CANON stomps Nikon .... Again !!!

"Dallas" wrote in message
news
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.

Wrong.
I said I have not seen evidence of your skill.
So when you directed me to your site, I then responded with "there is
nothing wrong with your photography."

You then neither confirm or deny this assertion, but you made your
uninformed remark anyway.

I never said you had no skill.
See above.

Secondly you accuse me of beg 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?

If you posted it on your site, it would be fair game.
But I probably wouldn't because I don't think the stars have anything to say
about how we treat each other. Jesus did.


Who claims to be a Christian? Not me. A believer yes, but a Christian
not.

What other things do you "believe in", yet deliberately fail to practice?
I find that an interesting trait that you might wish to avoid revealing,
lest you be considered a boob.

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...

There is nothing I can do if you aren't able to draw insight from simple
analogies.
BTW--My included smilies are there simply to let you know that I'm not angry
(which I'm not in the slightest), and I am playfully conversing with
you--though I admit that you are annoying. My "annoyance doesn't rise
anywhere near what would be considered anger though. I admit I find your
posts entertaining because they are so goofy. You think in a rather goofy
way and it's rather funny to me.

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.

Hooray for you.
Please feel free to believe in anything you like without the slightest
inclination to let those beliefs effect you in any way.

Magnus W wrote:

Alan Browne wrote in
:


Okay, but we're keeping two themes going he 1) "Tamron"
labeled Tamrons that fit on Maxxums ... 2) "Minolta" labeled
Tamrons that fit on Maxxums... this is where I think the
confusion comes from.


A Tamron lens is a lens marked Tamron. A Minolta lens is a lens marked
Minolta.


In the first instance Tamron does as it
pleases; in the second it may have to do what Minolta tell them
to do... get the ring in the right way.


In that case, the Minolta 28-75, released by Minolta, marked Minolta, and
probably partly made in a Tamron factory, would also turn the right way,
but it turns the wrong way.


The 28-75/2.8, on the other hand, turns the Tamron way (non-Minolta) in
both its Tamron and its Minolta incarnation.

But that "Minolta" incarnation is labeled "Tamron". no?


Minolta have launched two new lenses, labeled Minolta of course, that
people are speculating are Tamron designs. One of these MINOLTA MARKED
LENSES turn the wrong way, one turn the right way. Both the corresponding
TAMRON MARKED LENSES sold under the TAMRON BRAND NAME turn the wrong way.
ALL LENSES mentioned have a MINOLTA MOUNT. If both MINOLTA lenses were in
fact TAMRON designs, they would probably both turn the same way, that way
being "right" or "wrong". But they don't. I don't understand how you can
get this mixed up.

That explanation helped. ( ? ).

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
:


Okay, but we're keeping two themes going he 1) "Tamron"
labeled Tamrons that fit on Maxxums ... 2) "Minolta" labeled
Tamrons that fit on Maxxums... this is where I think the
confusion comes from.


A Tamron lens is a lens marked Tamron. A Minolta lens is a lens marked
Minolta.


In the first instance Tamron does as it
pleases; in the second it may have to do what Minolta tell them
to do... get the ring in the right way.


In that case, the Minolta 28-75, released by Minolta, marked Minolta, and
probably partly made in a Tamron factory, would also turn the right way,
but it turns the wrong way.


The 28-75/2.8, on the other hand, turns the Tamron way (non-Minolta) in
both its Tamron and its Minolta incarnation.

But that "Minolta" incarnation is labeled "Tamron". no?


Minolta have launched two new lenses, labeled Minolta of course, that
people are speculating are Tamron designs. One of these MINOLTA MARKED
LENSES turn the wrong way, one turn the right way. Both the corresponding
TAMRON MARKED LENSES sold under the TAMRON BRAND NAME turn the wrong way.
ALL LENSES mentioned have a MINOLTA MOUNT. If both MINOLTA lenses were in
fact TAMRON designs, they would probably both turn the same way, that way
being "right" or "wrong". But they don't. I don't understand how you can
get this mixed up.

That explanation helped. ( ? ).

Cheers,
Alan

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

Alan Browne wrote in
:

That explanation helped. ( ? ).

To mix things up? AAAAARGH! ;-)

Alan Browne wrote in
:

That explanation helped. ( ? ).

To mix things up? AAAAARGH! ;-)

Mark Roberts wrote:

The Sigma 17-35/2.8-4 EX has a size =F882 filter thread, and haven't w=
e
already determined that the pictured Minolta 17-35/2.8-4 has size =F87=
7?

Sigma has a new 17-35 that has a 77mm filter thread.
Weight 560g, close focus 27cm.

Thanks -- it's hard to keep up with all of Sigma's newly released lenses.

Many of Nikon & Canon's inexpensive consumer zooms are rebadged Tamrons=
..

Do they have the same issue with the focus ring going the wrong way?

That's bad, but not as bad as the zoom ring going the wrong way!

Mark Roberts wrote:

The Sigma 17-35/2.8-4 EX has a size =F882 filter thread, and haven't w=
e
already determined that the pictured Minolta 17-35/2.8-4 has size =F87=
7?

Sigma has a new 17-35 that has a 77mm filter thread.
Weight 560g, close focus 27cm.

Thanks -- it's hard to keep up with all of Sigma's newly released lenses.

Many of Nikon & Canon's inexpensive consumer zooms are rebadged Tamrons=
..

Do they have the same issue with the focus ring going the wrong way?

That's bad, but not as bad as the zoom ring going the wrong way!

Mark Roberts wrote in
:

BTW: Many of Nikon & Canon's inexpensive consumer zooms are rebadged
Tamrons.

Doing a little research, it's now almost certain that both Minolta lenses
are Tamron lenses. Same close focusing distance, same design features, and
look at this:
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/as...ges/1735mm.gif
http://www.konicaminolta-images.com/...peg/135420.jpg
Note that the front element and the reflections looks identical. The whole
front assembly, including the bayonet for the lens shade, are indeed
identical.

Mark Roberts wrote in
:

BTW: Many of Nikon & Canon's inexpensive consumer zooms are rebadged
Tamrons.

Doing a little research, it's now almost certain that both Minolta lenses
are Tamron lenses. Same close focusing distance, same design features, and
look at this:
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/as...ges/1735mm.gif
http://www.konicaminolta-images.com/...peg/135420.jpg
Note that the front element and the reflections looks identical. The whole
front assembly, including the bayonet for the lens shade, are indeed
identical.

Magnus W wrote:


Doing a little research, it's now almost certain that both Minolta lenses
are Tamron lenses. Same close focusing distance, same design features, and
look at this:
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/as...ges/1735mm.gif
http://www.konicaminolta-images.com/...peg/135420.jpg
Note that the front element and the reflections looks identical. The whole
front assembly, including the bayonet for the lens shade, are indeed
identical.

But the focus is in opposite direction (look at the numbers on
the focus ring). So for the 17-35 it looks like Minolta said
"turn it our way".

Cheers,
Alan

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