# Recommend to me an e-reader. And/or camera lenses. I'm not picky. **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 1, 2009, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recommend-to-me-an-e-reader-and-or-camera-lenses-im-not-picky/504993 "2009-08-01T19:38:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![lobotomyboy63](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobotomyboy63/32/2900_2.png) [@lobotomyboy63](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lobotomyboy63)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recommend-to-me-an-e-reader-and-or-camera-lenses-im-not-picky/504993/21 "2009-08-03T04:46:56Z")
Tripods are great. Many ppl buy them so they can get in the picture, sure. But also, for low light (i.e. long shutter speeds), long teles, or high macro magnification, they can help eliminate shake. Or if you have video capability, they can eliminate the “Blair Witch” look. But it’s problematic. It sounds like you want to use long, heavy lenses, and a grippy pod may not support that. A lot of traditional tripods have weight ratings as well. They get bigger, heavier, and more expensive pretty quickly and they’re not as friendly to lug around. Another thing to consider is getting a “quick release” tripod. Illustrated: [http://pana3ccduser.com/images/upload/501\_quick\_release.JPG](http://pana3ccduser.com/images/upload/501_quick_release.JPG) The idea is that without one, it takes time to thread the screw securely into the mount of the camera. If you’re taking one photo with the camera on the tripod, then two off the tripod, then another one on the tripod, all that threading/unthreading would drive you crazy. The quick release plate stays attached, so you remove/reattach the whole plate quickly and securely. Pros shooting sports with long lenses sometimes opt for a monopod instead. > **[Monopod](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopod)** > > A monopod, also called a unipod, is a single staff or pole used to help support cameras, binoculars, rifles or other precision instruments in the field. > The monopod allows a still camera to be held steadier, allowing the photographer to take sharp pictures at slower shutter speeds, and/or with longer focal length lenses. In the case of video, it reduces camera shake, and therefore most of the resulting small random movements. Monopods are easier to transport and quicker to set up than conventio... Old trick 1: You can brace yourself against walls, poles, etc. also. Not perfect but if you don’t have any equipment to help you… Old trick 2: Sometimes you want to photograph a still life (like the flower pic I posted) in low light and/or at high magnification. If you have a cable release, that’s great because you don’t have to touch the camera and possibly shake it. But if you don’t have one, use the self-timer and the camera will trip itself. ---
**Author:** ![BlueKangaroo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3d9bf3/32.png) [@BlueKangaroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlueKangaroo)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recommend-to-me-an-e-reader-and-or-camera-lenses-im-not-picky/504993/22 "2009-08-03T13:45:07Z")
**KlondikeGeoff** , I think I’m going to have my boyfriend look at this thread and see if I explained things properly (he’s been out of town, so when he get’s back to his place, I’ll e-mail him). I’ve never heard of “bean bag mounts”, **madmonk28**. I’ll look into them. I’ll do a lot of shooting off a car, but I may have lots of time not in a car as well. I currently have a quick release tripod, **lobotomyboy63** , but I wasn’t planning on taking it with me. My baggage limit is actually pretty small, so I figured one of the grippy-pods might be the best I was going to get. I also figured a lens like the 80 - 200mm I already own was about as long/heavy as I was going to get. I’m looking around for other options, but that’s kind of what I was expecting. Wish I could lug better! ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recommend-to-me-an-e-reader-and-or-camera-lenses-im-not-picky/504993/23 "2009-08-03T13:56:57Z")
> [@BlueKangaroo](#): > > I didn’t know about the boost for the cropped cameras. Honestly, I only found out my camera was “cropped” last night, from a friend of mine. She said if I’d had a higher-end DSLR, I’d be able to use my old Cannon lenses, but because of this cropping, I can’t. BTW, this isn’t true. Any Canon EF or EF-S lens will work on your XTi. If you have other lenses they will work on this camera. The EF lenses will also work on a Full Frame DSLR, but your EF-S lenses won’t. That’s probably where the confusion came from. So, what lenses do you have lying around? ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recommend-to-me-an-e-reader-and-or-camera-lenses-im-not-picky/504993/24 "2009-08-03T13:57:54Z")
