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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon
Skip M wrote:
"DD (Rox)" wrote in message ... In article tir3f.1431$UF4.1260@fed1read02, says... Well, here's something for you to chew on: on Friday last week I popped into one of the local photographic shops and I was fiddling around with the 5D, chatting to the manager. I asked him how much interest he had in the camera and he said that he had taken about 10 orders for it, but amazingly all of them were from people who were not regular photographers. They were mostly rich folks who had bought the camera (with one of the crappy kit lenses) because it was the newest thing and they had to had it. The only "kit" I've heard of for the 5D is a European bundle with the 24-105 f4L IS, hardly a "crappy kit lens." C'mon, Dallas, at least try for a little objectivity. I was talking to the manager of the local Calumet, yesterday, and his comments were pretty much diametrically opposed to those of your store manager, most of the interest is from people like me, part time pros or full time pros who can't justify the cost of the 1Ds MkII. I was talking about the 28-135mm and 28-105m zoom lenses. I look at those as being nothing more than kit lenses, normally recommended by the sales person. There certainly is a lot of interest in the 5D from people who would like to own one, but as I said all the orders he has taken are from people who can *afford* one, none of whom are photographers in the true sense. "Objectivity"? My objectivity for Canon went down the same hole as the thousands of dollars I wasted buying into the brand in the first place. Thieves. That's what they are. Conniving thieves who will ever see another cent of my hard earned dough. -- DD (everything is temporary) www.dallasdahms.com Well, it was hard to tell that you meant the 28-135, since it is hardly "crappy," either. It's a good lens, and a good match for the 5D, too. Dallas, it's nice you discovered your mistake in time to tell all the world about how bad Canon's equipment is. Now is about time to take a break, because you are starting to sound like StevieG/George Preddy. No Canon mention can go unremarked upon by you and your vitriol are sadly misplaced. I've enjoyed some of the interplay with you, but your inferences about the people who are buying the 5D are probably wide of the mark, and not appreciated. Dallas and I called a truce some time back...and then enjoyed playful banter. But he's not entered into full Troll mode, and it's becoming tiresome. -Nearly plonked him a couple days ago... |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon
MarkČ wrote:
Skip M wrote: "DD (Rox)" wrote in message ... In article tir3f.1431$UF4.1260@fed1read02, says... Well, here's something for you to chew on: on Friday last week I popped into one of the local photographic shops and I was fiddling around with the 5D, chatting to the manager. I asked him how much interest he had in the camera and he said that he had taken about 10 orders for it, but amazingly all of them were from people who were not regular photographers. They were mostly rich folks who had bought the camera (with one of the crappy kit lenses) because it was the newest thing and they had to had it. The only "kit" I've heard of for the 5D is a European bundle with the 24-105 f4L IS, hardly a "crappy kit lens." C'mon, Dallas, at least try for a little objectivity. I was talking to the manager of the local Calumet, yesterday, and his comments were pretty much diametrically opposed to those of your store manager, most of the interest is from people like me, part time pros or full time pros who can't justify the cost of the 1Ds MkII. I was talking about the 28-135mm and 28-105m zoom lenses. I look at those as being nothing more than kit lenses, normally recommended by the sales person. There certainly is a lot of interest in the 5D from people who would like to own one, but as I said all the orders he has taken are from people who can *afford* one, none of whom are photographers in the true sense. "Objectivity"? My objectivity for Canon went down the same hole as the thousands of dollars I wasted buying into the brand in the first place. Thieves. That's what they are. Conniving thieves who will ever see another cent of my hard earned dough. -- DD (everything is temporary) www.dallasdahms.com Well, it was hard to tell that you meant the 28-135, since it is hardly "crappy," either. It's a good lens, and a good match for the 5D, too. Dallas, it's nice you discovered your mistake in time to tell all the world about how bad Canon's equipment is. Now is about time to take a break, because you are starting to sound like StevieG/George Preddy. No Canon mention can go unremarked upon by you and your vitriol are sadly misplaced. I've enjoyed some of the interplay with you, but your inferences about the people who are buying the 5D are probably wide of the mark, and not appreciated. Dallas and I called a truce some time back...and then enjoyed playful banter. But he's not entered into full Troll mode, and it's becoming tiresome. -Nearly plonked him a couple days ago... Oops! That SHOULD have said, "He's NOW entered into full Troll Mode!!!!!" |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon
"MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:ckD3f.1629$UF4.821@fed1read02... MarkČ wrote: Skip M wrote: "DD (Rox)" wrote in message ... In article tir3f.1431$UF4.1260@fed1read02, says... Well, here's something for you to chew on: on Friday last week I popped into one of the local photographic shops and I was fiddling around with the 5D, chatting to the manager. I asked him how much interest he had in the camera and he said that he had taken about 10 orders for it, but amazingly all of them were from people who were not regular photographers. They were mostly rich folks who had bought the camera (with one of the crappy kit lenses) because it was the newest thing and they had to had it. The only "kit" I've heard of for the 5D is a European bundle with the 24-105 f4L IS, hardly a "crappy kit lens." C'mon, Dallas, at least try for a little objectivity. I was talking to the manager of the local Calumet, yesterday, and his comments were pretty much diametrically opposed to those of your store manager, most of the interest is from people like me, part time pros or full time pros who can't justify the cost of the 1Ds MkII. I was talking about the 28-135mm and 28-105m zoom lenses. I look at those as being nothing more than kit lenses, normally recommended by the sales person. There certainly is a lot of interest in the 5D from people who would like to own one, but as I said all the orders he has taken are from people who can *afford* one, none of whom are photographers in the true sense. "Objectivity"? My objectivity for Canon went down the same hole as the thousands of dollars I wasted buying into the brand in the first place. Thieves. That's what they are. Conniving thieves who will ever see another cent of my hard earned dough. -- DD (everything is temporary) www.dallasdahms.com Well, it was hard to tell that you meant the 28-135, since it is hardly "crappy," either. It's a good lens, and a good match for the 5D, too. Dallas, it's nice you discovered your mistake in time to tell all the world about how bad Canon's equipment is. Now is about time to take a break, because you are starting to sound like StevieG/George Preddy. No Canon mention can go unremarked upon by you and your vitriol are sadly misplaced. I've enjoyed some of the interplay with you, but your inferences about the people who are buying the 5D are probably wide of the mark, and not appreciated. Dallas and I called a truce some time back...and then enjoyed playful banter. But he's not entered into full Troll mode, and it's becoming tiresome. -Nearly plonked him a couple days ago... Oops! That SHOULD have said, "He's NOW entered into full Troll Mode!!!!!" Yeah, I made that translation/transition! ;-) And I agree, he's not even maintaining the level of objectivity that Douglas has. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon
Skip M wrote:
"MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message news:ckD3f.1629$UF4.821@fed1read02... MarkČ wrote: Skip M wrote: "DD (Rox)" wrote in message ... In article tir3f.1431$UF4.1260@fed1read02, says... Well, here's something for you to chew on: on Friday last week I popped into one of the local photographic shops and I was fiddling around with the 5D, chatting to the manager. I asked him how much interest he had in the camera and he said that he had taken about 10 orders for it, but amazingly all of them were from people who were not regular photographers. They were mostly rich folks who had bought the camera (with one of the crappy kit lenses) because it was the newest thing and they had to had it. The only "kit" I've heard of for the 5D is a European bundle with the 24-105 f4L IS, hardly a "crappy kit lens." C'mon, Dallas, at least try for a little objectivity. I was talking to the manager of the local Calumet, yesterday, and his comments were pretty much diametrically opposed to those of your store manager, most of the interest is from people like me, part time pros or full time pros who can't justify the cost of the 1Ds MkII. I was talking about the 28-135mm and 28-105m zoom lenses. I look at those as being nothing more than kit lenses, normally recommended by the sales person. There certainly is a lot of interest in the 5D from people who would like to own one, but as I said all the orders he has taken are from people who can *afford* one, none of whom are photographers in the true sense. "Objectivity"? My objectivity for Canon went down the same hole as the thousands of dollars I wasted buying into the brand in the first place. Thieves. That's what they are. Conniving thieves who will ever see another cent of my hard earned dough. -- DD (everything is temporary) www.dallasdahms.com Well, it was hard to tell that you meant the 28-135, since it is hardly "crappy," either. It's a good lens, and a good match for the 5D, too. Dallas, it's nice you discovered your mistake in time to tell all the world about how bad Canon's equipment is. Now is about time to take a break, because you are starting to sound like StevieG/George Preddy. No