got little use in the first several months of ownership due to my innate distrust of new equipment. After a bit of doodling around with the camera, I learned to trust it and I'm using it more and more. If you've used an EOS SLR in the past, you will find the 30D to feel very familiar. It's a comfortable camera to use despite it being rather small and my hands being pretty large. Like all Canon models above the Rebel level, control buttons and wheels are all in natural positions and easily manipulated. The viewfinder is smaller than Canon 35mm and full frame digital SLRs and it has taken some getting used to. Initial trepidation with using CF cards instead of film has proven to be without basis. After experimenting with the camera's built-in software, I am getting nice, sharp, saturated color photos and some very impressive monochromes. Using a dedicated photo printer, I am impressed with inkjets that simply look stunning. Will I give up film for digital? Certainly not--at least for my black and white work. I still prefer a fiber and silver-based black and white photograhic print over an inkjet and I don't intend to shut down my darkroom or give up my film cameras. I will admit, as a general rule, digital photographs are now acceptable me when the circumstances are appropriate. | ||
 | Blood and Champagne: The Life and Times of Robert Capa | |
| "It's okay" | 2007-09-14 |
| Capa is one of the romantic characters of journalism, a free spirit with an insatiable appetite for risk-taking, alcohol, cigarettes and women. That he died at age 40 in the line of duty as a war photographer has only embellished his image. These are the facts we have known about Capa for decades, reported nicely in Whelan's biography in the 1980's. This book doesn't expand on this information very much. If you leave out the sections about the famous women he bedded, this would be a much shorter book. It's tawdry in that regard but that does keep the book rolling along. Overall, it's not a bad biography of Capa. It does seem to me to borrow heavily from Whelan's biography and from Capa's own book "Slightly Out Of Focus". If you're familiar with those books, there are no new revelations here. I do take issue with one small point. Capa is constantly referred to as having Leicas dangling around his neck, using Leicas on assignments and holding Leicas. While I do not doubt Capa used Leicas--along with other brands of cameras--during his career, Kershaw's repeated references are tedious. This is especially true when one considers that Capa is closely identified with the now defunct 35mm Zeiss Contax, he used Contax cameras during the D-Day invasion and he was using Contax cameras at the time of his death in Indochina in 1954. In fact, the two photographs in Kershaw's book that show Capa with a camera "dangling around his neck" actually show him with Contax cameras, not Leicas. That small point is indeed small, however, it begs the question of how correct the other information might be. Of course biographies are often based on hearsay and ancedotal information, the veracity of which is open to interpretation. Maybe Kershaw was just invoking creative license and using Leica as metaphor. It's not a point any non-photographer reader would even notice. Still, I find it a little troubling. Overall, this is a decent but derivative sketch of Capa. | ||
 | Heather Myles - Sweet Talk & Good Lies | |
| "Heather--where have you been all my life?" | 2007-08-03 |
| How come I had not heard you before? Is it because country music radio is industrial strength dreck these days? Is it because the major recording companies are only there to feed the dreck machine? Is it because most of Nashville is too busy trying to sound like this week's best seller instead of producing quality? How about All Of The Above? Thank God for the internet and Amazon's music samples. After hearing this CD, I immediately ordered the rest of her recordings. EVERYTHING this girl has recorded is outstanding. Five stars for all of them!!! | ||
 | CANON EF 50MM f/1.4 USM Autofocus Lens | |
| "The lens you should be using on your film or full-frame DSLR" | 2007-04-28 |
| Over 30 years ago, when I bought my first 35mm SLR, it came with a 50mm lens. It was considered the "normal" lens for 35mm at the time. I must admit, as soon as I could afford it, I started buying accessory lenses. First a 35mm, then an 85mm, then a 24mm, so it went. I didn't use a 50mm very much. I didn't want my photos to look normal so why would I want to use a normal lens?