My suggestion for a lens in the [Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Telephoto Zoom Lens](http://www.amazon.com/Canon-75-300mm-4-5-6-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00004THD0) currently selling on [Amazon.com](http://Amazon.com) for about $140. It’s not as good as the alternative zoom lenses with a similar range, but it’s a lot less pricey. I’ve used it with a Canon Digital Rebel XT, and [here are some of my results at the 300mm end of the zoom range](http://www.flickr.com/photos/75905404@N00/tags/xt300mm/). (And most of those are handheld, without a tripod). ---
**Author:** ![KlondikeGeoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3e96dc/32.png) [@KlondikeGeoff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KlondikeGeoff)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recommend-to-me-an-e-reader-and-or-camera-lenses-im-not-picky/504993/25 "2009-08-03T15:02:01Z")
> [@BlueKangaroo](#): > > **KlondikeGeoff** , I think I’m going to have my boyfriend look at this thread and see if I explained things properly (he’s been out of town, so when he get’s back to his place, I’ll e-mail him). Hey, I got another nickname for you, **BluRoo** , OK? Anyway, that is a good idea. Did I mention one important thing about the Kindle? It comes with an ironclad 30-day free return policy. If you don’t like it anytime in the first 30 days, just return it, no questions asked. This is a great way to evaluate it for everything to see how it works and how you like it. And all Amazon books for the Kindle have “samples.” You just download the sample for free and can read the first chapter or two. If you like it, then you can buy it, if you don’t, just delete the sample. That is just one of the great things about the Kindle. ---
**Author:** ![awldune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@awldune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/awldune)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recommend-to-me-an-e-reader-and-or-camera-lenses-im-not-picky/504993/26 "2009-08-03T15:22:25Z")
To clear up some confusion about old lenses on Canon SLRs: Your camera can use any lens made for the Canon EOS system, regardless of whether it was designed for a film camera, a “full frame” digital camera, or a “crop” digital camera. Your camera CANNOT use lenses for Canon manual focus cameras (FL or FD mount). The only DSLR that can use these lenses are the Olympus 4/3 cameras. The reason is that the “flange focal distance” (between the lens and the imaging surface) is shorter for the Canon manual focus cameras than for EOS cameras. What this means is, you will only be able to focus that lens to a short distance (8-10 feet is typical) and everything farther away will be out of focus. An adapter with corrective optics would solve this issue but introduces several new ones and is not recommended. However, your camera CAN use lenses for many other manual focus systems, including Nikon, Olympus OM (not 4/3), Pentax K, Pentax screwmount (m42), Contax, and some others. A simple metal adapter ring is all you need, and these can be found on Ebay for $10-20. I don’t especially recommend manual focus lenses for travel, however. I would go with **Giles’** recommendation. ---
**Author:** ![lobotomyboy63](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobotomyboy63/32/2900_2.png) [@lobotomyboy63](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lobotomyboy63)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recommend-to-me-an-e-reader-and-or-camera-lenses-im-not-picky/504993/27 "2009-08-03T22:05:38Z")
@ **awldune** , that’s interesting info. I’m scratching my head about why Canon’s digital has a shorter flange-to-film/sensor than their film. Is it because Canon used the breech instead of the bayonet mount? @ **BluRoo** , one benefit of the newer lenses (for Olympus, at least) is that they’re a lot lighter than their older counterparts. Your grip pod idea might work but I’d look at specs. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recommend-to-me-an-e-reader-and-or-camera-lenses-im-not-picky/504993/28 "2009-08-03T22:14:29Z")
> [@lobotomyboy63](#): > > @ **BluRoo** , one benefit of the newer lenses (for Olympus, at least) is that they’re a lot lighter than their older counterparts. It’s true for the Canon and Nikon lenses too, but you can’t bring them up to your full frame camera if you go that route. Actually, you can with Nikon IIRC but there are some limitations and vignetting. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recommend-to-me-an-e-reader-and-or-camera-lenses-im-not-picky/504993/29 "2009-08-04T00:19:35Z")