Canon mention can go unremarked upon by you and your vitriol are sadly misplaced. I've enjoyed some of the interplay with you, but your inferences about the people who are buying the 5D are probably wide of the mark, and not appreciated. Dallas and I called a truce some time back...and then enjoyed playful banter. But he's not entered into full Troll mode, and it's becoming tiresome. -Nearly plonked him a couple days ago... Oops! That SHOULD have said, "He's NOW entered into full Troll Mode!!!!!" Yeah, I made that translation/transition! ;-) And I agree, he's not even maintaining the level of objectivity that Douglas has. Even Dallas says he's no longer objective. -Go figure what he hoped to accomplish by announcing that... ? -It does simplify the formation of opinions regarding his posts, though... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon
In article CiF3f.1650$UF4.1597@fed1read02, "MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest
even number says... Well, it was hard to tell that you meant the 28-135, since it is hardly "crappy," either. It's a good lens, and a good match for the 5D, too. Dallas, it's nice you discovered your mistake in time to tell all the world about how bad Canon's equipment is. Now is about time to take a break, because you are starting to sound like StevieG/George Preddy. No Canon mention can go unremarked upon by you and your vitriol are sadly misplaced. I've enjoyed some of the interplay with you, but your inferences about the people who are buying the 5D are probably wide of the mark, and not appreciated. Dallas and I called a truce some time back...and then enjoyed playful banter. But he's not entered into full Troll mode, and it's becoming tiresome. -Nearly plonked him a couple days ago... Oops! That SHOULD have said, "He's NOW entered into full Troll Mode!!!!!" Yeah, I made that translation/transition! ;-) And I agree, he's not even maintaining the level of objectivity that Douglas has. Even Dallas says he's no longer objective. -Go figure what he hoped to accomplish by announcing that... ? -It does simplify the formation of opinions regarding his posts, though.... Funny how you Canon guys get upset to the point of plonking when someone disses your precious brand. I couldn't care if you do, but it certainly won't stop me from telling it like it is. BTW, Skip, that 28-135mm lens is only good for amateurs who don't know any better. Hardly something I would recommend to someone who is serious about photography. And Mark, if dissing Canon is called trolling in your book, what's Bret guilty of everytime he disses Nikon? -- DD (everything is temporary) www.dallasdahms.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon
DD (Rox) wrote:
In article CiF3f.1650$UF4.1597@fed1read02, "MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number says... Well, it was hard to tell that you meant the 28-135, since it is hardly "crappy," either. It's a good lens, and a good match for the 5D, too. Dallas, it's nice you discovered your mistake in time to tell all the world about how bad Canon's equipment is. Now is about time to take a break, because you are starting to sound like StevieG/George Preddy. No Canon mention can go unremarked upon by you and your vitriol are sadly misplaced. I've enjoyed some of the interplay with you, but your inferences about the people who are buying the 5D are probably wide of the mark, and not appreciated. Dallas and I called a truce some time back...and then enjoyed playful banter. But he's not entered into full Troll mode, and it's becoming tiresome. -Nearly plonked him a couple days ago... Oops! That SHOULD have said, "He's NOW entered into full Troll Mode!!!!!" Yeah, I made that translation/transition! ;-) And I agree, he's not even maintaining the level of objectivity that Douglas has. Even Dallas says he's no longer objective. -Go figure what he hoped to accomplish by announcing that... ? -It does simplify the formation of opinions regarding his posts, though... Funny how you Canon guys get upset to the point of plonking when someone disses your precious brand. That had nothing to do with it. I nearly plonked you when you made your ridiculous "shadow" comment. I don't know who you are, Dallas. You don't have to like Canon. I like Nikon. I like Pentax. I like lots of brands. The only difference here is that you are clearly incapable of being even remotely objective about anything any more. You seem to take some sort of new-found pride in coming up with new ways of stating your hatred for a *brand.