Twenty-odd years later, I bought a used Leica M6 with a 50mm Summicron lens. Since I couldn't afford another lens for some time after that, I used the 50mm for everything. This opened my eyes to the possibilities of a normal lens. No longer did I depend on a lens to give my photos a "look", I was depending on myself to make them interesting. I saw things that I overlooked before and began to make photographs of them. Light and composition took on a new meaning. The character of subject matter became the overriding concern--not the angle of view. It was something of an epiphany for me after so many years. Cameras today come with kit zoom lenses. Many of them are not very good, but they help to sell the cameras. I have nothing against zooms but I mostly use primes these days. Back when I bought the Leica, I also used Canons and I already owned several Canon EF lenses, including primes and zooms and L-series lenses in both prime and zoom formats. I did not own a 50mm. So I bought the cheap little f/1.8 II lenses. While it performed well optically, I really was not comfortable using it. It lacked a distance scale and the manual focus ring was a royal pain. I can appreciate lightweight equipment but the 50/1.8 II lens just plain felt like a toy. Since I was using the 50mm focal length more and more, I decided to spring for the f/1.4 version. I'm very glad I did. The lens is a joy to use. It is well built and well designed. The autofocus seems a little slow compared to some of my other Ultrasonic lenses but it's still extremely fast. The f/1.4 aperture is truly awe-inspiring if you're used to using f/3.5 kit zooms. The out-of-focus portions of the picture (the bokeh) is creamy smooth and the in-focus areas are very sharp. The lens is already sharp at f/1.4 but it picks up even more sharpness and a considerable amount of contrast by stopping down a bit. I don't test lenses by shooting test targets. I shoot real pictures of the various subjects that interest me. In that type of real world testing, this lens gets top grades. Although the 50mm may not be the correct normal lens for a reduced size sensor DSLR, for full-frame DSLR and 35mm film users, I recommend it highly. | ||
 | CANON EF 35MM f/2.0 Wide Angle Lens | |
| "For those who use film or full frame sensor DSLR's..." | 2007-04-28 |
| ...this is the traditional "wide normal" lens. In 35mm format, I don't think I've ever been without a 35mm focal length lens. It's highly practical and many times it is a more useful lens than a 50mm "normal". It's possible to use a 35mm in close without worrying about the perspective distortion often seen in 28mm and 24mm lenses. Sometimes it's just the right lens and nothing else will do. So, why bother with an old design EF lens of a focal length covered by several of the current and past Canon EF zooms, including the optically excellent L-series zooms? First of all, it has a maximum aperture of f/2 and that's a stop faster than the fastest of the L-series zooms. Second of all, it's a good deal smaller than the zooms covering this focal length. And, while it doesn't have Ultrasonic autofocus, it's fast enough, accurate enough and not too noisy. It also has very, very good optical performance. | ||
 | Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 Wide Angle Lens for Canon SLR Cameras | |
| "Not too fashionable but highly useful" | 2007-04-28 |
| This is not one of those glamour lenses you read about on photonet. You know, the type that causes a feeding frenzy on the forums among those who must have the Big New Thing. It doesn't have a red stripe or exotic optics. It doesn't zoom. It doesn't attract a crowd when you use it. The reviewers don't get glassy-eyed and wax poetic about it. Far from it. Usually, the less knowledgeable put it down because it's an old design that pre-dates the Ultrasonic autofocus motors Canon has been using for several years and the widest aperture is only f/2.8. Besides, it's not an L-series lens and everyone knows that's the ultimate. Okay. If you must have the hottest new stuff and your camera gear is more for show and bragging rights, this lens ain't for you. However, if all you really want to do is take good pictures, you really should consider this lens. The autofocus is fast and accurate albeit not silent and you do have to use the slider switch to turn it off if you intend to manual focus it. It might have a bit more vignetting wide open than you like (but I've got to wonder how often the vignetting really is an issue...maybe if you shoot only photos of a clear blue sky or blank white walls...?). It is sharp, however. It is small and it is well made. The lens barrel and focus ring are plastic but the lens mount is metal, the elements are glass and the lens feels solid. If f/2.8 is good enough for an L-series zoom.... I've always found the 24mm focal length to be most useful. A 20/21mm is a little harder to handle. A 28mm often just isn't quite wide enough. When I used manual focus Nikons, I actually wore out two 24mm Nikkors due to heavy professional use. I like my 24mm lenses. I also like equipment that performs well and doesn't weigh a ton. I'm not into the glamour factor and the only thing I want to impress others is the photographs I take, not the equipment I use. If you're that kind of photographer and you use Canon EOS equipment, you'll probably find the 24/2.8 to be very useful. | ||