> [@KlondikeGeoff](#): > > As to Orwell and some books, they appeared onthe Amazon site for sale even though they definitely were not in the public domain, but still under copyright. As soon as Amazon discovered this, they removed them, but **notified each customer that bought one** and issued a refund. This was a decent thing to do and they did not really have to refund, as they were illegally put on the site. Now they are more watchful. That’s a fairly charitable interpretation, in my opinion. The people buying the books paid Amazon for them, so I think that they _absolutely_ had the right to a refund. Actually, I think that they had a right to keep the book, too. If you bought a physical book from, say, Barnes and Noble, that had been published without a proper license, would you expect that Barnes and Noble had the right to remove it from your possession at a later date and offer you a refund? This is one of the reasons I don’t want to buy a Kindle. If someone else can unilaterally delete books from it and you have no recourse, well, you didn’t own those books. It might note be “renting” exactly, but it’s closer to that than “owning”. **BluRoo** , there’s nothing in the Kindle or the Sony readers that requires you to check in to keep reading your books. Of course, there’s nothing to stop Amazon from adding it if they felt like, just as there was nothing to stop them from “unpublishing” a book. Basically, you’re relying on continuing to let you do so being in Amazon’s financial interest. ---
**Author:** ![awldune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@awldune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/awldune)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recommend-to-me-an-e-reader-and-or-camera-lenses-im-not-picky/504993/30 "2009-08-04T15:03:00Z")
> [@lobotomyboy63](#): > > @ **awldune** , that’s interesting info. I’m scratching my head about why Canon’s digital has a shorter flange-to-film/sensor than their film. Is it because Canon used the breech instead of the bayonet mount? Canon autofocus (EOS) lenses for film cameras _can_ be used on Canon DSLRS. It’s just the manual focus (FD) lenses that can’t be used. I think the breech mount versus bayonet is part of the issue, yes. Also the AF mount needs room for the electrical connections, so that pushes the lens out a little. ---
**Author:** ![lobotomyboy63](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobotomyboy63/32/2900_2.png) [@lobotomyboy63](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lobotomyboy63)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recommend-to-me-an-e-reader-and-or-camera-lenses-im-not-picky/504993/31 "2009-08-04T16:39:22Z")
> [@awldune](#): > > Canon autofocus (EOS) lenses for film cameras _can_ be used on Canon DSLRS. It’s just the manual focus (FD) lenses that can’t be used. > > I think the breech mount versus bayonet is part of the issue, yes. Also the AF mount needs room for the electrical connections, so that pushes the lens out a little. Ah, you’ve pegged my blind spot: autofocus lenses, but for film. Too bad the OP doesn’t have the option of using MF lenses. If you have (or can locate) an old MF catadioptric, the aperture would be fixed anyway, and it could be an inexpensive solution for uber tele. ---
**Author:** ![Basandre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@Basandre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Basandre)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recommend-to-me-an-e-reader-and-or-camera-lenses-im-not-picky/504993/32 "2009-08-04T18:02:22Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > [snip] > > This is one of the reasons I don’t want to buy a Kindle. If someone else can unilaterally delete books from it and you have no recourse, well, you didn’t own those books. It might note be “renting” exactly, but it’s closer to that than “owning”. > > **BluRoo** , there’s nothing in the Kindle or the Sony readers that requires you to check in to keep reading your books. Of course, there’s nothing to stop Amazon from adding it if they felt like, just as there was nothing to stop them from “unpublishing” a book. Basically, you’re relying on continuing to let you do so being in Amazon’s financial interest. Being a RL friend of the OP and a Sony Reader owner, I’ve been following the e-book part of this thread, and I’d like to try to clear up some things that are sounding like misconceptions. I might only succeed in confusing people, but well, I’m going to try. A reader is partially a storage device, and partially a communication device. The communication might be between it and the company, for instance, a Kindle and Amazon (and not all readers can do this), or it might be between it and your computer. If you have a book that you downloaded, say from [www.fictionwise.com](http://www.fictionwise.com) or [www.gutenberg.org](http://www.gutenberg.org), and