This has puzzled me too. Note, though, that it doesn't say anything about leaving it on causing blur - it just says switch it off.

I think this is closer to it. If you look at my earlier thread, I did report a scary camera lock up that happened twice under identical conditions - and switching off didn't cure it, it required a battery removal and replacement.

So there's something a bit fishy afoot, I think.

The other thing is, as I explained in some detail before, if you really want to eliminate shake, you absolutely mustn't be releasing the shutter (undelayed) with your finger, tripod or no tripod. Since the finger causes shake that the SR does not eliminate on the tripod.

And of course, in all circumstances (remote, delay etc) except direct finger-induced release, the camera switches SR off regardless of the SR switch position.

It'll be a big advantage over waiting months for an AF140C to come up on eBay.

Personally, I think the assertion that SR on a tripod causes shake is urban myth, nothing more.

One or two claim to have seen it, several more have heard others claim it, and lo, it becomes accepted wisdom, all without a shred of actual evidence.

I've done some quite careful tests looking for SR-induced blur on a tripod and found nothing.

I think it's a load of old shoemakers.

I notice that the FA 50 1.4 isn't shown on that roadmap. I realise its title is 'DA and DFA', but is this a hint that the FA50 is shortly to be discontinued?

It's still listed on the lenses page, so maybe I'm worrying unnecessarily.

Well I've done it again - forgotten to enter the competition on account of the competitions area being that little bit further away, as it were.

I have several pictures of exceptionally cute kittens that, albeit not of the calibre of Timbo's fantastic seal, would have fitted the brief well.

Still, well done to Timbo, and also to Darkmunk for the judging. A great pleasure to read such straight-from-the-shoulder, no messing, comments, with which I found myself agreeing totally.

Erm, check the date....

Wouldn't you be more likely to find a buyer for two grand's worth of Nikon gear on a Nikon forum?

Is this really true?

I thought if I grant someone a 'royalty-free license' to do something, they can do it without paying me a royalty.

Nothing to do with whether they can use it to make money out of somehow.

Clearly, if ownership resides with me, they cannot sell it in the sense of transferring ownership to anyone else.

But stock photo companies don't do that either - but still make money out of it. The only difference I can see is that by using their disk space, Oosah can make money out of my images without paying me.

Quite apart from the fact that to categorise all statements that are not in accordance with the facts, as lies, is a complete disgrace, you clearly have not read the terms of service.

It does not say "specifically on their site", or indeed "related services", as you misquote.

The relevant section is this:

[quote="Oosah"]of such Content in connection with the Site and any current and future services offered by Oosah, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing[/quote]
"In connection with" is a very loose definition, as is "Any current and future service".

For someone to interpret this as being limited to innocent purposes only seems to stretch credulity, to me.

Curious as to what sort of subjects, John?