Add-ons for digicams?

Scott Hillard responds:


"Giorgio Preddio" wrote in message
. com...

ADVICE: Lose the Canon. Did you know that add on lens extenders
severely degrade image quality? Now imagine what one of those things
would do to an already ****ty camera? Buy yourself a Sigma SD10 and
you can use whatever lenses you want on there. Here is another thread
where I explain why Sigma is light years ahead of Canon:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?B255549A8


So what extension at Sigma can we reach you on?

I'd guess he works for the competition, somewhere. He sure doesn't do Sigma or
Foveon any good. In fact, he harms them severely.

Charlie Self
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
man."
H. L. Mencken

"Giorgio Preddio" wrote in message
om...
ADVICE: Lose the Canon. Did you know that add on lens extenders
severely degrade image quality? Now imagine what one of those things
would do to an already ****ty camera? Buy yourself a Sigma SD10 and
you can use whatever lenses you want on there. Here is another thread
where I explain why Sigma is light years ahead of Canon:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?B255549A8

Are you claiming that Canon's camera is "****ty"?

Comparing an SLR to a P&S, and you're sure you're instructing photography
courses in a University?

It seems that you either are misrepresenting yourself, academically, or you
are grossly deficient in your job requirements.

They're not the same kind of camera, but to call the professionally weaker
camera "****ty", verses a genuine SLR camera "professional" camera, is rude,
unfair, and fully rhetorical. If you're going to be offering camera advice,
maybe you should get some first, before the next question.

You claimed elsewhere that you favor Sigma, which makes your opinion biased,
but to compare the SD10 against an underpowered non-SLR, you make it look as
though Sigma's camera can't review alongside a fairly similar camera. In
doing so, you risk giving Sigma a bad name, and jeopardize your own
credibility.

Why would any intelligent person want a mirror to shake the camera at the
last minute when taking pictures?

Almost all digital cameras are through the lens viewing so why don't people
take their obsolete SLR technology, left over from the wound spring watch
days and stop crossposting their ignorance to a digital camera site?

WFT cares about SLR technology in this day and age?


"Chris" wrote in message
.. .

"Giorgio Preddio" wrote in message
om...
ADVICE: Lose the Canon. Did you know that add on lens extenders
severely degrade image quality? Now imagine what one of those things
would do to an already ****ty camera? Buy yourself a Sigma SD10 and
you can use whatever lenses you want on there. Here is another thread
where I explain why Sigma is light years ahead of Canon:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?B255549A8

Are you claiming that Canon's camera is "****ty"?

Comparing an SLR to a P&S, and you're sure you're instructing photography
courses in a University?

It seems that you either are misrepresenting yourself, academically, or
you
are grossly deficient in your job requirements.

They're not the same kind of camera, but to call the professionally weaker
camera "****ty", verses a genuine SLR camera "professional" camera, is
rude,
unfair, and fully rhetorical. If you're going to be offering camera
advice,
maybe you should get some first, before the next question.

You claimed elsewhere that you favor Sigma, which makes your opinion
biased,
but to compare the SD10 against an underpowered non-SLR, you make it look
as
though Sigma's camera can't review alongside a fairly similar camera. In
doing so, you risk giving Sigma a bad name, and jeopardize your own
credibility.

Your overall ignorance is breathtaking. Since there are digital SLRs
(really, there are!) posts about them are germane to this group.
Maybe almost all digital cameras have through the lens viewing, but the
point and shoots do it with a low res, or relatively low res LCD, not a
prism.
The images obtainable with those SLRs with their wound spring watch
technology, are still superior to anything the smaller sensored point and
shoots will produce. If you don't believe me, check comparisons between the
Sony 8mp camera and the 8 mp Canon 1D mkII. Not much of a contest.
And to answer your question, a lot of photographers who are serious about it
care about SLR technology in this day and age. (You did mean WFT, not WTF,
didn't you?)

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Gymmy Bob" wrote in message
...
Why would any intelligent person want a mirror to shake the camera at the
last minute when taking pictures?