 | CANON EF 35MM f/2.0 Wide Angle Lens | |
| "For those who use film or full frame sensor DSLR's..." | 2007-04-28 |
| ...this is the traditional "wide normal" lens. In 35mm format, I don't think I've ever been without a 35mm focal length lens. It's highly practical and many times it is a more useful lens than a 50mm "normal". It's possible to use a 35mm in close without worrying about the perspective distortion often seen in 28mm and 24mm lenses. Sometimes it's just the right lens and nothing else will do. So, why bother with an old design EF lens of a focal length covered by several of the current and past Canon EF zooms, including the optically excellent L-series zooms? First of all, it has a maximum aperture of f/2 and that's a stop faster than the fastest of the L-series zooms. Second of all, it's a good deal smaller than the zooms covering this focal length. And, while it doesn't have Ultrasonic autofocus, it's fast enough, accurate enough and not too noisy. It also has very, very good optical performance. | ||
 | Canon EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras | |
| "Fine performance for the price" | 2007-04-26 |
| The main problem with this lens is the speed, or the lack thereof. Compared to the EF 20/2.8, it's only a half stop slower but compared to the EF 35/2, it's one and a half stops slower. While this is not a big deal if you're shooting outside, you have a problem in low light environments. Secondarily, if you're shooting a small sensor DSLR, you're not getting the wide angle benefits of this lens. For film or for full-frame 35mm sized sensor DSLR users, this is a good choice if you can live with the primary limitation of the slow speed. Optically, it's not bad at all. It has more distortion than an architectural photographer will want but if you're mainly shooting architecture you probably wouldn't be attracted to this lens anyway. As a reportage lens or a travel lens, it will serve well. Although it's relatively large--especially with the dinner plate sized lens hood in place--it's a lightweight. Build quality is industry-standard consumer grade for Canon. Which means it's actually very well put together from mostly plastic components. The lens mount is metal and the lens elements are, of course, glass. Autofocus is fast and the motor is a Canon Ultrasonic so you get the benefit of manual focus without having to flip switches to turn off the autofocus. I've used this lens off and on for about eight years. I originally shot color nature and landscapes and this was a very useful lens for such purposes. I mostly used a tripod so having a slow lens wasn't a limitation. For the last few years, I have been doing only black and white film work with an emphasis on the artful aspects of photography. When I use 35mm, I've trimmed my most used lenses to mostly primes so this lens doesn't get selected as often as it once was. Still, when the light is bright, I sometimes use this lens for the convenience. It's very versatile with good performance. If used at medium apertures under the same lighting conditions, I seriously doubt anyone would be able to see any practical difference in photos made with this lens compared to one of the much more expensive L-series Canon zooms. For the price, it's very good value. | ||
 | Vacu Vin Wine Saver Gift Pack, White | |
| "It's better than the "featured reviews" say" | 2007-04-05 |
| No, it does not create a total vacuum in the bottle. But when you sqeeze the stopper to remove it and you hear the "swish" of air being sucked into the bottle, you know something of a vacuum has been created--otherwise the bottle wouldn't be acting like your "vaccum" cleaner.
I also think the opinion that this process harms some types of wines is pretty subjective. It's likely to be based on individual tastes as opposed to any objective factual findings. What does this contraption do? It extends the life of the wine for a few hours. If you think it's going to keep your wine fresh for several days, you will be sorely disappointed. If you plug the bottle, pump like hell and put the leftover in the refrigerator, your wine should be good for overnight. Don't expect this to be a miracle product, however. Newer wine making methods mean we get better quality wines that can be consumed younger than the wines of even 20 years ago. But wine still needs to be consumed pretty soon after pulling the cork. So, if you have a particularly good bottle you want to open and you know you can't drink it all by yourself, invite someone over to help you. | ||
 | American Air Rifles | |
| "Very good guide but getting long-in-the-tooth" | 2007-03-02 |
