If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#471
|
|||
|
|||
"The Studio of Foto Ryadia" wrote in message ... My computer shows just the letter G in brackets G So anyway... This is one of the first pictures I shot with a 20D. Using the "crappy" kit lens. Backlit and without fill flash or lens hood. I didn't decode it with DxO either. Seriously Skip, could you say with any certainty this was not shot with a "L" series lens? http://www.ryadia.com/mans-bf.htm That image is 800x534 pixels. A shot of water, which is without any particular form or shape...or any predictable color or shadow... Could you please choose a WORSE image for scrutiny and comparison? BTW--Did that guy catch the bird with his hook? I caught a pelican a couple of times while fishing... We'd pull fish up on our lines, and as soon as the fish was just below the surface, the danged bird would dive-bomb into the water and snatch them...hook and all. This one pelican I caught beat the living CRAP out of me with his huge wings while I fought to remove the hook! It's amazing how big these birds seem when they're literally in your face fighting with you... I actually had to reach INSIDE his "bag" to retrieve it...all the while my buddy was laughing at me. |
#472
|
|||
|
|||
"The Studio of Foto Ryadia" wrote in message
... Skip M wrote: Tut to you too, that's why the "G" My computer shows just the letter G in brackets G So anyway... This is one of the first pictures I shot with a 20D. Using the "crappy" kit lens. Backlit and without fill flash or lens hood. I didn't decode it with DxO either. Seriously Skip, could you say with any certainty this was not shot with a "L" series lens? http://www.ryadia.com/mans-bf.htm -- Message authored by Douglas Who has Zero Care Factor about negative responses from anonymous posters. If you intend to post a controversial reply to my post, Read this first: http://www.ryadia.com/disclaimer.htm At that size, no. And it does seem over sharpened, a fault I found myself prone to when I first got the 24-70L, it doesn't need as much sharpening as my 28-135 IS. So, in this case, I'd say that the EF-S lens gave the same results as the L would (Elwood? Blues?) but in a larger image, less downsized, I'm not so sure. Remember, Douglas, that I'm one of the guys who's been advocating the EF-S lens as not being as bad as Stacey and Tony Polson have been saying. Tony, who shows little sign of actually using a camera of any sort. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#473
|
|||
|
|||
Sander Vesik wrote:
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm SMS wrote: You guys need to do three things. First, stop lying about the quality of the 18-55 kit lenses. Second, stop lying about the cost of the 17-85 IS What - he claimed it didn't form an image? I seriously doubt that. Other than that, its an utter crap of a lens, an there isn't really much to say or lie about it beyond that. I think the problem is that the Canon kit lens, while not L quality, is a good starter lens, and it adds only $70 to the body-only price. This infuriates the Canon bashers, since one of the only things that they have to attack Canon, is that the $70 optional kit lens for Canon D-SLRs is not as good as the $300 kit lens that is optional with the Nikon D70. Of course the $600 kit lens for the 20D is far better than the Nikon kit lens, but as we all know, paying more for a better kit lens is only acceptable if it's for a Nikon body! You guys need to get a life. |
#474
|
|||
|
|||
|
#475
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:09:37 GMT, SMS
wrote: Sander Vesik wrote: In rec.photo.equipment.35mm SMS wrote: You guys need to do three things. First, stop lying about the quality of the 18-55 kit lenses. Second, stop lying about the cost of the 17-85 IS What - he claimed it didn't form an image? I seriously doubt that. Other than that, its an utter crap of a lens, an there isn't really much to say or lie about it beyond that. I think the problem is that the Canon kit lens, while not L quality, is a good starter lens, and it adds only $70 to the body-only price. How low can you go? If it were $50 and even worse in terms of quality, you could make the same statement. However, it's not a good lens and seriously compromises the capability of the sensor. It's unfortunate that it is so competitive (or is it? How much of the market does Canon control?) that Canon felt the need to provide such a piece of junk. Whereas Olympus somehow managed to provide a similar priced "entry lens" that is much better, as did Pentax and probably Minolta with their new D5. -Rich |
#476
|
|||
|
|||
RichA wrote:
How low can you go? If it were $50 and even worse in terms of quality, you could make the same statement. However, it's not a good lens and seriously compromises the capability of the sensor. It's optional, get over it. If a buyer doesn't want it then they can choose to get the body only, and buy a different lens, or opt for the other kit lens. It's unfortunate that it is so competitive (or is it? How much of the market does Canon control?) About 65% of the D-SLR market. that Canon felt the need to provide such a piece of junk. Canon wanted to give buyers more choices. No lens at all, a basic lens that is adequate to get started, or a higher end image stabilized kit lens. It would be nice if they had a $300 kit lens that omitted the image stabilization of their high end kit lens. Whereas Olympus somehow managed to provide a similar priced "entry lens" that is much better, as did Pentax and probably Minolta with their new D5. They chose to do this in an effort to make their products more competitive. I think that they hope that unsophisticated buyers will make their decision on what to buy based mainly on the kit lens. They think that it's good marketing, but most buyers see through it. Unfortunately for them, most buyers of D-SLRs are sophisticated enough to understand that the lenses that are sold in kits should not be the deciding factor in their purchase decision, unless the bodies are so close that this is the only deciding factor--which hasn't been the case thus far. I don't believe that anyone posting the stuff about the kit lenses actually believes their own tripe, they are simply desperately looking for something, anything, to attach Canon, and their isn't anything much else that they can think of. It's not like the kits are much cheaper than buying the lens and body separately. In fact you can buy a D70s body with the 18-70m lens separately, for $15 less than the kit price (for the imported lens) or for $40 more for the U.S. lens. This reminds me of people that decide which car to buy based on the quality of the included tires. |
#477
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm SMS wrote:
I think the problem is that the Canon kit lens, while not L quality, is a good starter lens, and it adds only $70 to the body-only price. This infuriates the Canon bashers, since one of the only things that they have to attack Canon, is that the $70 optional kit lens for Canon D-SLRs is not as good as the $300 kit lens that is optional with the Nikon D70. Of course the $600 kit lens for the 20D is far better than the Nikon kit lens, but as we all know, paying more for a better kit lens is only acceptable if it's for a Nikon body! Infuriates? why would I care what the lens cost ? as long as crap is called crap i have no objections. Its a pity canon bothers to make such - and it doesn't really reflect well on their credibility - but other than that... Its not as if I care what kit lens Nikon or Pentax or Olympus DSLR-s are sold with. -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Adolescent RebelliHOWES Stage - FACT, FICTION, MYTH Or The PREDICTABLE RESULT OF MISHANDLING? | I Am | Digital Photography | 2 | February 15th 05 07:08 PM |
The Adolescent RebelliHOWES Stage - FACT, FICTION, MYTH Or The PREDICTABLE RESULT OF MISHANDLING? | I Am | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | February 15th 05 07:08 PM |
Digital Camera Pricing | measekite | Digital Photography | 75 | February 7th 05 10:23 AM |
Will EF-S Lenses Become Obsolete In A Couple Of Years? | Matt | Digital Photography | 52 | November 22nd 04 02:25 AM |
Why separate AF sensors in DSLRs ? | Alfred Molon | Digital Photography | 133 | September 8th 04 07:51 AM |