what's up with Nikon?

"Jim MacKenzie" wrote in message
...

"Dallas" wrote in message
news
Amazing how pre-occupied with Nikon so many of the Canon adulators are,
isn't it?

As well as I can tell, we Nikon shooters actually shoot with our Nikons.

Dallas shoots primarily with his mouth.
Check out his ENDLESS RAILING about Canon's 300D.
Funny that he starts up in reverse now.

He loves to claim that someone else starts it.
-But he's quite eager to jump on Canon with endless rants.

I have noted quite vocally the good things Nikon has done in many different
posts.
I have never referred to ANYTHING Nikon makes as crap, or any other major
put-down. Dallas would make a great corrupt politician. Say ANYTHING that
suits his current conversation...

"Dallas 2" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:51:08 -0700, Mark M wrote:


"S Lee" wrote in message
...
Mark M choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to spell
out:

Come on Nikon! I'm pulling for ya!

Again, at least part of that is because it'll compel the nice Canon
stuff to be a little less expensive

Which is the part I just LOVE!

How much cheap Canon schtuff you bought lately?

What part of **less EXPENSIVE** don't you comprehend?

"Dallas 2" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:51:08 -0700, Mark M wrote:


"S Lee" wrote in message
...
Mark M choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to spell
out:

Come on Nikon! I'm pulling for ya!

Again, at least part of that is because it'll compel the nice Canon
stuff to be a little less expensive

Which is the part I just LOVE!

How much cheap Canon schtuff you bought lately?

What part of **less EXPENSIVE** don't you comprehend?

"Jim MacKenzie" wrote in message
...

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:v8p4d.333289$Oi.73363@fed1read04...

Film isn't really "equipment" though, if you REALLY want to get
technical.
This isn't a "film" group...it's an equipment group.

Every attachment you put on these DSLR bodies is 35mm camera
**equipment,**
and fit nicely into your film bag with the REST of our 35mm equipment.

So you figure out whether it fits or not...

So we can talk about the digital ATTACHMENTS that will work on film
bodies... but not the digital cameras, since they won't take 35mm film.
Works for me.

A body is not a camera without those 35mm equipment lenses.
You say "cameras" are OK...so that means DSLR bodies must be.
Since they are only cameras when they are linked together with lenses, etc.

Works for me too!

"Jim MacKenzie" wrote in message
...

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:v8p4d.333289$Oi.73363@fed1read04...

Film isn't really "equipment" though, if you REALLY want to get
technical.
This isn't a "film" group...it's an equipment group.

Every attachment you put on these DSLR bodies is 35mm camera
**equipment,**
and fit nicely into your film bag with the REST of our 35mm equipment.

So you figure out whether it fits or not...

So we can talk about the digital ATTACHMENTS that will work on film
bodies... but not the digital cameras, since they won't take 35mm film.
Works for me.

A body is not a camera without those 35mm equipment lenses.
You say "cameras" are OK...so that means DSLR bodies must be.
Since they are only cameras when they are linked together with lenses, etc.

Works for me too!

Actually it does seem like his debate is getting more intelligent - remember
when he used to pretend he knows what a camera is?

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:XMJ4d.334011$Oi.177899@fed1read04...

"Dallas" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 23:59:05 +0000, Tony wrote:

I've never had much respect for Nikon since owning Nikon Cameras.
Recently I learned not to buy Nikon Scanners either - unless you can
afford to throw them away when they break down.
I see Nikon as a third rate company that some people claim is
great
because they've never taken the time to try out any good stuff. It
only
took me five minutes comparing the AF on an F4 to that on a Rebel
(original model) to decide that Nikon wanted to pee on my head and
tell
me
it was raining.
You and your kind will continue to defend your bad decisions - fine
with
me. Go ahead. But I wouldn't recommend Nikon to anyone except Annika.

ROFLMAO!

And there goes the very last of whatever credibility you once enjoyed on
this group. It sounded like a very wet fart.

Po' widdle fing...those naughty, naughty people at Nikon made a big
wee-wee on widdle Tony Spudrumpus' head.

This post...along with his chorus of "**** off you ****" lines pretty well
sums up the calibre of Dallas.

-Either baby-talk "nanny-nanny-boo-boo" pouting, or profanity.

Quality guy, this Dallas.

Actually it does seem like his debate is getting more intelligent - remember
when he used to pretend he knows what a camera is?

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:XMJ4d.334011$Oi.177899@fed1read04...

"Dallas" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 23:59:05 +0000, Tony wrote:

I've never had much respect for Nikon since owning Nikon Cameras.
Recently I learned not to buy Nikon Scanners either - unless you can
afford to throw them away when they break down.
I see Nikon as a third rate company that some people claim is
great
because they've never taken the time to try out any good stuff. It
only
took me five minutes comparing the AF on an F4 to that on a Rebel
(original model) to decide that Nikon wanted to pee on my head and
tell
me
it was raining.
You and your kind will continue to defend your bad decisions - fine
with
me. Go ahead. But I wouldn't recommend Nikon to anyone except Annika.

ROFLMAO!

And there goes the very last of whatever credibility you once enjoyed on
this group. It sounded like a very wet fart.

Po' widdle fing...those naughty, naughty people at Nikon made a big
wee-wee on widdle Tony Spudrumpus' head.

This post...along with his chorus of "**** off you ****" lines pretty well
sums up the calibre of Dallas.

-Either baby-talk "nanny-nanny-boo-boo" pouting, or profanity.

Quality guy, this Dallas.

Also, for those with piles of high end glass,
the fact that Canon is the ONLY full-frame available
means they HAVE to go Canon if they want to keep in
line with their long-familiar lens performance and
field of view.


Only of course if their "piles of high-end glass" happens to be Canon
glass, in which case it would be a moot point anyway.

Folks with expensive Nikon lenses will sadly have to stick with Nikon,
full-frame or not, unless they don't mind shelling out for an
equivalent Canon megakit.

R

Also, for those with piles of high end glass,
the fact that Canon is the ONLY full-frame available
means they HAVE to go Canon if they want to keep in
line with their long-familiar lens performance and
field of view.


Only of course if their "piles of high-end glass" happens to be Canon
glass, in which case it would be a moot point anyway.

Folks with expensive Nikon lenses will sadly have to stick with Nikon,
full-frame or not, unless they don't mind shelling out for an
equivalent Canon megakit.

R

"Rudi Cheow" wrote
Also, for those with piles of high end glass,
the fact that Canon is the ONLY full-frame available
means they HAVE to go Canon if they want to keep in
line with their long-familiar lens performance and
field of view.


Only of course if their "piles of high-end glass" happens to be Canon
glass, in which case it would be a moot point anyway.

Folks with expensive Nikon lenses will sadly have to stick with Nikon,
full-frame or not, unless they don't mind shelling out for an
equivalent Canon megakit.

R

I have expensive Nikon glass, and I don't "sadly" stick with Nikon.

I gladly stick with them.

Cheers,
ink