If you buy Canon

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.

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 '.'.

"ray" wrote in message
...
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 '.'.

My idea. What an arrogant idiot.. (no question mark)


--
Focus

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?

In article ,
wrote:

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

If you had ever been to comp.periphs.printers, you'd know the true story.

The guy's retarded. I should know better than to click on one of his
messages.

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.

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

Mr. Strat wrote:

In article , wrote:



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



If you had ever been to comp.periphs.printers, you'd know the true story.



The guy's retarded. I should know better than to click on one of his messages.

Since you do click what does that make you?????

measekite wrote:


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*

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

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?