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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Who care really if the D3 is better/worse than some Canon model?
Am I the only one who finds this endless drivel borrrrrrring and
immature? Rita, or whoever "it" really is, I wish I knew what to say to "it," except that it's time to go out and play with the other kids in the sandbox. I got a D3 about a month ago, and I'm very happy with it. Isn't that enough? Father Kodak |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Who care really if the D3 is better/worse than some Canon model?
It's "who cares" not "who care".
-- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Who care really if the D3 is better/worse than some Canon model?
In article ,
Father Kodak wrote: Am I the only one who finds this endless drivel borrrrrrring and immature? Nope. I couldn't care less either. My theory is, use whatever camera works best for you. I don't have a vested interest in any camera manufacturer. I am a long-time Canon user, but if someone wants to buy Nikon, Sony, Smiggeggi, whatever, why in the world would I care? Life is why too short for such silliness as camera religious arguments. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Who care really if the D3 is better/worse than some Canon model?
"Father Kodak" wrote in message ... Am I the only one who finds this endless drivel borrrrrrring and immature? Rita, or whoever "it" really is, I wish I knew what to say to "it," except that it's time to go out and play with the other kids in the sandbox. I got a D3 about a month ago, and I'm very happy with it. Isn't that enough? It should be enough for you, certainly. A lot of what you're talking about is more or less like Ford fans arguing with Chevy fans about which is best. Such arguments ("nyahh nyahh") are fun for people who enjoy that sort of exchange and of little interest to those who don't. If you find it "borrrrrrrrrring" why read it? I'm a Nikon guy myself and I recognize that Canon is my chosen make's chief competitor. As such, I do like to read about which brand is getting ahead of the other technologically, and how. It's just a matter of general interest for me. Sure, there are some immature comments made by either side but those are easy to skip over. Neil |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Who care really if the D3 is better/worse than some Canon model?
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Who care really if the D3 is better/worse than some Canon model?
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:05:35 -0500, "Rita Berkowitz"
wrote: Shawn Hirn wrote: Am I the only one who finds this endless drivel borrrrrrring and immature? Probably so. My web hit counter lights up like a Christmas tree within 15-seconds of me posting an image. I appreciate my fan base. I will admit that you post intriguing subject titles. I rarely fail to be pleased by what I find at the links you post. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Who care really if the D3 is better/worse than some Canon model?
Rita Berkowitz wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote: A lot of what you're talking about is more or less like Ford fans arguing with Chevy fans about which is best. Such arguments ("nyahh nyahh") are fun for people who enjoy that sort of exchange and of little interest to those who don't. If you find it "borrrrrrrrrring" why read it? You miss the point! Take the Chevy/Ford thing. There's nothing sweeter than putting in a Ford 9" rear in a Chevy and a small block Chevy motor in a Ford. Why do that? I could see putting Cadillac engines in Fords (which was a very popular thing to do at one time), but there were much better Ford engines than the small block Chevy. And Ford-O-Matics of the period were sure a lot better than Chevy's PowerGlide. In fact I can't think of any auto transmission worse than PowerGlide, except perhaps Dynaflow. ;-) Kinda like the Nikon/Canon thing. You need Nikkor glass to make Canon bodies work while Nikon got both bases covered now. If you like, but for me it's Nikon all the way. (Well, I do have one Nikon-mount Tokina lens -- but I wouldn't be interested in mix-and-match with different camera makers' bodies and lenses.) I'm a Nikon guy myself and I recognize that Canon is my chosen make's chief competitor. As such, I do like to read about which brand is getting ahead of the other technologically, and how. It's just a matter of general interest for me. Sure, there are some immature comments made by either side but those are easy to skip over. Well, that's true, but the facts should always be presented in a way that is both stimulating and make the readers think. I'm all for that. Neil |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Who care really if the D3 is better/worse than some Canon model?
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:02:44 +0100, Alfred Molon
wrote: It's "who cares" not "who care". Typo, that's all. We all do that from time to time. Father Kodak |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Who care really if the D3 is better/worse than some Canon model?
Rita Berkowitz wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote: I'm a Nikon guy myself and I recognize that Canon is my chosen make's chief competitor. As such, I do like to read about which brand is getting ahead of the other technologically, and how. It's just a matter of general interest for me. Sure, there are some immature comments made by either side but those are easy to skip over. Well, that's true, Which is your excuse for posting "immature comments". but the facts should always be presented in a way that is both stimulating and make the readers think. And were you planning on actually doing that one of these days? -- Ray Fischer |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Who care really if the D3 is better/worse than some Canon model?
"Rita Berkowitz" wrote in message ... Neil Harrington wrote: Why do that? I could see putting Cadillac engines in Fords (which was a very popular thing to do at one time), but there were much better Ford engines than the small block Chevy. And Ford-O-Matics of the period were sure a lot better than Chevy's PowerGlide. In fact I can't think of any auto transmission worse than PowerGlide, except perhaps Dynaflow. ;-) The only good Ford engine from that era was the 351 Cleveland. The Windsor was a big compromise. Well, we're speaking of different periods of course. I remember when the first Chevy small block came out; you probably do not. So I tend to think of "small block" as meaning the early ones like the 265 and 283, not the later bored and stroked versions. At about that time they were stuffing big-inch Caddy engines into Fords to make "Fordillacs" -- which would outperform almost anything. The only big block V8 I ever owned was the 352 in my 1966 Galaxie convertible. That was great fun to drive, but it sure was thirsty -- about 10 or 11 mpg around town, even less when driven enthusiastically. Of course gas was a lot cheaper in 1966. Neil |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Argos are worse than J*ss*p* | Fred Anonymous | Digital Photography | 5 | June 25th 07 10:50 AM |
CA gets worse with time? | Zed | Digital Photography | 11 | May 21st 07 10:44 PM |
What is worse than a flimsy plastic DSLR housing? I found something FAR worse. | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 41 | February 3rd 07 07:28 PM |
digital worse than film, proof: | Developwebsites | Digital Photography | 0 | January 3rd 05 06:15 PM |
B&H has worse customer service than i thought | Stephen H. Westin | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 16 | February 3rd 04 11:36 PM |