* This is not only intellectually embarrassing for you, but also indicative of someone who appears incapable of rational thought on the subject. I have gone to great lengths to speak with balance regarding various brands. You, on the other hand, have taken to wearing your lack of objectivity like a badge of honor. It's not. It merely paints you as a fool who can't rise above his emotions, and his tiny little corner of thought. I couldn't care if you do, but it certainly won't stop me from telling it like it is. BTW, Skip, that 28-135mm lens is only good for amateurs who don't know any better. Hardly something I would recommend to someone who is serious about photography. Please point to images that demonstrate you've somehow moved beyond the quality of that particular lens, Dallas. I've looked at your sight, and I can't find a basis for your opinion in this regard. What can you show in this regard? What have you seen in your lenses that leads you to declaring crap on anything else. To your likely dismay...I have posted recently how my 24-70 leaves my old 28-135 behind in terms of sharpness...but I have spoken with measured, comparative language. You, on the other hand, speak with foam frothing from your mouth. I've lost all respect for your opinion because you've chosen a self-declared lack of objectivity. And Mark, if dissing Canon is called trolling in your book, what's Bret guilty of everytime he disses Nikon? Humor. He's guilty of goading, blatant...humor. -Something you clearly don't have. We all know Bret's schtick. You don't have a schtick, Dallas. It's just you. I remeber WAAAY back when Bret first started posting...I gave him crap all the time. -Then after a time it became clear what he was up to, and it turned into entertainment...not to mention a number of spurts of decent photography. You, on the other hand, are just turning into an arse. You aren't funny, Dallas, and you don't show evidence of anything other than your own bitterness. You merely come off as a guy who got a black eye from the South African Canon Service Center...and as a result, has set aside sanity to continue your mindless ravings against a brand. You have become the poster child for why brand wars are reserved for fools. Regarding "dissing..." Even I have "dissed" Canon, you boob. Did you read my thread about whether the 5D was/is over-priced for it's build quality? -About the lack of this and that? Did you read my loudly expressed displeasure with Canon's handling of 20D problems way back when--even though I don't own one? --When Nikon announced specs for their new generation of topline DSLR a year or so ago...guess who started a new thread, glowingly expressing how impressed he was?? -That was me, Dallas. -You know...the Canon worshipper (or so you claim). So you see, DD...Roxy...Dallas...whoever the heck you are... You have proven only that when it comes to discussions of equipment, you are a closed-minded, bitter man...hell-bent on your own version of reality that leads you to robotic responses of mindless anti-blatherings. Other than that...You're not a bad guy. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon
In article 2fI3f.1674$UF4.484@fed1read02, "MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest
even number says... Funny how you Canon guys get upset to the point of plonking when someone disses your precious brand. That had nothing to do with it. I nearly plonked you when you made your ridiculous "shadow" comment. Ridiculous? Not really. Just obvious. Whenever I say something about Canon, there you are, like the proverbial shadow. I don't know who you are, Dallas. I don't know who any of the people on this forum are, but I can classify them segmentally with the greatest of ease. You don't have to like Canon. I like Nikon. I like Pentax. I like lotsof brands. The only difference here is that you are clearly incapable of being even remotely objective about anything any more. You seem to take some sort of new-found pride in coming up with new ways of stating your hatred for a *brand.* This is not only intellectually embarrassing for you, but also indicative of someone who appears incapable of rational thought on the subject. I also like Pentax and I also like Olympus. But I will not tolerate people saying that Canon is superior to anything else because as I have proved over and over again, that is bull****. There is *nothing* special about Canon. Sadly this goes against the thought processes of yourself and a few others around here and you get uptight about it. I have gone to great lengths to speak with balance regarding various brands. You, on the other hand, have taken to wearing your lack of objectivity like a badge of honor. It's not. It merely paints you as a fool who can't rise above his emotions, and his tiny little corner of thought. Unlike you and the rest of the Canon worshipers I have used Nikons and Canons extensively. In fact I was just working it out that out of the 5 years I have been sick with photograhpy disease, 3 of them were spent using Canon equipment. So I have effectively had more experience with Canon than I have with Nikon. A tiny corner of thought? I don't think so, Mark. A LOT of thought has gone into the comments I make about how crap the Canon consumer line is. I couldn't care if you do, but it certainly won't stop me from telling it like it is. BTW, Skip, that 28-135mm lens is only good for amateurs who don't know any better. Hardly something I would recommend to someone who is serious about photography. Please point to images that demonstrate you've somehow moved beyond the quality of that particular lens, Dallas. I've looked at your sight, and I can't find a basis for your opinion in this regard. What can you show in this regard? What have you seen in your lenses