Nikon FF blast - good news!

"Matt Clara" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

It'll certainly help to keep Canon on their toes.

But I wonder if it's really "competition". If you need speed, you
probably would rather have 10MP at 1.3x, and if you want the resolution,
you probably don't need the speed, weight, or price.

It's not clear who this camera is designed for, other than long-term
Nikon users with gobs of old glass.

You do realize there are pros who never switched to Canon, right?

Uh, that's included under "long-term Nikon users with gobs of old glass."

Crudity snipped

Instead of showing off your ability with foul language, why don't you try to
refute my argument. Let's hear your analysis of whom the D3 is designed for.
Here's a start: 12MP is real nice and replaces 645. The D3 will be a killer
wedding camera. Except there already is a killer wedding camera at half the
price.

Your try goes here.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:11:37 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Argh! I get tremendously irritated when people make this mistake... I
mean angry, literally. A shrink would possibly help.

It's no mistake and it's a common trick in math quizez to see if people
are reading the question: is it x % "more" from the smaller or x %
"less" from the bigger. Marketing people (and engineers writing
interneal reports) use this to their advantage all of the time. As I
was couching it as "it's not so bad a difference" I went for the smaller
number. ;-)

It's also the difference between markup and markdown. One isn't
right and the other wrong. Both have their purposes. Gotta be
careful though. It wouldn't be wise to cut prices in half and
advertise "Save 100%", so in this case you'd also want to use the
smaller number.

On Aug 24, 3:11 pm, Alan Browne
wrote:
acl wrote:
On Aug 24, 4:25 am, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
(Yes, I realize that you are saying that 2944 is 76% of 3744g.)

Argh! I get tremendously irritated when people make this mistake... I
mean angry, literally. A shrink would possibly help.

It's no mistake and it's a common trick in math quizez to see if people
are reading the question: is it x % "more" from the smaller or x %
"less" from the bigger. Marketing people (and engineers writing
interneal reports) use this to their advantage all of the time. As I
was couching it as "it's not so bad a difference" I went for the smaller
number. ;-)


Hmm, never heard it used like this... Seems I was getting angry for
something that's not even wrong!

On Aug 24, 7:33 pm, acl wrote:
On Aug 24, 3:11 pm, Alan Browne
wrote:

acl wrote:
On Aug 24, 4:25 am, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
(Yes, I realize that you are saying that 2944 is 76% of 3744g.)

Argh! I get tremendously irritated when people make this mistake... I
mean angry, literally. A shrink would possibly help.

It's no mistake and it's a common trick in math quizez to see if people
are reading the question: is it x % "more" from the smaller or x %
"less" from the bigger. Marketing people (and engineers writing
interneal reports) use this to their advantage all of the time. As I
was couching it as "it's not so bad a difference" I went for the smaller
number. ;-)

Hmm, never heard it used like this... Seems I was getting angry for
something that's not even wrong!



I guess I should also explain the "joke":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Matt Clara" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
It'll certainly help to keep Canon on their toes.

But I wonder if it's really "competition". If you need speed, you
probably would rather have 10MP at 1.3x, and if you want the resolution,
you probably don't need the speed, weight, or price.

It's not clear who this camera is designed for, other than long-term
Nikon users with gobs of old glass.
You do realize there are pros who never switched to Canon, right?

Uh, that's included under "long-term Nikon users with gobs of old glass."

Crudity snipped

Instead of showing off your ability with foul language, why don't you try to
refute my argument. Let's hear your analysis of whom the D3 is designed for.
Here's a start: 12MP is real nice and replaces 645. The D3 will be a killer
wedding camera. Except there already is a killer wedding camera at half the
price.

Your try goes here.

Can I have a try?

Perhaps for people needing a combination of high iso / high
speed / image quality combination, unsatisfied with the
performance of the latest Canon cameras.

"...taking Nikon's claims of low noise at high ISOs with a
rather large grain of salt. When I saw the aforementioned
prints though, I was literally flabbergasted. The D3 didn't
just surpass the 1D Mark III, it far surpassed it. Well,
that may be a little strong; the Mark III is a fantastic
camera, but the difference between its images and those from
the D3 was anything but subtle"

Canon can make nice camera bodies, if they can catch up with
Nikon's sensor technology, they could become a real
competitor again g

Really, saying "sticks out like a hernia" is crudity to you? Your sour
bashing of Nikon is much more crude than anything I've ever said online.

--
www.mattclara.com
"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"Matt Clara" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

It'll certainly help to keep Canon on their toes.

But I wonder if it's really "competition". If you need speed, you
probably would rather have 10MP at 1.3x, and if you want the resolution,
you probably don't need the speed, weight, or price.

It's not clear who this camera is designed for, other than long-term
Nikon users with gobs of old glass.

You do realize there are pros who never switched to Canon, right?

Uh, that's included under "long-term Nikon users with gobs of old glass."

Yeah, actually, there are those who don't have "gobs of old glass." Really,
what you're saying is that no one would be using Nikon if they hadn't been
on board for years and years, when that's patently not true. Hey, stats
show Nikon bests Canon in the DSLR market in, what nation was it now...oh
yeah, Japan.

Crudity snipped

Your bias sticks out like a hernia.


No where in the English lexicon is "hernia" considered "foul language". I
guess either your bias is rearing its head and making you read things that
simply aren't there, or you've been too long in Japan, and simply don't have
the English vocabulary any more. Which is it?

Instead of showing off your ability with foul language, why don't you try
to refute my argument. Let's hear your analysis of whom the D3 is designed
for. Here's a start: 12MP is real nice and replaces 645. The D3 will be a
killer wedding camera. Except there already is a killer wedding camera at
half the price.

Your try goes here.


Those who've been shooting Nikon all along think this camera is a killer,
and those just buying into Nikon think this camera is a killer. You can
analyze it all you'd like, with math and words and what not, but the fact
is, no one using Nikon DSLR's are saying they're inadequate to the job at
hand. I guess that drives you crazy, so you say biased **** all the time
(whoops, there's a _real_ crudity).

--
www.mattclara.com
where are your pictures, "littleboy"?

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"Matt Clara" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:


PS. I think you're a prime asshole. Asshole.

--
www.mattclara.com

On Aug 25, 6:17 am, "Matt Clara" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote in ...



"Matt Clara" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

PS. I think you're a prime asshole. Asshole.


C'mon Matt, tell us what you REALLY think of him!

To get back on topic, I'm looking forward to used 17-35mm f/2.8s
becoming affordable for me due to this 14-24mm wonder...

acl wrote:
On Aug 24, 7:33 pm, acl wrote:
On Aug 24, 3:11 pm, Alan Browne
wrote:

acl wrote:
On Aug 24, 4:25 am, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
(Yes, I realize that you are saying that 2944 is 76% of 3744g.)
Argh! I get tremendously irritated when people make this mistake... I
mean angry, literally. A shrink would possibly help.
It's no mistake and it's a common trick in math quizez to see if people
are reading the question: is it x % "more" from the smaller or x %
"less" from the bigger. Marketing people (and engineers writing
interneal reports) use this to their advantage all of the time. As I
was couching it as "it's not so bad a difference" I went for the smaller
number. ;-)
Hmm, never heard it used like this... Seems I was getting angry for
something that's not even wrong!



I guess I should also explain the "joke":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

You're not even wrong on that in this context. I was perfectly right
but demanded you actually read the statment _and_ then numbers.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Matt Clara wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...
"Matt Clara" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

PS. I think you're a prime asshole. Asshole.

Littleboy is one of the best contributors we have here IMO. Don't take
every negative for Nikon as a blanket indictment.

Nothing is perfect ...

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.