The Seinfeld Thread: It's about nothing

Many of you probably know about the old Seinfeld TV show, which its originators declared was about nothing.

Some discussion threads here - threads that are actually about something - are being sent off on weird digressions that have little or no bearing on the intended subject. Often this is disrespectful to the thread originator who came here with a specific question. It can also cause confusion and conflict among other readers trying to follow a discussion. Furthermore, it's completely unnecessary. It mostly happens because people are not really paying attention to the subject and/or they are so eager to post something that they do so even if their posts have nothing to actually contribute.

I've been guilty of the transgression myself, but I intend to make a change. I don't want to pollute someone else's thread with off-topic trivia, and I don't want any thread I might start to be polluted that way either. That's why this thread exists.

After this first post, the rest of The Seinfeld Thread will be about nothing. Whenever I have the urge to post something irrelevant or wildly tangential in a discussion elsewhere in the forum, I will try to refrain and post that message here instead. All other members are encouraged to do the same. Feel free to pollute this nothing thread with as much pointless and random commentary as you like, leaving actual discussions among members to retain good focus on their intended subjects.

I really hope to see this become a long and popular thread.

coyote1086 wrote: I thought we will be discussing funny facts about the TV series ...

So, go ahead and start. Nothing is off-topic. Or should I say nothing is on-topic?

(BTW, people trying to send me PMs should just stop. My mailbox is full and I'm not planning to clear out messages anytime soon.)

hobbyonly wrote: Is there an easy way to modify the sequence or start at another point other than 000.MTS?

It's been that way since Sony first introduced the format. I never understood why, always hated it, and know no way around it. No such naming problem with MP4 format.

A suggestion to maybe help make sense for this nonsense topic is a link to the reply that made the lightbulb light up, not the topic but the post itself which can be directly linked to by clicking on the blue dot to the left of the Posted: time for the post and then copy the address in the toolbar.

Maybe we just need to start more threads focused on technical issues? I am still not sure why anyone would ever purposely use ISO 160 on that camera.

I feel like the Minolta AF 28-135mm F4-4.5 is not the best Minolta 1980's zoom. The humble 28-85 is actually quite good. In fact I think the later 24-85, 28-105, and 24-105 are not as good. I want the 24-105 to be the best. It's tiny. It's a D lens. It has all the range.

Will the Maxxum/Dynax/Alpha 7 give me better image quality than my Maxxum 70? I really don't even care about support for motorized lenses, though I do use the Sony 85mm F2.8 SAM. Maybe I should consider one of higher three digit Si cameras? Maybe I should just sell the unused film?

E mount. I almost bought an A6000--bid on a slightly used silver body-only that went for a bit more than $300. I haven't invested in the OSS primes yet. The lenses are nice but pricey.

This isn't very christmassy, but this emoticon is provided by Dyxum for situations of overly long discussions on hardly significant topics:



According to such discussions, it seems I used my a900 very poorly. Does it matter to me, or anyone?


I didn't think so.

addy landzaat wrote: Winwalloe wrote: According to such discussions, it seems I used my a900 very poorly. The guy claims to be objective but does not offer any proof. And to make things worse, he uses settings that the camera does not have because he uses some system invented by Ansel Adems. I am with you:

So you are saying Ansel Adams would, or would not have, used an A900? Now I'm confused. I think more egg nog is in order.

sybersitizen: nice thread idea. How soon before it gets hijacked?