Canon kit lens review critiques show a pattern

Alan Bremner wrote:
It depends on the intended audience. I've read highly detailed
reviews in magazines obviously aimed at the serious hobbyist/semi-pro,
75% of which went right over my head. OTOH I've read others to which
your "4 out of 5" comment could be described as flattering, which were
clearly aimed at those with no technical experience or interest. The
latter don't know or care about resolution charts and other 'geek
stuff', they just want to know what gives the best value for their
budget. IMO both are valid for their intended audience.

Al

Dude, that a well balanced and rational perspective on the variety of
trade publications available. Clearly you're not from around
here...that type of moderation in usenet postings will not be
tolerated!

Please pick from one of the following:
- The 300/350D kit lense is a flaming pile of crap which is just one
step from being a crime against humanity.
or
- Canon is so uber that all other manufacturers should genuflect in the
vauge direction of Japan whilst members of the board of Nikon commit
sepku.

Given that everyone here are photographers, its amusing that everything
is so B&W all the time...

On 5 Aug 2005 07:21:07 -0700, wrote:

Dude, that a well balanced and rational perspective on the variety of
trade publications available. Clearly you're not from around
here...that type of moderation in usenet postings will not be
tolerated!

Sorry, I'll try harder in future. g

I just don't see what the fuss is about. A 'kit lens' is just that,
part of a package designed to do a job at a price. The bigger the
budget the wider and better the choice of packages, including bespoke
options (body + free choice of lenses). Most contributers here have
the experience and/or creative ambition to demand better or a wider
range of optics, and will probably be prepared to assign a large part
of their disposable income to do so. However somebody taking their
first steps into SLR photography may be much more restricted. A kit
package may be the only affordable route, and the lens still allows
them to develop and most importantly enjoy their photography.

Please pick from one of the following:
- The 300/350D kit lense is a flaming pile of crap which is just one
step from being a crime against humanity.
or
- Canon is so uber that all other manufacturers should genuflect in the
vauge direction of Japan whilst members of the board of Nikon commit
sepku.

None of the above. I own a Canon, they don't own me. :-)

Incidently, I also own Olympus (OM-1, OM-20, C-1000L digital ZLR and a
1958 Ace-E rangefinder with a broken leaf in its diaphragm shutter
that I can't afford to get repaired) plus a Fujica AZ-1, so I'm not
exactly a brand loyalist anyway....

Al
--
[This space intentionally left blank]

wrote:

Given that everyone here are photographers, its amusing that everything
is so B&W all the time...

Er, wrong on both postulates! Stick around; you'll see!

--
John McWilliams

Max thought the night-time burglary at the California surfing museum
would be a safe caper, but that was before he spotted the security cop
riding a bull mastiff, blond hair blowing in the wind, and noticed the
blue-and-white sign wired to the cyclone fence, "Guard dude on
doggy."7:19:53 AM

How did Ansel Adams take such beautiful images with so antiquated
equipment...and here we are, children of a lesser god nitpicking about
auto focus, kit lenses, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I also thought
beautiful photographs were the end product of a creative mind regardless
of equipment used.

"Oscar" wrote in message
...
How did Ansel Adams take such beautiful images with so antiquated
equipment...and here we are, children of a lesser god nitpicking about
auto focus, kit lenses, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I also thought
beautiful photographs were the end product of a creative mind regardless
of equipment used.

"Oscar" asked:
"...
How did Ansel Adams take such beautiful images with so antiquated
equipment...and here we are, children of a lesser god nitpicking about
auto focus, kit lenses, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
...."

It's actually very simple.

Ansel Adams learned his craft ... and actually *worked* at it.

Then "Oscar" asked:
"...
I also thought beautiful photographs were the end product of a creative
mind regardless of equipment used.
...."

That's true ... AFTER you have learned your craft

Oh ... and BTW ... his equipment was not really all that "antiquated."
Virtually the same equipment is currently being used by *many* professional
photographers.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:51:59 -0700, Oscar wrote:

How did Ansel Adams take such beautiful images with so antiquated
equipment...and here we are, children of a lesser god nitpicking about
auto focus, kit lenses, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I also thought
beautiful photographs were the end product of a creative mind regardless
of equipment used.

They are. But you can't make a silk purse picture from a sow's ear
lens. Adams you should know was a technical fanatic, he'd be the
first to complain about second-rate lenses.
-Rich


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"

In article , RichA
wrote:

They are. But you can't make a silk purse picture from a sow's ear
lens. Adams you should know was a technical fanatic, he'd be the
first to complain about second-rate lenses.

And you, on the other hand, bitch about anything that's branded Canon.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:17:29 -0700, Randall Ainsworth
wrote:

In article , RichA
wrote:

They are. But you can't make a silk purse picture from a sow's ear
lens. Adams you should know was a technical fanatic, he'd be the
first to complain about second-rate lenses.

And you, on the other hand, bitch about anything that's branded Canon.

Well, when some company spends more on advertising and largesse to
pros than on some of it's technical camera efforts, they deserve to
be criticized. The only people happy about Canon not having dust
cleaning integral to the camera body are the makers of VASTLY
overpriced "swabs."
-Rich


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"

Diddums Rich
I can see someone is a lickle bit sore that Nikon are no longer the choice
of Pro's.

"RichA" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:17:29 -0700, Randall Ainsworth
wrote:

In article , RichA
wrote:

They are. But you can't make a silk purse picture from a sow's ear
lens. Adams you should know was a technical fanatic, he'd be the
first to complain about second-rate lenses.

And you, on the other hand, bitch about anything that's branded Canon.

Well, when some company spends more on advertising and largesse to
pros than on some of it's technical camera efforts, they deserve to
be criticized. The only people happy about Canon not having dust
cleaning integral to the camera body are the makers of VASTLY
overpriced "swabs."
-Rich


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"