Nikon D300s is the top camera on PC World's list of Best Products of 2009

RichA wrote:
On Nov 29, 11:20*pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Nov 29, 2:35*pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
RichA wrote:

ray wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:28:28 +0000, agvx wrote:

PC World Top 100:http://tr.im/PCWorld100

Amazon.com customer reviews:http://tr.im/D300sReviews

Considering the astuteness of the average consumer, there must be many
better and less expensive alternatives.

Uh, no there aren't.

Uh, yes there are.

Oh this I HAVE to read. *Which are the cheaper, better alternatives?

Let's see you define "better" first, idiot. *And no, it is not the
same as whatever brand arouses YOU.

Intellectual bankruptcy again I see.

LOL! The rightard runs away! "Best" really is supposed to be whatever
he says it is.

--
Ray Fischer

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:200911292004168930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2009-11-29 11:36:51 -0800, (Ray Fischer) said:

agvx wrote:
PC World Top 100: http://tr.im/PCWorld100

And I'm sure that PC World has quite the photo lab to objectively test
cameras (cough).

Hey!
There are always those discerning publications, Popular Mechanics &
Outdoors Magazine to provide comprehensive tests and reviews of all
consumer items, including cameras, vehicles, computers, shoe inserts, and
much, much more.

All without the bias of product placement kickbacks. :-)

I wonder why that don;t advertise cameras like the do sports cars,
i.e with scantily clad models all over them, it'd be much more appropriate
than having them on car bonnets/boots.
Not that it'll give us an idea of which camera is best but it'd make the
reviews (cough)
more entertaining. @-)

In article hf0jeh$8hh$1@qmul, whisky-dave
wrote:

I wonder why that don;t advertise cameras like the do sports cars,
i.e with scantily clad models all over them, it'd be much more appropriate
than having them on car bonnets/boots.

http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/nikon-ad.jpg
http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/preview_600_796.jpg
http://www.adrants.com/images/nikon-s60-twosome.jpg
http://www.bilerico.com/2009/05/nikonsexism.jpg

In message , agvx
writes
PC World Top 100: http://tr.im/PCWorld100

Amazon.com customer reviews: http://tr.im/D300sReviews

I don't see how something released so recently can be on a Best Product
List as no one has really had time to assess it and use it. The reviews
are at best preliminary evaluations.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

nospam wrote:
In article hf0jeh$8hh$1@qmul, whisky-dave
wrote:

I wonder why that don;t advertise cameras like the do sports cars,
i.e with scantily clad models all over them, it'd be much more appropriate
than having them on car bonnets/boots.

http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/nikon-ad.jpg
http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/preview_600_796.jpg
http://www.adrants.com/images/nikon-s60-twosome.jpg
http://www.bilerico.com/2009/05/nikonsexism.jpg

Mainstream advertising in Europe (and Australia and to a lesser extent
Canada) goes way beyond uptight American standards.

In the end though, I think most people here are sold on spec/cost than
anything else.

Rich wrote:
On Nov 30, 8:38*am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Nov 29, 11:20*pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Nov 29, 2:35*pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
RichA wrote:

ray wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:28:28 +0000, agvx wrote:

PC World Top 100:http://tr.im/PCWorld100

Amazon.com customer reviews:http://tr.im/D300sReviews

Considering the astuteness of the average consumer, there must be many
better and less expensive alternatives.

Uh, no there aren't.

Uh, yes there are.

Oh this I HAVE to read. *Which are the cheaper, better alternatives?

Let's see you define "better" first, idiot. *And no, it is not the
same as whatever brand arouses YOU.

Intellectual bankruptcy again I see.

LOL! *The rightard runs away! *"Best" really is supposed to be whatever
he says it is.

Best AF.

Show your evidence and then explain how that makes it the best camera.

Best control of all functions.

Pure opinion.

Best body.

Only because you say so.

--
Ray Fischer

Bob Larter wrote:
Carl Beissler wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 09:40:41 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:


ray wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:28:28 +0000, agvx wrote:

PC World Top 100: http://tr.im/PCWorld100

Amazon.com customer reviews: http://tr.im/D300sReviews
Considering the astuteness of the average consumer, there must be many
better and less expensive alternatives.
Uh, no there aren't. Despite its age (Yes, the s is s warmed over
300) the camera is still the height of its class. There is nothing
cheaper that can match it in all categories. Canon's 7D produces good
images, but no one trusts their bodies.

