CANON stomps Nikon .... Again !!!

Alan Browne wrote in
:

I'd be less than shocked or offended to find
out that the lens *is* a Tamron design with the aperture ring
removed. (Which I guess they do with all their Maxxum compatible
lenses in any case).

Yes, of course. The big question is -- did they turn the focusing ring
around, and if so, why didn't they do it on the 28-75?

Alan Browne wrote in
:

I'd be less than shocked or offended to find
out that the lens *is* a Tamron design with the aperture ring
removed. (Which I guess they do with all their Maxxum compatible
lenses in any case).

Yes, of course. The big question is -- did they turn the focusing ring
around, and if so, why didn't they do it on the 28-75?

Magnus W wrote:

Alan Browne wrote in
:


I'd be less than shocked or offended to find
out that the lens *is* a Tamron design with the aperture ring
removed. (Which I guess they do with all their Maxxum compatible
lenses in any case).


Yes, of course. The big question is -- did they turn the focusing ring
around, and if so, why didn't they do it on the 28-75?

I would bet that the focusing ring will not change ... making
your second question moot.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Magnus W wrote:

Alan Browne wrote in
:


I'd be less than shocked or offended to find
out that the lens *is* a Tamron design with the aperture ring
removed. (Which I guess they do with all their Maxxum compatible
lenses in any case).


Yes, of course. The big question is -- did they turn the focusing ring
around, and if so, why didn't they do it on the 28-75?

I would bet that the focusing ring will not change ... making
your second question moot.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:18:50 -0700, Mark M wrote:

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.

I think it is truly funny that in the same breath that you say "[Mark]
can't handle the heat," you blow your top and throw two "****s" my way.
Now that's just plain funny, mate. Who can't handle WHAT, again???


Sadly the practise of lampooning is totally lost on you.

--
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 Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:18:50 -0700, Mark M wrote:

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.

I think it is truly funny that in the same breath that you say "[Mark]
can't handle the heat," you blow your top and throw two "****s" my way.
Now that's just plain funny, mate. Who can't handle WHAT, again???


Sadly the practise of lampooning is totally lost on you.

--
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 Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:27:41 -0700, Mark M wrote:

Heeheehee!
Let's see here...
You nailed me earlier for not knowing your photographic skills. So...I
went to your web-site to do diligence. On that site, you have a brief
blathering about your ability to "find Jesus" without church. If you
don't blather about Jesus, I have nothing to comment on.
Seems if you'd not decided to broadcast your thoughts on that, I have
nothing to respond to...


I'm wondering just how much of an idiot you are prepared to make of
yourself before you go away.

Firstly you accuse me of having no skills, so I direct you to my website.
You then neither confirm or deny this assertion, but you made your
uninformed remark anyway.

Secondly you accuse me of being a hypocrite because I made a remark (you
failed to understand) about my religeous beliefs on my website. You now
sit there snickering trying to duck your most recent inane comments by
adding a smilie to the end of what I can only describe as an out of
context remark.

What's next? Would you perhaps like to comment on my astrological beliefs
as well?

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).

Hmmm... Let's try that with another example: I believe in gravity, but
I'm not a gravitational participant.

OK.

Another smilie at the end of yet another out of context remark that
totally avoids answering my relatively question. BTW, how can you possibly
associate gravity with religeous belief? People who draw comparisons
between totally unrelated things amuse me no end...

You're obsessing over my comment that your language, attitude, and
argumentation doesn't seem to fit your beliefs. I think it's time you get
over that and get back to making your irrational, silly, and uninformed
anti-300D comments...

Well now, since you brought this religeous thing up, I felt it only
appropriate to fully understand what you meant by it. As it turns out, you
probably didn't know yourself, so ya, let me get over it*.

* Note to Mark: I was never under it.

--
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 Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:13:28 -0700, Mark M wrote:

Well...let's break it down...
The Rebel has enough electronics to tell the lens what to do, and know how
much and what type of film is in the camera.

