[ucodegen]

The real answer is: It depends. I am assuming you have an SLR type camera if you are asking this question.

First question, what type of camera do you have, and do you plan to upgrade anywhere in the near future. Some cameras will find flaws in a lens and anything that will attach to it and others don’t have that good a resolution – despite megapixels

What lens does the camera have? Is it the kit lens that often comes with the purchase? Is the mount ring on the back of the lens (where it mounts to the camera) made out of metal or plastic? The plastic mount ‘kit’ lens are not as good as the metal backed. In fact, even the optics on the kit lens are often plastic.

That said, if the camera has good resolution and lens.. you should be prepared to pay money on the filter. You will generally need to go with a multicoated filter. Non coated filters will create internal reflection in the glass that will often resolve to 2 to 3 pixels wide in a 10Mpixel APSC sensor camera – softening the image. If you have the plastic backed ‘kit’ lens and don’t plan to upgrade, there is no point in getting a multicoated filter. The lens is not sharp enough to really make a difference.

For multicoated, I tend to look at Hoya, B&W, Sigma, Heliopan. Tiffen makes multicoated filters but they are not quite a good as the 4 I listed and they charge significantly more for them. The filters from camera manufacturers tend to be more expensive for the same quality than these 4. In terms of getting them, I would tend to mail order from B&H Photo Video or Adorama.

[ucodegen]

The real answer is: It depends. I am assuming you have an SLR type camera if you are asking this question.

First question, what type of camera do you have, and do you plan to upgrade anywhere in the near future. Some cameras will find flaws in a lens and anything that will attach to it and others don’t have that good a resolution – despite megapixels

What lens does the camera have? Is it the kit lens that often comes with the purchase? Is the mount ring on the back of the lens (where it mounts to the camera) made out of metal or plastic? The plastic mount ‘kit’ lens are not as good as the metal backed. In fact, even the optics on the kit lens are often plastic.

That said, if the camera has good resolution and lens.. you should be prepared to pay money on the filter. You will generally need to go with a multicoated filter. Non coated filters will create internal reflection in the glass that will often resolve to 2 to 3 pixels wide in a 10Mpixel APSC sensor camera – softening the image. If you have the plastic backed ‘kit’ lens and don’t plan to upgrade, there is no point in getting a multicoated filter. The lens is not sharp enough to really make a difference.

For multicoated, I tend to look at Hoya, B&W, Sigma, Heliopan. Tiffen makes multicoated filters but they are not quite a good as the 4 I listed and they charge significantly more for them. The filters from camera manufacturers tend to be more expensive for the same quality than these 4. In terms of getting them, I would tend to mail order from B&H Photo Video or Adorama.

[ucodegen]

The real answer is: It depends. I am assuming you have an SLR type camera if you are asking this question.

First question, what type of camera do you have, and do you plan to upgrade anywhere in the near future. Some cameras will find flaws in a lens and anything that will attach to it and others don’t have that good a resolution – despite megapixels

What lens does the camera have? Is it the kit lens that often comes with the purchase? Is the mount ring on the back of the lens (where it mounts to the camera) made out of metal or plastic? The plastic mount ‘kit’ lens are not as good as the metal backed. In fact, even the optics on the kit lens are often plastic.

That said, if the camera has good resolution and lens.. you should be prepared to pay money on the filter. You will generally need to go with a multicoated filter. Non coated filters will create internal reflection in the glass that will often resolve to 2 to 3 pixels wide in a 10Mpixel APSC sensor camera – softening the image. If you have the plastic backed ‘kit’ lens and don’t plan to upgrade, there is no point in getting a multicoated filter. The lens is not sharp enough to really make a difference.

For multicoated, I tend to look at Hoya, B&W, Sigma, Heliopan. Tiffen makes multicoated filters but they are not quite a good as the 4 I listed and they charge significantly more for them. The filters from camera manufacturers tend to be more expensive for the same quality than these 4. In terms of getting them, I would tend to mail order from B&H Photo Video or Adorama.

