CANON stomps Nikon .... Again !!!

"Dallas" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:17:41 -0700, Mark M wrote:


"Brian C. Baird" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
says...
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 16:47:09 +0000, Brian C. Baird wrote:

The fact you didn't even bother to LEARN about the 300D before
spewing your crap further harms what little credibility you have
left.

Allow me to dispell the remaining credibility with a firm **** OFF to
you.

Dear God, I think he's snapped.

But...but...but...He "believes in Jesus!!"

(Your words, Dallas...not mine...so you're stuck with them.)

What's your point? Are you suggesting that it is not possible to believe
in Christ and swear?

That's some bait you've got there, sonny. Too bad it takes a higher IQ
than the one you display to get me on the line.

I don't know that a discussion on religion is a worthwhile pursuit here.
You brought it up, Dallas. I merely commented on your statement no YOUR
web-site, after YOU responded to a rational post with "**** you."
Look, Dallas... You can tell the Pope to "**** off" if you really want to.
-Just don't be surprised if you get some similar observations about the way
you conduct yourself as it relates to your volunteered statements of "faith
and belief."
It's really pretty simple.
What you say matters, Dallas.
It's how we understand you and everyone else here on this forum.
You've said some really stupid things here, and it's catching up with you.
No amount of your blathering can shift the blame for your own stupidity onto
me or any one else. If you talk behave like an ass, don't be surprised if
you're treated like one.

From: "Mark M"

It's really pretty simple.
What you say matters, Dallas.

Not to me.

From: "Mark M"

It's really pretty simple.
What you say matters, Dallas.

Not to me.

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
From: "Mark M"

It's really pretty simple.
What you say matters, Dallas.

Not to me.

Right.
But for anyone trying to figure out whether Dallas is an ass or not, what he
says is all we have to go on. The ass verdict appears to be in, and it
don't 'pear ta be in 'is favor...

Now you, Bret, are what I would call a "model" ass...
....and I applaud your skill and *selective* application of that "gift."
For Dallas, though, it's just plain beyond his control.

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
From: "Mark M"

It's really pretty simple.
What you say matters, Dallas.

Not to me.

Right.
But for anyone trying to figure out whether Dallas is an ass or not, what he
says is all we have to go on. The ass verdict appears to be in, and it
don't 'pear ta be in 'is favor...

Now you, Bret, are what I would call a "model" ass...
....and I applaud your skill and *selective* application of that "gift."
For Dallas, though, it's just plain beyond his control.

Alan Browne wrote in message ...
Magnus W wrote:

Alan Browne wrote in
:


In your opinion, Magnus, is the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4.0 (var
aperture?) a good lens?


It slices, it dices, it spins and it swirls! Seriously, I have no idea, I
have never used it. My widest current lens is a Tokina 17/3.5 ATX Pro.


follow up to prev convo

I found:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/ko...lta/km7d02.jpg
and
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/17_35mm_lg.asp

--filter diameter is different (67 v 77 mm)
--front element appears different
(could be they were focused/zoomed differently for the photo)
--choke rings (anti flare at front) is different

so I'm not convinced that Tamron is making that lens for Minolta...

Cheers,
Alan.

Alan Browne wrote in message ...
Magnus W wrote:

Alan Browne wrote in
:


In your opinion, Magnus, is the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4.0 (var
aperture?) a good lens?


It slices, it dices, it spins and it swirls! Seriously, I have no idea, I
have never used it. My widest current lens is a Tokina 17/3.5 ATX Pro.


follow up to prev convo

I found:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/ko...lta/km7d02.jpg
and
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/17_35mm_lg.asp

--filter diameter is different (67 v 77 mm)
--front element appears different
(could be they were focused/zoomed differently for the photo)
--choke rings (anti flare at front) is different

so I'm not convinced that Tamron is making that lens for Minolta...

Cheers,
Alan.

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:25:49 -0700, Mark M wrote:


"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
From: "Mark M"

It's really pretty simple.
What you say matters, Dallas.

Not to me.

Right.
But for anyone trying to figure out whether Dallas is an ass or not, what
he says is all we have to go on. The ass verdict appears to be in, and it
don't 'pear ta be in 'is favor...

Now you, Bret, are what I would call a "model" ass... ...and I applaud
your skill and *selective* application of that "gift." For Dallas, though,
it's just plain beyond his control.

So now, smearing me is your response.

You have a knack of getting into the wrong conversations, Mark. If you
can't handle the heat, stay the **** out of the ****ing kitchen.

--
Dallas www.dallasdahms.com
"Going down a dirty inner city side road I plotted
Madness passed me by, she smiled hi, I nodded"
- Sixto Rodriguez

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:40:56 -0700, Mark M wrote:

I don't know that a discussion on religion is a worthwhile pursuit here.
You brought it up, Dallas.

Oh no I didn't, m'boy! You brought it up all by yourself. Don't try and
imply that you didn't, because you did. You seem to have a VERY short
memory.

I merely commented on your statement no YOUR
web-site, after YOU responded to a rational post with "**** you." Look,
Dallas... You can tell the Pope to "**** off" if you really want to.
-Just don't be surprised if you get some similar observations about the
way you conduct yourself as it relates to your volunteered statements of
"faith and belief."

Who claims to be a Christian? Not me. A believer yes, but a Christian not.
Apparently you can't make that distinction even when it's written in black
and white for you (over and over again).

It's really pretty simple.
What you say matters, Dallas.
It's how we understand you and everyone else here on this forum. You've
said some really stupid things here, and it's catching up with you. No
amount of your blathering can shift the blame for your own stupidity onto
me or any one else. If you talk behave like an ass, don't be surprised if
you're treated like one.

The really sad part of this whole exchange is that you are the ass who
came barging in telling me not to be an ass. You have paraded insinuations
and character smears all over this thread, simply because you disagree
with my take on a silly little low end digital camera.

Who's the ****ing ass?

--
Dallas www.dallasdahms.com
"Going down a dirty inner city side road I plotted
Madness passed me by, she smiled hi, I nodded"
- Sixto Rodriguez

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:46:40 +0000, Brian C. Baird wrote:

In article ,
says...

$900 is a small amount of cash? Would you pay that for a 35mm camera
with the same feature set? What is the big difference between the
cheapest Canon Rebel 35mm body and this 300D?

That would be a valid point if the Digital Rebel still cost $900 and not
$150 less like it does now.

Oh come on, man. Enough already - most of the people bleating about it on
the group paid $999 for it when it offered the same features as a $200
film camera. People living outside of the USA paid even more. Getting
back to the start of this whole mess, that to me smacks of "rip-off
a-la-Canon".

Of course, when the *ist DS is released, I'm sure Canon will cut the
price officially, making your point even more moot.

You guys missed the point completely.

--
Dallas www.dallasdahms.com
"Going down a dirty inner city side road I plotted
Madness passed me by, she smiled hi, I nodded"
- Sixto Rodriguez