The 300D has to house everything from digital capture, to external lens
control, to memory buffer, read-write, color screen, major power supply,
buttons galore, flash memory interface/housing.

I would think that the cheapest part of the camera would be the
electronics. Granted the screen might raise the price a bit, but then why
didn't they just make it without the screen if they wanted to make a
really cheap, good DSLR?

Oh wait... Surely you already knew all of this. And yet you ask for
explanation...
Amazing.
If it's so cheap to make...why on Earth is your Nikon (and every other
DSLR previous to the 300D) even MORE expensive??? Perhaps you can return
the favor and explain THAT??

In my experience Canon equipment that is on a par with Nikon equipment
generally costs more.

Because I love you, Dallas.
Your the pain-in-the-ass of my dreams.

I notice you haven't brought yourself to ignore me, either. But that's OK.
You are free to continue--just like me.

The prevailing winds of opinion regarding your performance here are
overwhelmingly against your assertions. I have yet to see even ONE
person
in this thread defend or line up with you. -Not even devoted Nikon
folk.

Oh yes! I'm feeling overwhelmed by the responses of about 6 people (all
like minded) in this stupid thread. The Nikon folks probably blocked the
title ages ago (as I should have done).

I suspect the silence on your "side of the aisle" has more to do with
embarrassment.

You're still not paying attention: I don't have a "side of the isle"
because I never go to church.

What you just wrote can only be classified as a sweeping statement.

Sweeping?
That I felt you had just made your silliest statement in this
**particular** thread?
I've always figured that *particulars* and "sweeping statements" were
incompatable.
You're really tough to communicate with. Perhaps it's one of those
continental/cultural things that is making this difficult?
I don't know.

No, it's not a continental thing, it's just you.

What's that supposed to mean? Were you making fun of me?

Yes.
I was making fun of you.
By the way... I didn't broadcast anything. You broadcast it on your
web-site.

Websites are not broadcast, Mark. Broadcasting requires an audience, which
unfortunately my website doesn't have on a permanent basis. But I have
nothing to hide on there - I wouldn't have put it up in the first place if
I did. Your schoolyard-esque ridicule of my beliefs is duly appreciated.

Oops!
Your bad...

No, not my bad, your bad. Again.

Or...they claim they know Jesus without going to church, and tell people
to "**** off."
Oh wait! -That's you!

I'm sure you're going to show me where I said I "know" Jesus. In case you
misinterpreted what I wrote, allow me to dissect the following sentence
for you:

"I believe in Jesus but I don't believe the church is where I need to go
to find him".

This means I believe in Jesus but I don't believe the church is where I
need to go to find him. It doesn't say or imply that I have "found" Jesus,
or subscribe to his teachings. Comprehension, my boy, comprehension.



Bret has a "potty mouth" all the time, but he doesn't blather about
Jesus on his web-page...so he gets a pass. Look: If your a contuction
guy, you can whistle at the girlies and nobody cares. If you're a
preacher, you get canned forthe same whistle. As Rocky Balboa would
say... "It's simple mathematics!"

Another anology that isn't anologous. You were so eager to use your
tarring brush that you completely the feathers.

And with that, I think I shall concede the last word to you. Centre stage
is all yours.

--
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

Alan Browne wrote in
:

I would bet that the focusing ring will not change ... making
your second question moot.

Err, once again: the focusing ring goes different ways on the Minolta 17-
35/2.8-4 and the corresponding Tamron version.

Magnus W wrote:

Alan Browne wrote in
:


I would bet that the focusing ring will not change ... making
your second question moot.


Err, once again: the focusing ring goes different ways on the Minolta 17-
35/2.8-4 and the corresponding Tamron version.

I'm totally confused.

You gave me the impression that all Tamrons turn opposite to all
Minoltas (which AFAIK are consistently in the same direction,
focus and zoom).

Hence, my statment above (ref. to Tamron) that they won't change
and that it will be oposite to the Minoltas, but not the existing
Tamron...

Beyond that, if we can't synch up ... faggetaboutit!

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--