[ucodegen]

walking away from your home when you can afford it is VERY UNETHICAL, but only because the taxpayers are now bailing out the banks because of it.

Wrong, we are having to bail out the banks because the banks made the assumption that their side of the risk was covered because RE always goes up. We are having to bail out AIG on credit default swaps because some banks were smart enough to realize that there was a real default risk and that RE does not always go up, while at the same time AIG felt that the credit default swaps were always money-good since RE never goes down.

One of the biggest problems here is that credit default swaps are not regulated as an insurance product while in fact they really are. With a credit default swap, you get paid ‘x’ per month to cover any eventual loss in principal should the loan default. Looks, walks and talks like an insurance product.

Interesting article.. to read, linky thing here.

[ucodegen]

walking away from your home when you can afford it is VERY UNETHICAL, but only because the taxpayers are now bailing out the banks because of it.

Wrong, we are having to bail out the banks because the banks made the assumption that their side of the risk was covered because RE always goes up. We are having to bail out AIG on credit default swaps because some banks were smart enough to realize that there was a real default risk and that RE does not always go up, while at the same time AIG felt that the credit default swaps were always money-good since RE never goes down.

One of the biggest problems here is that credit default swaps are not regulated as an insurance product while in fact they really are. With a credit default swap, you get paid ‘x’ per month to cover any eventual loss in principal should the loan default. Looks, walks and talks like an insurance product.

Interesting article.. to read, linky thing here.

[ucodegen]

walking away from your home when you can afford it is VERY UNETHICAL, but only because the taxpayers are now bailing out the banks because of it.

Wrong, we are having to bail out the banks because the banks made the assumption that their side of the risk was covered because RE always goes up. We are having to bail out AIG on credit default swaps because some banks were smart enough to realize that there was a real default risk and that RE does not always go up, while at the same time AIG felt that the credit default swaps were always money-good since RE never goes down.

One of the biggest problems here is that credit default swaps are not regulated as an insurance product while in fact they really are. With a credit default swap, you get paid ‘x’ per month to cover any eventual loss in principal should the loan default. Looks, walks and talks like an insurance product.

Interesting article.. to read, linky thing here.

[ucodegen]

walking away from your home when you can afford it is VERY UNETHICAL, but only because the taxpayers are now bailing out the banks because of it.

Wrong, we are having to bail out the banks because the banks made the assumption that their side of the risk was covered because RE always goes up. We are having to bail out AIG on credit default swaps because some banks were smart enough to realize that there was a real default risk and that RE does not always go up, while at the same time AIG felt that the credit default swaps were always money-good since RE never goes down.

One of the biggest problems here is that credit default swaps are not regulated as an insurance product while in fact they really are. With a credit default swap, you get paid ‘x’ per month to cover any eventual loss in principal should the loan default. Looks, walks and talks like an insurance product.

Interesting article.. to read, linky thing here.

[ucodegen]

walking away from your home when you can afford it is VERY UNETHICAL, but only because the taxpayers are now bailing out the banks because of it.

Wrong, we are having to bail out the banks because the banks made the assumption that their side of the risk was covered because RE always goes up. We are having to bail out AIG on credit default swaps because some banks were smart enough to realize that there was a real default risk and that RE does not always go up, while at the same time AIG felt that the credit default swaps were always money-good since RE never goes down.

One of the biggest problems here is that credit default swaps are not regulated as an insurance product while in fact they really are. With a credit default swap, you get paid ‘x’ per month to cover any eventual loss in principal should the loan default. Looks, walks and talks like an insurance product.

Interesting article.. to read, linky thing here.

[ucodegen]

“The defendant said she lost her job last year and told her lenders she and her family couldn’t afford $5,800 in monthly payments.”