| The information in this book is now 5-6 years old and, in this age of product volatility, a lot of the mentioned rifles are no longer available. There's more here than you probably want to know when it comes to ballistics--I just skip the technical parts. As a casual airgun shooter, I'm really not too interested in the finer points involving physics. What House did in this book was to investigate a subject that is mostly ignored. He reviewed relatively inexpensive American multi-pump air rifles in the context of how they perform in relation to the more sophisticated, expensive--and decidedly less shooter-friendly--European rifles. His conclusion is somewhat astonishing in finding that the American rifles offer a lot of accuracy and utility for a reasonable price. After reading this book, I felt obliged to dust off my old Daisy and give it a try at 10 meters. Unfortunately, it's been abused and neglected for well over 10 years and the whole barrel assembly was too loose to even attempt to use it again. I again consulted House and went out and picked up a Benjamin 392 that has proven to be a real joy. Every pellet I've tried gives substantially less than .5" groups at 10 meters even in my fairly unsteady hands and with my aging eyes. The Crosmans, Daisies, Benjamins and Sheridans will never have the following or accolades of the finely crafted spring-piston European models but this book goes a long way in giving them the respect they deserve. | ||
 | WALTHER AIRGUNS- CP99 COMPACT BB Gun | |
| "Great fun" | 2007-02-12 |
| This has to be one of the best bargains around for sheer fun. First of all, the CP99 Compact fits my hand perfectly. It has a blow-back action that simulates a real semi-auto firearm recoil. It has a decent trigger, firing single action only. It has the weight of a genuine cartridge-firing handgun. It takes a real stack magazine that hold 17 rounds. Literally rounds--it shoot BB's. The weight, balance and general ergonomics of the gun make it pretty accurate for a smooth bore. And it also mimicks the Walther P99 handgun--a truly well designed and reliable firearm. It's a real pleasure to use an air pistol that doesn't have fake levers and buttons all over it. This gun has a functioning magazine release and slide release. The one sore point (shared by just about every other air pistol I've seen) is a truly wretchedly designed safety that is placed on the wrong side of the gun for a right-hander and requires two motions to put into fire mode. I bought the gun with four spare magazines. It's a wise idea. Loading the magazines is slow and tedious and requires almost as much accuracy as hitting a bullseye. But, oh boy, once the magazines are loaded the fun really starts. Having 17 BB's available as fast as you can pull the trigger is a temptation to just blast away. Go ahead. BB's cost next to nothing and this gun is economical in using CO2 so just enjoy it. The excellent ergonomics mean you'll be hitting a beer can or keeping all shots in a tight group on target at 10 meters, off-hand, with no problem. I'm actually able to shoot this gun more accurately at short range than I can a couple of rifled barrel pellet pistols I own. While this gun is designated "Compact" it really is no smaller than the standard CP99. It does share the styling of the P99 Compact in the grip area but the CP99 Compact's grip is not as short. It fits my hand well. I really like this gun. I can't go in my back yard and shoot targets or empty cans with a real firearm but I can have a real blast with this little BB gun and never disturb the neighbors or draw any attention. Focusing your concentration on a target while shooting is one of the best mind exercises around. It's a discipline I'm not really very good at but it's a satisfying and liberating endeavor. Using an air gun like this is very good therapy. | ||
 | Wusthof Classic 4 Piece Cooks Set | |
| "Excellent cutlery from a respected maker" | 2006-12-31 |
| I bought this set for my wife for Christmas, mainly because I was stuck on ideas as to what to get her. She spends a lot of time in the kitchen and she had been using an old set of Chicago Cutlery and several unbranded cheap giveaway knives for several years. None of those knives were that great or that sharp and I hated trying to put an edge on them even though I'm pretty good at sharpening knives. Essentially, knives are just sharpened pieces of steel that appear to be pretty simple, straightforward instruments that shouldn't be difficult to produce. But a little experience with some poor examples prove this to not be the case. Like most seemingly simple things, the simplicity is an illusion. My experience has not been with kitchen knives but it has been with "working" knives. Pocket knives and fixed blade knives designed for hard use in the nasty jobs I have to do daily from removing staples in papers at the office to chopping down woody weeds in the backyard to cutting up boxes, rope, cording and thin pieces of aluminum. I know the value of a blade that can take a good edge and hold it through a lot of abuse. I did a little research and found several brands of kitchen knives that had universal respect. Wusthof always was at or near the top of everyone's list. More often than not, it was number one in the reviews and surveys I came across. My wife was a little apprehensive about the sharpness of the knives out of the box. She quickly realized the value of a really sharp kitchen knife and, in no time, she