I guess that's why inexpensive P&S cameras easily beat the image quality
from the Canon 7D DSLR

http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2.../the-canon-7d/

The geniuses at that site used Live-view to focus the DSLRS. Given that
they negated the phase-based focusing system, it's not much of a
surprise that the images were soft.

Furthermore, they avoided sharpening, and used apertures unfavorable to
good results in terms of sharpness!

The entire article, plus most of the commentary- well, some of it- does
make for a good read.

--
john mcwilliams

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:03:56 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:
Carl Beissler wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 09:40:41 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:


ray wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:28:28 +0000, agvx wrote:

PC World Top 100: http://tr.im/PCWorld100

Amazon.com customer reviews: http://tr.im/D300sReviews
Considering the astuteness of the average consumer, there must be many
better and less expensive alternatives.
Uh, no there aren't. Despite its age (Yes, the s is s warmed over
300) the camera is still the height of its class. There is nothing
cheaper that can match it in all categories. Canon's 7D produces good
images, but no one trusts their bodies.

I guess that's why inexpensive P&S cameras easily beat the image quality
from the Canon 7D DSLR

http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2.../the-canon-7d/

The geniuses at that site used Live-view to focus the DSLRS. Given that
they negated the phase-based focusing system, it's not much of a
surprise that the images were soft.

Furthermore, they avoided sharpening, and used apertures unfavorable to
good results in terms of sharpness!

The entire article, plus most of the commentary- well, some of it- does
make for a good read.

And the DSLR had a stone in its shoe. Its lens' girdle was too tight. It
didn't get enough rest the night before. It had a cold. ... got any more
excuses?

On 2009-12-01 03:46:08 -0800, NameHere said:

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:03:56 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:
Carl Beissler wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 09:40:41 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:


ray wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:28:28 +0000, agvx wrote:

PC World Top 100: http://tr.im/PCWorld100

Amazon.com customer reviews: http://tr.im/D300sReviews
Considering the astuteness of the average consumer, there must be many
better and less expensive alternatives.
Uh, no there aren't. Despite its age (Yes, the s is s warmed over
300) the camera is still the height of its class. There is nothing
cheaper that can match it in all categories. Canon's 7D produces good
images, but no one trusts their bodies.

I guess that's why inexpensive P&S cameras easily beat the image quality
from the Canon 7D DSLR

http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2.../the-canon-7d/

The geniuses at that site used Live-view to focus the DSLRS. Given that
they negated the phase-based focusing system, it's not much of a
surprise that the images were soft.

Furthermore, they avoided sharpening, and used apertures unfavorable to
good results in terms of sharpness!

The entire article, plus most of the commentary- well, some of it- does
make for a good read.

And the DSLR had a stone in its shoe. Its lens' girdle was too tight. It
didn't get enough rest the night before. It had a cold. ... got any more
excuses?

....and the bottom line was the D300s was the performance winner. The
female "tester" "Sam" making that DSLR her choice for purchase.

It seems "Sam" knows what she wants out of her cameras, regardless of
any bias on the part of the blogster and the troll.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2009-11-29 13:17:50 -0500, Carl Beissler said:

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 09:40:41 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:



ray wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:28:28 +0000, agvx wrote:

PC World Top 100: http://tr.im/PCWorld100

Amazon.com customer reviews: http://tr.im/D300sReviews

Considering the astuteness of the average consumer, there must be many
better and less expensive alternatives.

Uh, no there aren't. Despite its age (Yes, the s is s warmed over
300) the camera is still the height of its class. There is nothing
cheaper that can match it in all categories. Canon's 7D produces good
images, but no one trusts their bodies.

I guess that's why inexpensive P&S cameras easily beat the image quality
from the Canon 7D DSLR

http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2.../the-canon-7d/

Judging by your discernment over what is and is not a good camera, your
opinion on the D300 is now also just as suspect.

You're not much of an authority on the subject of cameras and photography,
are you now. Perhaps you shouldn't post again until you get some real-life
experience with either topic.

Hey troll, you're back! Glad to see you. Glad to see you're keeping
everyone honest. Well, looking honest. Everyone looks honest next to
you, old P&S Troll. Ever wonder why we all know who you are, regardless
of your pseudonym of the day? Figure it out.
--
Michael