If you buy Canon

In article , Cynicor
wrote:

Don't post in HTML. This isn't WebTV/AOL/Prodigy.

He's definitely got that mentality.

In article , Closed
University wrote:

Are you ever going to get a decent newsreader?

It doesn't get any better than Thoth. Funny...nobody else in the real
world posts in HTML but this retarded asshole.

For me, I personally prefer the Canon lens range, but that is just a
personal choice for me. Not right or wrong, just my choice. My Canon
lenses work very well for me.

For bodies, at the moment, the D3 has a lot of good features, but I won't be
switching my body at the moment for either a new Canon or a new Nikon, but I
must admit, looking at the paper spec of the D3, the Nikon product planning
department have come out with an interesting body.

As a closing comment, you are actually maybe a bit wrong when you said that
very few people mention what lenses thay are using. You will find many
references to lenses.




"measekite" wrote in message
. net...
Those who bought various Canon cameras recently (past couple of years) talk
about their cameras and the features they have. Some say how good the
results are. It is OK to do that.

However, very few mention what lenses they are using and how the various
lenses they own compare against each other and what they have owned
previously.

In a few years the camera they have may be upgrades but the lenses may be
the same. So how do the Canon lenses stack up.


More specifically how to the comparable models (Nikon and Canon
specifically) stack up against each other. And I do not mean the stupid
resolution tests but the real world comparison of the actual images of
different types. And that includes sharpness, color, vignetting, and other
characteristics that make for a nice acceptable image.

And not just that one is better than another since some of that can be
preference but what are the actual differences.

So the answer is more than just saying the results from XYZ is better or I
liked the color better or was more accurate but how does one actually
describe the difference.

Chill out. It's not important. 15 years ago, maybe.


"Mr. Strat" wrote in message
...

It doesn't get any better than Thoth. Funny...nobody else in the real
world posts in HTML but this retarded asshole.

Closed University wrote:
Mr. Strat wrote:


Are you ever going to get a ****ing clue and stop posting in HTML?

Are you ever going to get a decent newsreader?

I thought Thunderbird was decent, but evidently it doesn't strip HTML
crap from messages.

"But I NEEEEEEED the blink tag!"

"measekite" wrote in message
...


ray wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 17:44:24 +0000, measekite wrote:

!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" html
head
/head
body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000" font face="sans-serif"Those
who bought various Canon cameras recently (past couple of years) talk
about their cameras and the features they have.  Some say how good
the results are.  It is OK to do that.br br
However, very few mention what lenses they are using and how the various
lenses they own compare against each other and what they have owned
previously.br
br
In a few years the camera they have may be upgrades but the lenses may
be the same.  So how do the Canon lenses stack up.br br
br
More specifically how to the comparable models (Nikon and Canon
specifically) stack up against each other.  And I do not mean the
stupid resolution tests but the real world comparison of the actual
images of different types.  And that includes sharpness, color,
vignetting, and other characteristics that make for a nice acceptable
image.br
br
And not just that one is better than another since some of that can be
preference but what are the actual differences.br br
So the answer is more than just saying the results from XYZ is better or
I liked the color better or was more accurate but how does one actually
describe the difference.br /font
/body
/html

Did you ever do a web search? BTW - you might also learn, someday, that
questions end with '?', not '.'.
I do not need an engleeeesh leson.



You do. You also need a lesson in posting to usenet.

OT
On Mar 23, 3:44 am, measekite wrote:
(a pretty silly post)

Funny, if I had received:
- only one attempt at a genuine response*
- a large number of responses suggesting I stop using html (as he
always does)

.... I would probably get the hint. But then I have a brain, I listen,
and I learn stuff.

And when I stop learning and listening, I know I will have served out
my usefulness.


* - I note the 'genuine' response was top-posted, didn't properly
quote the message, and basically contained the sort of stuff that the
OP said he didn't want.. But, as they say.. "Chill out. It's not
important." (O:

"measekite" wrote in message
.. .


Mr. Strat wrote:
In article ,
measekite wrote:


!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
html
head
/head
body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"
font face="sans-serif"Those who bought various Canon cameras recently
(past couple of years) talk about their cameras and the features they
have.  Some say how good the results are.  It is OK to do
that.br


HTML **** snipped

Are you ever going to get a ****ing clue and stop posting in HTML?

Glad you assked that question.

NO


into the "****wit without a clue bin" you go then :-)

--
God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?

Ali wrote:
For me, I personally prefer the Canon lens range, but that is just a
personal choice for me. Not right or wrong, just my choice. My Canon
lenses work very well for me.
Specifically, which lenses?

For bodies, at the moment, the D3 has a lot of good features, but I
won't be switching my body at the moment for either a new Canon or a
new Nikon, but I must admit, looking at the paper spec of the D3, the
Nikon product planning department have come out with an interesting body.

As a closing comment, you are actually maybe a bit wrong when you said
that very few people mention what lenses thay are using. You will
find many references to lenses.




"measekite" wrote in message
. net...
Those who bought various Canon cameras recently (past couple of years)
talk about their cameras and the features they have. Some say how
good the results are. It is OK to do that.

However, very few mention what lenses they are using and how the
various lenses they own compare against each other and what they have
owned previously.

In a few years the camera they have may be upgrades but the lenses may
be the same. So how do the Canon lenses stack up.


More specifically how to the comparable models (Nikon and Canon
specifically) stack up against each other. And I do not mean the
stupid resolution tests but the real world comparison of the actual
images of different types. And that includes sharpness, color,
vignetting, and other characteristics that make for a nice acceptable
image.

And not just that one is better than another since some of that can be
preference but what are the actual differences.

So the answer is more than just saying the results from XYZ is better
or I liked the color better or was more accurate but how does one
actually describe the difference.

Closed University wrote:
Mr. Strat wrote:


Are you ever going to get a ****ing clue and stop posting in HTML?

Are you ever going to get a decent newsreader?

Some poster want to live in the past. Others are not living but are
upset others are. And most of the cry babies do not want to upgrade
their software and hardware to modern times with high speed inexpensive
bandwidth, lot of memory, fast graphic cards and the niceties of html.