was commenting on how much easier it was to work with the Wusthof's than the cheapo knives she had been using. She has really been making good use of the paring knife and the chef's knife in the days since Christmas. My own limited use of the chef's knife from this set confirms how well it handles and cuts compared to the clunky Chicago Cutlery chef's knife. After looking over more reviews, I've ordered the Wusthof 7" hollow edge santoku to go with this set. Designed for thin cuts, it will fit in well with the other knives. I'll probably also get a serrated edge bread knife in the not-too-distant future to round out the Wusthof set. This is likely to be a lifetime purchase for our household and that makes the high price more of an investment. I'm well pleased and so is my wife. | ||
 | George Strait - Beyond the Blue Neon | |
| "Great stuff" | 2006-11-04 |
| This was the first George Strait recording I ever bought. I remember hearing the songs "Ace In The Hole" and "Baby's Gotten Good At Goodbye" on the radio while driving between jobs. Being something of a peripheral country music fan at the time (I knew Willie, Waylon, Jerry Jeff and Guy Clark) I really wasn't familiar with George Strait. I had heard his early recordings on the radio but never placed his name with them. But "Baby's Gotten Good At Goodbye" hooked me. I bought a cassette of the album and just about wore it out. Then I had to get the two "Greatest Hits" cassettes and then.... Well, like I said, I was hooked. This one is special to me but all of King George's recordings are four- or five-star winners. I still consider his Ace In The Hole Band to be the most together group in popular music. | ||
 | Guy Clark - Old No. 1/Texas Cookin' | |
| "Welcome back" | 2006-10-21 |
| I had the original LP's but they got lost in one of the many moves made over the years. In CD, the albums have been released and discontinued in a cycle that I couldn't keep up with and never bought. I could only find "The Essential Guy Clark" which is a reasonable facsimile of his first two albums. Still it didn't feel right to listen to a different order of the songs with a couple left out. Now both Guy's first albums are available again and it's truly "essential". | ||
 | CANON EF 25 II Extension Tube | |
 | "Overpriced" | 2006-10-14 |
| This is a simple extension tube that maintains automatic function with Canon EOS cameras and lenses (it is for both film and digital cameras so don't think it won't work on your older EOS bodies). There is an alternative to this expensive tube. Kenko makes a version that fits and functions the same at a much lower price. Check into that before you spring for this overpriced tube. And to the person who made the comment, you do know that Kenko was rumored to be the actual manufacturer of the Canon tube, don't you? Just as Canon outsources its filters and other small products, it's not hard to believe that rumor when you compare the tubes. | ||
 | Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras | |
| "If you're undecided over the f/2.8 or the f/4 version of this lens..." | 2006-09-13 |
| ...there are two things that you should know. The first is that the f/2.8 version of this lens is big and heavy. The second is that the f/2.8 version of this lens is the more versatile and, therefore, the more useful of the two choices. Why is the f/2.8 more useful? It allows you to use Canon's outstanding extenders and still have a sharp and practical lens. With the 1.4x, you will have a very, very good 98-280mm f/4 lens. With the 2x, you will have a good 140-400mm f/5.6 lens. In both cases the lens will autofocus--very well with the 1.4x and adequately with the 2x. The use of the Canon extenders also allows the 70-200 to make a pretty nice close-up lens. The original close focus of the lens is maintained with the extenders, giving you both 280mm and 400mm focal lengths that focus closer than most prime lenses of the same focal lengths. While you can use the extenders on the f/4 version, it makes for some pretty slow lenses with limited applications. There's not much you can say about this lens that hasn't already been said. It's one of the sharpest zooms around with a look that, while certainly subjective, is highly appealing. I have a preference for prime lenses over zooms but I still rank this as one of my sharpest lenses. Is there any reason to choose the 70-200 f/4 lens over this one? Cost aside, I can see a valid argument being made for the f/4. Carrying around the f/2.8 in a full camera bag is no fun unless you're putting it to use. Since I mostly use shorter focal length prime lenses, sometimes the f/2.8 is a pain in the neck for me--literally. Unless I know I will need it, I have taken to leaving it behind in favor of a lighter, smaller and less sharp Canon 100-300. So I can see the utility of the smaller 70-200. Maybe I can talk myself into owning both. Nah, that's a little too excessive. | ||
 | Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras | |
| "Not bad...not bad at all" | 2006-09-08 |