that leads you to declaring crap on anything else. Mark...you're going to have to do better than that, m'boy. Let us begin by you telling me what it is about my published images that leaves you in any mind as to the notion that I don't know what I am talking about? Are you saying the images are ****? If so, tell me how, because from where I stand every one of them is way, way better than the snapshots you have posted to Pbase. I say that with conviction. I don't claim to be in the same league as someone like Simon Stanmore, for instance, but I am a lot better than most of the people who have the cheek to call themselves professional photographers. Of that there is no doubt in my mind. To your likely dismay...I have posted recently how my 24-70 leaves my old 28-135 behind in terms of sharpness...but I have spoken with measured, comparative language. You, on the other hand, speak with foam frothing from your mouth. I've lost all respect for your opinion because you've chosena self-declared lack of objectivity. The 28-135mm Canon lens is a very soft lens compared to most consumer grade Nikkors I have used with similar focal lengths (I have never used a 24-120mm though). But all that is besides the point, because you, like so many other psuedo photo experts, seem to think that you can tell how good a lens is simply by looking at a jpeg posted to the internet. FWIW, the images I have on my site come from a variety of different sources...digital SLR's (3 types), film SLR's (about 5 types) and rangefinders (1 type). At least 10 different lenses too. I challenge you to tell me what equipment took what shot. And Mark, if dissing Canon is called trolling in your book, what's Bret guilty of everytime he disses Nikon? Humor. He's guilty of goading, blatant...humor. -Something you clearly don't have. But you just said you don't know me, so how can you make a statement like that in the same post? We all know Bret's schtick. You don't have a schtick, Dallas. It's just you. I remeber WAAAY back when Bret first started posting...I gave him crap all the time. -Then after a time it became clear what he was up to, and it turned into entertainment...not to mention a number of spurts of decent photography. You, on the other hand, are just turning into an arse. You aren't funny, Dallas, and you don't show evidence of anything other than your own bitterness. You merely come off as a guy who got a black eye from the South African Canon Service Center...and as a result, has set aside sanity to continue your mindless ravings against a brand. You have become the poster child for why brand wars are reserved for fools. At least I am not a nerd. Regarding "dissing..." Even I have "dissed" Canon, you boob. Did you read my thread about whether the 5D was/is over-priced for it's build quality? -About the lack of this and that? Did you read my loudly expressed displeasure with Canon's handling of 20D problems way back when--even though I don't own one? --When Nikon announced specs for their new generation of topline DSLR a year or so ago...guess who started a new thread, glowingly expressing how impressed he was?? -That was me, Dallas. -You know...the Canon worshipper (or so you claim). So you see, DD...Roxy...Dallas...whoever the heck you are... You have proven only that when it comes to discussions of equipment, you are a closed-minded, bitter man...hell-bent on your own version of reality that leads you to robotic responses of mindless anti-blatherings. I never blather. I speak the truth. Some people can't handle the truth. Are you among them? Other than that...You're not a bad guy. Too late for that. -- DD (everything is temporary) www.dallasdahms.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon
MarkČ wrote:
So you see, DD...Roxy...Dallas...whoever the heck you are... You have proven only that when it comes to discussions of equipment, you are a closed-minded, bitter man...hell-bent on your own version of reality that leads you to robotic responses of mindless anti-blatherings. Other than that...You're not a bad guy. Feel better now, Mark? -- Douglas... Specifications are good to read but When it comes to judging Digital Cameras... I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 07:29:41 +0200, DD (Rox)
wrote: BTW, Skip, that 28-135mm lens is only good for amateurs who don't know any better. Hardly something I would recommend to someone who is serious about photography. I guess Robert Farber isn't as serious about photography as I thought... http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846 -- Alex atheist #2007 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 611 | November 20th 05 03:04 PM |
Nikon User to Canon help me I'm slipping... | Richard Favinger, Jr. | Digital SLR Cameras | 141 | April 29th 05 02:52 PM |
A fully manual dSLR | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 130 | April 18th 05 04:00 AM |
Lift off with the Nikon D70!!! | Dallas | 35mm Photo Equipment | 132 | August 23rd 04 06:37 PM |
FA: Camera Collectibles for Auction on e-Bay: NIKON CANON PENTAX MINOLTA TAMRON | z-ride | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | October 22nd 03 10:17 PM |