[Pentaxor]

In the mid 1970’s all my friends and I had no problems getting good jobs after getting out of high school. I worked for a year saved up some money then quit my job and went to Europe for 10 weeks. I got rehired in the same job immediately after I got back. (I didn’t even want to go back, but they were short staffed.) The unions were also getting big contract settlements, with wage increases of around 10%. So yes things were pretty good in Vancouver back then.

Remember Canada has a separate economy than the US and is not necessarily in the same mess as the US at the same time. (Same goes for today, you’re worse off than us up here) One interesting stat, the Canadian dollar is currently at par or higher than the US and the last time that happened was in mid 1970's!

It was the early 1980’s that were bad here with high interest rates. I was laid off and out of work for a year, due to the lumber/mining industries collapsing.

Phil.

not to mention healthcare then was at it's best. I understand the sentiments that the U.S. is going through and wanted the same. but I guess we have to fault some portion of the populace, politicians and the corporations as well that people don't get the necessary health benefits that we enjoy in Canada. there is a funny analogy I can think of between the two north American countries at the moment.

in the U.S. , houses are cheap but getting sick is expensive. in fact, you can already buy a house even before you can pay full for your treatment.
in Canada, healthcare is very affordable but housing (especially in Vancouver) has gotten real pricey.

for what it's worth, I guess there are things that you pay more over the other. doing a cross-border lens purchase from the U.S. for example is a great thing.

[luftfluss]

I'm having flashbacks of long lines on odd-even days for filling up the car.

[eddie1960]

not to mention healthcare then was at it's best. I understand the sentiments that the U.S. is going through and wanted the same. but I guess we have to fault some portion of the populace, politicians and the corporations as well that people don't get the necessary health benefits that we enjoy in Canada. there is a funny analogy I can think of between the two north American countries at the moment.

in the U.S. , houses are cheap but getting sick is expensive. in fact, you can already buy a house even before you can pay full for your treatment.
in Canada, healthcare is very affordable but housing (especially in Vancouver) has gotten real pricey.

for what it's worth, I guess there are things that you pay more over the other. doing a cross-border lens purchase from the U.S. for example is a great thing.

most of the country housing isn't insane though, Vancouver is crazy, Victoria and any Oceanside part of the island is pretty nuts
Parking alone is crazy in Toronto - a condo going up around the corner from work wants $100000 for a parking spot (mind you the penthouse condo is $24 million)
even my tiny 131 year old house on a ridiculously small lot (14.52'x52') is now worth $550000
and that's attached on one side;p fully detached downtown somewhere between 750to 1 million
suburbs are cheaper but they are the suburbs

[RioRico]

Ah, that decade. Early 70's: I was a bike messenger in San Francisco, not much money but I bought a Leica clone, later a German 1934 Kodak Retina I, the first 135 camera. Mid-70's: I was in the Army working as a photographer, and bought my Olympus Pen-FT system and a Graflex and Yashicas and Canons. Late 70's: I was in college (and driving an ambulance) in 29 Palms and Santa Cruz CA, no new cameras but I got married. I didn't feel very affected by the macro-economy. I didn't worry about career. My pain was mostly psychic.

And I didn't worry about bad lenses. I only had *good* lenses. Well, that Spiratone 400/6.3 wasn't great, but it did the job, and now I have another copy. I likely worried about enlarger lenses more than camera lenses, and about getting laid more than ANY lenses.
_________________________________________

And that leads to another question: Which was/is worse, your worst lens or your worst sex?

[Pentaxor]

most of the country housing isn't insane though, Vancouver is crazy, Victoria and any Oceanside part of the island is pretty nuts
Parking alone is crazy in Toronto - a condo going up around the corner from work wants $100000 for a parking spot (mind you the penthouse condo is $24 million)
even my tiny 131 year old house on a ridiculously small lot (14.52'x52') is now worth $550000
and that's attached on one side;p fully detached downtown somewhere between 750to 1 million
suburbs are cheaper but they are the suburbs

suburbs are great and could cost just as much as for a condo unit located in downtown. but that's only a part of the concern. the property tax can also be abysmal and I still don't understand how they do the calculations. a house and lot located on the same block with the same square footage can vary greatly as well. and unless you go on and complain about it that you pay more than your neighbour, the government would be happy to let you do their dirty work for them of estimating your property. a job that they were supposed to do and get paid for it. :ugh:

[Blue]

suburbs are great and could cost just as much as for a condo unit located in downtown. but that's only a part of the concern. the property tax can also be abysmal and I still don't understand how they do the calculations. a house and lot located on the same block with the same square footage can vary greatly as well. and unless you go on and complain about it that you pay more than your neighbour, the government would be happy to let you do their dirty work for them of estimating your property. a job that they were supposed to do and get paid for it. :ugh:

I don't know about up there but in the U.S., Cities and Counties use the Medieval feudal system known as millage rates that the screw with every year. On top of that they can get together with the tax assessor and decide your place is now a mansion.

[luftfluss]

And that leads to another question: Which was/is worse, your worst lens or your worst sex?

All depends on how many alternative you have for each situation...