| I bought this lens along with a couple of other Canon "prosumer" zooms several years ago when I switched from Nikon to Canon SLR's. I hadn't used it much until I recently rediscovered how useful it is. See, I have the venerable 70-200/2.8L. That lens is truly outstanding. I use it a lot with the Canon EF 1.4X Extender which makes the 70-200 into a 98-280 f/4 zoom. When I got the 70-200, I pretty much stopped using the 100-300. I recently realized that I carry the 70-200 around more than I actually use it. My most used lenses are in the normal to wide range unless I have a special purpose in mind that requires a longer focal length lens. But sometimes opprotunity presents the need for a long lens when you least expect it and, even though I was never a Boy Scout, I do like being prepared. The 100-300 is smaller and lighter than the 70-200/2.8L. It's a pretty sharp lens if you recognize its limitations. Limitations include being a notch or two down in sharpness at the 300mm end of the zoom range unless you stop it down to around f/11. At 200mm or shorter, it performs well even at maximum aperture even though it's not up to "L-series" optical quality. It's not "L-series" quality in build either. It has a plastic barrel and the manual focusing ring was an afterthought. It grows in physical size when zoomed to the longer focal lengths. It sucks in dust by doing this (I have lots of speckles inside my lens to show this--but they have no affect on image quality). It also has an annoying tendency to zoom itself back and forth by its own weight. I carry a large rubber band around to keep this from happening if for some reason I use the lens on a tripod and tilt it up or down. I like this lens more today than I did when I first bought it, despite the fact that the 70-200/2.8 is a much better lens on all fronts. | ||
 | Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Super Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras | |
| "A really sweet long lens" | 2006-09-08 |
| I've been using this lens about six years. In all that time, I can't remember ever shooting at any aperture smaller than f/5.6. It's amazingly sharp wide open and I've never had any reason to stop it down. When I first bought it, I used it on a tripod almost all the time. These days, I've started using it handheld and I can appreciate how well it handles. In good light, autofocus is fast and accurate. In low brightness and low contrast light, it gets a little slow and sometimes hunts. Not a real problem, just switch off the autofocus and use the superb manual focus ring. Images snap in and out of focus easily whether you do the focusing or you let the lens do it. The lens is made like a tank. Mine has been subjected to a lot of use but it has never failed me. I sometimes use it with the Canon 1.4x Extender which makes it a 560mm f/8 lens. That combination does usually require a tripod but it is still a handy combination that retains great sharpness. I've also used it with the Canon 2x Extender as an 800mm f/11. It's a good idea to put it on a sturdy tripod and stop down a wee bit to get the best results. If you can make use of the focal length and you can live with f/5.6 as the maximum aperture, I recommend it highly. | ||
 | Henri Cartier-Bresson and the Artless Art | |
| "Great art...totally worthless text" | 2006-08-19 |
| HCB was a master of the type of photography he practiced. The photographs speak for themselves. They are beautiful, they are classic and they will always transcend any words people speak about them. So, what's the point in weighing down the impact of these photographs with a text that is so pretentious and unreadable it turns off everyone but the pretentious reader? Buy this book. It is one of my favorites on Cartier-Bresson. Look at the photographs first and you will gain respect and appreciation for the photographer. But only skim the text. | ||
 | Ways of Seeing | |
| "Really a bunch of claptrap" | 2006-08-17 |
| After reading this iconic work, I felt as if I had been ripped off with only myself to blame. I should have known better. The book is SOOOOOOO 70's! I'll give it two stars simply because it's really so out-of-date it's almost campy. Okay, early oil paintings depicted the upper classes with their "stuff" and the "stuff" of the upper classes. So? It's pretty elemental to figure out that those painters had to make a living and they painted for those who were able to pay them. Duh. Okay, women were depicted in oil paintings as possessions and, in turn, viewed themselves in the light of the value the possessor placed on them. Deep and enlightening, huh? It gets worse. We get a healthy dose of the "capitalism is bad" philosophy and the hammering that advertising is meant to keep the masses enslaved to capitalism. Nineteen seventies style collectivism is so boring. Of course, Berger offers no alternative other than some passing reference to his vague definition of democracy. Maybe it's just so out-dated, it's no longer relevant. Maybe it played better to the 1970's. Maybe we've heard this claptrap for so many years, it's no longer novel or meaningful. And, maybe, it's because we've matured enough to realize criticism without any offering of alternatives is simply disingenuous and superficial. | ||
| © 2009 GoSale.com (S1) |