you downloaded it onto your computer, “they” can’t take it away from you. You own that copy of that file. It’s vulnerable to data loss, but then, paper books are vulnerable to water damage. It may have restrictions on it, I know some kinds of e-books are DRM-limited to only being put on one reader, or only on up to 6 readers. But the file is yours. It’s stored on your reader, it’s stored on your computer’s hard drive. No one can delete it unless they come round to your house. It’d be a good idea to become familiar with the restrictions put on ebooks by any company you buy them from. If, instead of buying a file that you download, you’ve bought access to their file, yes, of course they can cut you off. They have a book on their servers, if they take the book off of the servers, it’s gone, no reader can see it. As I understand it, this is how the Amazon-_1984_ debacle worked. When Amazon found out they didn’t have true permission to sell that book, they had to take it down. They didn’t delete it off of everybody’s individual readers, they deleted it off of their own servers, and then it wasn’t there for anyone to access anymore. The Kindle can have it’s wireless access turned off, then the only books it will read are books you transfer onto it from a computer. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recommend-to-me-an-e-reader-and-or-camera-lenses-im-not-picky/504993/33 "2009-08-04T19:04:50Z")
> [@Basandre](#): > > But the file is yours. It’s stored on your reader, it’s stored on your computer’s hard drive. No one can delete it unless they come round to your house. It’d be a good idea to become familiar with the restrictions put on ebooks by any company you buy them from. > > If, instead of buying a file that you download, you’ve bought access to their file, yes, of course they can cut you off. They have a book on their servers, if they take the book off of the servers, it’s gone, no reader can see it. As I understand it, this is how the Amazon-_1984_ debacle worked. When Amazon found out they didn’t have true permission to sell that book, they had to take it down. They didn’t delete it off of everybody’s individual readers, they deleted it off of their own servers, and then it wasn’t there for anyone to access anymore. The Kindle can have it’s wireless access turned off, then the only books it will read are books you transfer onto it from a computer. I’m sorry, but you’re misinformed. Amazon did exactly what you claim that they couldn’t do. Amazon did actually go out and delete the individual copies that were on people’s Kindles, that they’d paid for and that they’d downloaded (they also, of course, deleted it from their servers). See [this article](http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/some-e-books-are-more-equal-than-others/) for some info. It very clearly states that the downloaded copies were deleted. There is a [pending lawsuit](http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/07/30/lawsuit-amazon-ate-my-homework/) over the issue because they didn’t just delete the books, they deleted the notes that people had taken on the books. Now, many people will claim that this was a special case and that Amazon will _never_ do it again, and anyway they’d never delete something they didn’t sell (unless it was your notes), or something that they had the rights to sell (unless it was a text-to-speech feature that they wussed out on and let publishers remove after the fact), but the fact is that there’s nothing to stop them (and their track record is less than stellar). If Amazon wants to go muck with your files, they’ve got all the power. You’ve got none. They decide what you can read on that device. You get to pay for the privilege as long as they let you. ---
**Author:** ![BlueKangaroo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3d9bf3/32.png) [@BlueKangaroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlueKangaroo)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recommend-to-me-an-e-reader-and-or-camera-lenses-im-not-picky/504993/34 "2009-08-04T19:05:42Z")
I want to thank everyone for their input on this thread, in both “categories”. I’m still interested in recommendations, so please keep your thoughts coming if you have more to say. Right now I’m just trying to process it all. My boyfriend has not yet seen this thread (regarding the e-readers), though it sounds like his major concerns are not something to be concerned about. I’m going to keep following this, and we’ll see what I end up with. Oh, and as for lenses, the lenses I own now are just manual focus. I don’t own any autofocus lenses except the one kit lens (18 - 55mm) that came with the camera. I’d like something that better does macro and something that extends my range farther (at least to ~200mm), but we’ll see what I can afford. ---