Any mention of the other properties she had owned and defaulted on?
Any mention that she used to own that house virtually free and clear until she decided to speculate on the RE market?
From what I remember, that house that was foreclosed on was the one she got from her ex-husband when she divorced him.
I also remember something about her working in the RE business, so she was not naive about the RE business..

[ucodegen]

“The defendant said she lost her job last year and told her lenders she and her family couldn’t afford $5,800 in monthly payments.”

Any mention of the other properties she had owned and defaulted on?
Any mention that she used to own that house virtually free and clear until she decided to speculate on the RE market?
From what I remember, that house that was foreclosed on was the one she got from her ex-husband when she divorced him.
I also remember something about her working in the RE business, so she was not naive about the RE business..

[ucodegen]

“The defendant said she lost her job last year and told her lenders she and her family couldn’t afford $5,800 in monthly payments.”

Any mention of the other properties she had owned and defaulted on?
Any mention that she used to own that house virtually free and clear until she decided to speculate on the RE market?
From what I remember, that house that was foreclosed on was the one she got from her ex-husband when she divorced him.
I also remember something about her working in the RE business, so she was not naive about the RE business..

[ucodegen]

“The defendant said she lost her job last year and told her lenders she and her family couldn’t afford $5,800 in monthly payments.”

Any mention of the other properties she had owned and defaulted on?
Any mention that she used to own that house virtually free and clear until she decided to speculate on the RE market?
From what I remember, that house that was foreclosed on was the one she got from her ex-husband when she divorced him.
I also remember something about her working in the RE business, so she was not naive about the RE business..

[ucodegen]

“The defendant said she lost her job last year and told her lenders she and her family couldn’t afford $5,800 in monthly payments.”

Any mention of the other properties she had owned and defaulted on?
Any mention that she used to own that house virtually free and clear until she decided to speculate on the RE market?
From what I remember, that house that was foreclosed on was the one she got from her ex-husband when she divorced him.
I also remember something about her working in the RE business, so she was not naive about the RE business..

[ucodegen]

@Sarah G

Ucodegen then, in his last sentence makes me understand where he is coming from, “I used to work at a defense contractor until I was laid off.” Maybe there is a reason why he was laid off? He was an employee for a contractor, and now a laid off employee.

Sweet.. personal attacks to prove your point. The fact that you resorted to this several times with different people on the board wrt this post indicates that your logic is weak and you have to resort to personal attacks to press your point. It is also interesting that you created your account about 4 days and 20 hours before making this post.

So, there is recourse. Does anyone here know what they are talking about? Read, Read, Read!!!

JustLurking chimes in with his/her expert opinion. Expert at what?

As Shakespeare says, and I paraphrase; Oh, what fools these posters be!

—

Ucodegen talks like an attorney, but he’s not! He is totally wrong.

As for wrong.. lets go to your major point.. the ‘personal guarantee’. Do you know what ‘DBA‘ stands for? It means ‘Doing Business As’. Therefore Investment accepted as a personal loan to Steve Bartko dba Starfire Technology actually reads Investment accepted as a personal loan to Steve Bartko doing business as Starfire Technology. This one sentence does two things;
1) Indicates that wherever the name ‘Steve Bartko’ is in the document, it is to be read as the entity ‘Starfire Technology’. This shortens the sentence above to ‘Investment accepted as a personal loan to Starfire Technology.‘
2) It also indicates that ‘Steve Bartko’ represents the corporate entity ‘Starfire Technology’.
The sentence that you take as meaning that ‘Steve Bartko’ is personally responsible literally states that there is a corporate veil between ‘Steve Bartko’ and ‘Starfire Technology’, and your business dealings are with ‘Starfire Technology’.

Every business is different. What one business does and finds advantageous, another finds disadvantageous.

True but there are some basic things that will guide companies, particularly those that deal with the government.
1) They will not throw away a 24% risk free rate of return. If it was truly 0 risk, then contractors would even create a sub-division with the sole purpose of lending money to ‘Starfire Technology’ to get that 24% risk free return.
2) There are CMMI level 3 and ISO 9000 certification requirements for government sub-contractors, dictated through the contract vehicle/document. Saw no such cert either way I looked at them (their website or cert agencies).