[eddie1960]

I don't know about up there but in the U.S., Cities and Counties use the Medieval feudal system known as millage rates that the screw with every year. On top of that they can get together with the tax assessor and decide your place is now a mansion.

We used to be taxed on Frontage (it is more expensive to service a large lot than a densely built downtown - which rarely had the same level of services (water sewage etc) as the suburbs. they changed that to market value. in the 22 years I've owned my house that has driven up my property taxes 5 fold
and yes they use mill rates
you can battle reassesment of the value but it rarely results in more than a minor adjustment downwards
meantime my mother in laws old house which had property taxes 3 times mine 22 years ago now has taxes 2/3 mine. their is still more road to service, more less people to spread the cost of water/sewage/trash across, but they pay less than i do. Still drives me absolutley nuts that i subsidise people who want to live on big lots and drive everywhere polluting
There should be a rewared for density not a punishment. it lowers the cos of providing services, increases street level retail and makes public transit less expensive to operate. it pollutes less, it doesn't chew up prime agricultural land (the suburbs have eroded the amount of prime agricultural land enormously)...yadada
I'll get off my soapbox (can you tell i'm not a fan of the suburbs ;p )

[quattro]

My worst is a M42 Carl Zeiss Jena 50mm 2.8.

Poor picture quality, very slow. I keep it because it looks cool with the 'zebra' focus and aperture rings.

[mattb123]

Probably my 18-55 K-x kit lens. Not because it's necessarily that bad but I've added more really nice lenses that put it to shame. I probably haven't used it in a year.

[GibbyTheMole]

My "worst" lens is my Cosina AF 28-210 zoom. It's slow and somewhat prone to PF, but I'd still say it's a surprisingly decent lens & I consistently get good pics with it.

I keep it because it's a handy walkaround lens, and nearly the same size as my 18-55 DA kit lens.

[chongmic]

Anybody mentioned Tammy 70-300 LD Macro (not the newer Di version)? I bought this lens in late 2002 for my ZX-30. As this lens already receive many bad reputations out there, I guess I do not have do elaborate more, especially the well known PF issue. But it is pretty decent in shaddy days or non white objects.

Why I keep it? No other reason than short of budget. DA 55-300 is on my wish list, but I still find 300mm still short of my target range. I would probably keep the Tammy and reserve the money for some prime, haven't decide the focal length yet. But I'm already eying the DAL 35mm 2.4.

Surprisingly, I found the A-50mm 2.0 my second worst lens, because I can't get a sharp picture at infinity. May be I have a bad copy or the service guy didn't assemble it correctly the last time I sent it for cleaning. I have not use this lens often enough to decide whether to junk or keep it.

[jogr]

Pentax-wise, I would also have to say my 18-55mm DAL kit lens. I have notice some strange distortions at the lower end of the zoom range especially shooting architecture, other than that its ok. In contrast, I am totally happy with the 55-300mm (also kit). Excellent lens.

[Pentaxor]

We used to be taxed on Frontage (it is more expensive to service a large lot than a densely built downtown - which rarely had the same level of services (water sewage etc) as the suburbs. they changed that to market value. in the 22 years I've owned my house that has driven up my property taxes 5 fold
and yes they use mill rates
you can battle reassesment of the value but it rarely results in more than a minor adjustment downwards
meantime my mother in laws old house which had property taxes 3 times mine 22 years ago now has taxes 2/3 mine. their is still more road to service, more less people to spread the cost of water/sewage/trash across, but they pay less than i do. Still drives me absolutley nuts that i subsidise people who want to live on big lots and drive everywhere polluting
There should be a rewared for density not a punishment. it lowers the cos of providing services, increases street level retail and makes public transit less expensive to operate. it pollutes less, it doesn't chew up prime agricultural land (the suburbs have eroded the amount of prime agricultural land enormously)...yadada
I'll get off my soapbox (can you tell i'm not a fan of the suburbs ;p )

LOL. basically, the equation that they are using nowadays is following the market real estate demand and supply or somehow connected to it. they may not admit it, but that is what is happening. I could own a mansion in Saskatchewan and pay dirt cheap property tax, or live in a 6x2 space in Vancouver and pay more.

[normhead]

LOL. basically, the equation that they are using nowadays is following the market real estate demand and supply or somehow connected to it. they may not admit it, but that is what is happening. I could own a mansion in Saskatchewan and pay dirt cheap property tax, or live in a 6x2 space in Vancouver and pay more.

ANy economist will tell you that market value is completely imaginary. It exists only in the minds of the population. Cities like Toronto have gone away from a "cost of deliver of service " model, because like most industries.. they want the cost of service divorced from the cost of supply, and related to figures they can manipulate. Cable of companies sell you channels you can't watch, you can only watch one at a time, so you actually pay them to not watch a pile of shows when you give them more money. That has become the new standard for profitability. The more you can sell people that they don't use, like phone plans with minutes you lose at the end of every month. Cities want to tax not on what it costs to provide your services, but on how much your house is worth. Once you divorce cost of supply from the cost of providing service, there is no end to the amount you can rip people off for.