**Author:** ![Basandre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@Basandre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Basandre)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recommend-to-me-an-e-reader-and-or-camera-lenses-im-not-picky/504993/35 "2009-08-04T20:04:41Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > I’m sorry, but you’re misinformed. Amazon did exactly what you claim that they couldn’t do. Amazon did actually go out and delete the individual copies that were on people’s Kindles, that they’d paid for and that they’d downloaded (they also, of course, deleted it from their servers). > > See [this article](http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/some-e-books-are-more-equal-than-others/) for some info. It very clearly states that the downloaded copies were deleted. There is a [pending lawsuit](http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/07/30/lawsuit-amazon-ate-my-homework/) over the issue because they didn’t just delete the books, they deleted the notes that people had taken on the books. > > Now, many people will claim that this was a special case and that Amazon will _never_ do it again, and anyway they’d never delete something they didn’t sell (unless it was your notes), or something that they had the rights to sell (unless it was a text-to-speech feature that they wussed out on and let publishers remove after the fact), but the fact is that there’s nothing to stop them (and their track record is less than stellar). If Amazon wants to go muck with your files, they’ve got all the power. You’ve got none. They decide what you can read on that device. You get to pay for the privilege as long as they let you. So, how, exactly, did they manage to get to everyone’s computer to delete the “1984.kindle” file? (Or whatever the filename is, obviously .kindle isn’t a real file extension) The reader software I use (not the Kindle’s software, I don’t have a Kindle) works like putting mp3s on an mp3 player - I have a file on my computer and the software copies it to the device. I can believe that they can mess with the contents of a Kindle if it’s wireless is turned on (don’t like that? turn the wireless _off_) and that they can fill their books with DRM limitations but not that they can spookily get to the contents of my hard drive, or that they can do anything to a Kindle with no wireless. (I totally agree with you on the “but this will never happen again!” line. Whatever they’re doing with whoever’s data, they did something, and if they can do it once they can do it again. We’re losing control over “our” own files these days, what with maybe storing them on someone else’s server, accessing them with software that might change on us anytime the company feels like pushing an “upgrade/let’s stop the users from using their data the way thay want to”. I have ebook-reading software on my computer that can read the kinds of ebooks I get, so if my reader ever quits on me, I can still read them, but most people don’t and I don’t even know if there are any such solutions for Kindle books.) ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recommend-to-me-an-e-reader-and-or-camera-lenses-im-not-picky/504993/36 "2009-08-04T21:03:38Z")
> [@Basandre](#): > > So, how, exactly, did they manage to get to everyone’s computer to delete the “1984.kindle” file? (Or whatever the filename is, obviously .kindle isn’t a real file extension) The reader software I use (not the Kindle’s software, I don’t have a Kindle) works like putting mp3s on an mp3 player - I have a file on my computer and the software copies it to the device. I can believe that they can mess with the contents of a Kindle if it’s wireless is turned on (don’t like that? turn the wireless _off_) and that they can fill their books with DRM limitations but not that they can spookily get to the contents of my hard drive, or that they can do anything to a Kindle with no wireless. This is just speculation, because I’m not 100% sure how the Kindle works. I don’t think they did anything to computers, because Amazon-purchased Kindle books are (I think) not generally stored on your computer. They’re stored on your Kindle, and on Amazon’s servers. I guess that’s not always true. You can get the file emailed to you. But they don’t need to delete the file to effectively unpublish it. They can change the Kindle’s software so you can’t reload the files, and the only way to read a DRMed Kindle book is with software that Amazon controls. You might technically still have the bits on your drive, but it won’t do you much good. ---