All the companies that I have worked for, have purchasing departments whose responsibility is to locate products and getting the best price. They do this for several reasons.. including quality control. If a supplier/manufacturer has a history poor delivery, delivery of non-working product, sub-par or non-compliant product.. the purchasing department will black-list that supplier/manufacturer. In addition, a company like Raytheon, Northrup Grumman, BAE, L-3 will have much more leverage over a supplier than some small middleman.

So far, my items 1-6 have not been refuted.. or even a real attempt to refute.

As for;

This might be an awesome investment, and then again, it might not be. If it is as presented, it is awsome! The only way you’ll find out if the investment is as awesome as is presented is to make an investment in it.

I agree with UCGal and I am quite surprised that a CFA with 30 years experience would say something like that.

[ucodegen]

@Sarah G

Ucodegen then, in his last sentence makes me understand where he is coming from, “I used to work at a defense contractor until I was laid off.” Maybe there is a reason why he was laid off? He was an employee for a contractor, and now a laid off employee.

Sweet.. personal attacks to prove your point. The fact that you resorted to this several times with different people on the board wrt this post indicates that your logic is weak and you have to resort to personal attacks to press your point. It is also interesting that you created your account about 4 days and 20 hours before making this post.

So, there is recourse. Does anyone here know what they are talking about? Read, Read, Read!!!

JustLurking chimes in with his/her expert opinion. Expert at what?

As Shakespeare says, and I paraphrase; Oh, what fools these posters be!

—

Ucodegen talks like an attorney, but he’s not! He is totally wrong.

As for wrong.. lets go to your major point.. the ‘personal guarantee’. Do you know what ‘DBA‘ stands for? It means ‘Doing Business As’. Therefore Investment accepted as a personal loan to Steve Bartko dba Starfire Technology actually reads Investment accepted as a personal loan to Steve Bartko doing business as Starfire Technology. This one sentence does two things;
1) Indicates that wherever the name ‘Steve Bartko’ is in the document, it is to be read as the entity ‘Starfire Technology’. This shortens the sentence above to ‘Investment accepted as a personal loan to Starfire Technology.‘
2) It also indicates that ‘Steve Bartko’ represents the corporate entity ‘Starfire Technology’.
The sentence that you take as meaning that ‘Steve Bartko’ is personally responsible literally states that there is a corporate veil between ‘Steve Bartko’ and ‘Starfire Technology’, and your business dealings are with ‘Starfire Technology’.

Every business is different. What one business does and finds advantageous, another finds disadvantageous.

True but there are some basic things that will guide companies, particularly those that deal with the government.
1) They will not throw away a 24% risk free rate of return. If it was truly 0 risk, then contractors would even create a sub-division with the sole purpose of lending money to ‘Starfire Technology’ to get that 24% risk free return.
2) There are CMMI level 3 and ISO 9000 certification requirements for government sub-contractors, dictated through the contract vehicle/document. Saw no such cert either way I looked at them (their website or cert agencies).

All the companies that I have worked for, have purchasing departments whose responsibility is to locate products and getting the best price. They do this for several reasons.. including quality control. If a supplier/manufacturer has a history poor delivery, delivery of non-working product, sub-par or non-compliant product.. the purchasing department will black-list that supplier/manufacturer. In addition, a company like Raytheon, Northrup Grumman, BAE, L-3 will have much more leverage over a supplier than some small middleman.

So far, my items 1-6 have not been refuted.. or even a real attempt to refute.

As for;

This might be an awesome investment, and then again, it might not be. If it is as presented, it is awsome! The only way you’ll find out if the investment is as awesome as is presented is to make an investment in it.

I agree with UCGal and I am quite surprised that a CFA with 30 years experience would say something like that.

[Author]

Posts