**Author:** ![Belrix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ed655f/32.png) [@Belrix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belrix)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recommend-to-me-an-e-reader-and-or-camera-lenses-im-not-picky/504993/37 "2009-08-04T21:23:43Z")
$0.02 (disclaimer: I haven’t read every post). You can read anytime you get back, you can only get these pictures once in your life. Go for the camera equipment. ---
**Author:** ![KlondikeGeoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3e96dc/32.png) [@KlondikeGeoff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KlondikeGeoff)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recommend-to-me-an-e-reader-and-or-camera-lenses-im-not-picky/504993/38 "2009-08-04T22:25:55Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > This is just speculation, because I’m not 100% sure how the Kindle works. I don’t think they did anything to computers, because Amazon-purchased Kindle books are (I think) not generally stored on your computer. They’re stored on your Kindle, and on Amazon’s servers. I guess that’s not always true. You can get the file emailed to you. That is right, but you can, if you wish, copy the books to your computer, a thumb drive or an external HDD. Frankly, I don’t understand your vendetta against the Kindle and Amazon when you admit you you are not sure how it works, nor do you even have one. I have read over 200 books from Amazon and maybe 100 public domain books since getting my Kindle and have never, ever had any problem or trouble. The few books in question that sems to annoy you so much is a minuscule amount considering Amazon has more than 200,000 books available. Worrying about this is akin to worrying about getting stuck by lightening. The odds are astronomically against it. If you will go to any of the Kindle forums, you will find a multitude of people that absolutely love the device, swear by (not at) it. Not getting one due to worrying about a one-in-a-million chance that it will be deleted (NOT from the Kindle itself) is just silly, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Basandre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@Basandre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Basandre)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2009, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recommend-to-me-an-e-reader-and-or-camera-lenses-im-not-picky/504993/39 "2009-08-05T12:26:43Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > This is just speculation, because I’m not 100% sure how the Kindle works. I don’t think they did anything to computers, because Amazon-purchased Kindle books are (I think) not generally stored on your computer. They’re stored on your Kindle, and on Amazon’s servers. I guess that’s not always true. You can get the file emailed to you. > > But they don’t need to delete the file to effectively unpublish it. They can change the Kindle’s software so you can’t reload the files, and the only way to read a DRMed Kindle book is with software that Amazon controls. You might technically still have the bits on your drive, but it won’t do you much good. I did manage to find this piece of software, [http://www.lexcycle.com/stanza](http://www.lexcycle.com/stanza), for reading ebooks. It runs on Windows or Mac, also it has a mobile version that will run on an iPod Touch/iPhone. Amazon Kindle is on the list of files that it supports, but since I don’t have any files in the Kindle format I haven’t tested it. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2009, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recommend-to-me-an-e-reader-and-or-camera-lenses-im-not-picky/504993/40 "2009-08-05T14:31:41Z")
I recommended the BlackBerry Storm a little bit ago. It is not for everyone. I would also like to kick in the idea of a NetBook. Just a small laptop computer with WiFi capability. Not that you are going to get much WiFi in Africa I’m sure, but you can download books to it to read before you travel. I use MobiPocket. Once the book is downloaded, you don’t need a wireless connection. I like that. A Netbook is bigger by degrees than a Kindel. But they are not that big. A Netbook would also give you a lot more options if you can get WiFi. At say the airport or perhaps a hotel you may stay at. And, you would have a computer. And all the books that you have downloaded. And depending on your camera/s you can move pictures to the Netbook and free up space on the camera (if you are going digital). Just a thought. My Wife and I will be traveling to Costa Rica next spring. I am not much of a photographer but will take my Canon and the Acer Netbook. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recommend-to-me-an-e-reader-and-or-camera-lenses-im-not-picky/504993.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recommend-to-me-an-e-reader-and-or-camera-lenses-im-not-picky/504993.md?page=3)