Almost all digital cameras are through the lens viewing so why don't
people
take their obsolete SLR technology, left over from the wound spring watch
days and stop crossposting their ignorance to a digital camera site?

WFT cares about SLR technology in this day and age?


"Chris" wrote in message
.. .

"Giorgio Preddio" wrote in message
om...
ADVICE: Lose the Canon. Did you know that add on lens extenders
severely degrade image quality? Now imagine what one of those things
would do to an already ****ty camera? Buy yourself a Sigma SD10 and
you can use whatever lenses you want on there. Here is another thread
where I explain why Sigma is light years ahead of Canon:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?B255549A8

Are you claiming that Canon's camera is "****ty"?

Comparing an SLR to a P&S, and you're sure you're instructing
photography
courses in a University?

It seems that you either are misrepresenting yourself, academically, or
you
are grossly deficient in your job requirements.

They're not the same kind of camera, but to call the professionally
weaker
camera "****ty", verses a genuine SLR camera "professional" camera, is
rude,
unfair, and fully rhetorical. If you're going to be offering camera
advice,
maybe you should get some first, before the next question.

You claimed elsewhere that you favor Sigma, which makes your opinion
biased,
but to compare the SD10 against an underpowered non-SLR, you make it
look
as
though Sigma's camera can't review alongside a fairly similar camera.
In
doing so, you risk giving Sigma a bad name, and jeopardize your own
credibility.

I agree, if he meant it. But I took his post as leg pulling.

Phil

Skip M wrote:

Your overall ignorance is breathtaking. Since there are digital SLRs
(really, there are!) posts about them are germane to this group.
Maybe almost all digital cameras have through the lens viewing, but the
point and shoots do it with a low res, or relatively low res LCD, not a
prism.
The images obtainable with those SLRs with their wound spring watch
technology, are still superior to anything the smaller sensored point and
shoots will produce. If you don't believe me, check comparisons between the
Sony 8mp camera and the 8 mp Canon 1D mkII. Not much of a contest.
And to answer your question, a lot of photographers who are serious about it
care about SLR technology in this day and age. (You did mean WFT, not WTF,
didn't you?)

In article ,
"Gymmy Bob" wrote:

Why would any intelligent person want a mirror to shake the camera at the
last minute when taking pictures?

Almost all digital cameras are through the lens viewing so why don't people
take their obsolete SLR technology, left over from the wound spring watch
days and stop crossposting their ignorance to a digital camera site?

WFT cares about SLR technology in this day and age?

People interested in optimizing their imaging?

"Gymmy Bob" wrote in message
...
Why would any intelligent person want a mirror to shake the camera at the
last minute when taking pictures?

Almost all digital cameras are through the lens viewing so why don't
people
take their obsolete SLR technology, left over from the wound spring watch
days and stop crossposting their ignorance to a digital camera site?

WFT cares about SLR technology in this day and age?

If nobody cares, why are Digital SLRs being made? Who would buy them?

You're so dense.

Chris wrote:
"Gymmy Bob" wrote in message
...
Why would any intelligent person ...

snip


You're so dense.

Me, too: I can't figure out what this little bit of language adds to the
conversation.

Maybe I'm becoming troll sensitized, but that, to me, didn't have the ring
of irony to it. If it were, indeed, meant ironically, then I apologize for
my rant.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Phil Wheeler" wrote in message
...
I agree, if he meant it. But I took his post as leg pulling.

Phil

Skip M wrote:

Your overall ignorance is breathtaking. Since there are digital SLRs
(really, there are!) posts about them are germane to this group.
Maybe almost all digital cameras have through the lens viewing, but the
point and shoots do it with a low res, or relatively low res LCD, not a
prism.
The images obtainable with those SLRs with their wound spring watch
technology, are still superior to anything the smaller sensored point
and
shoots will produce. If you don't believe me, check comparisons between
the
Sony 8mp camera and the 8 mp Canon 1D mkII. Not much of a contest.
And to answer your question, a lot of photographers who are serious
about it
care about SLR technology in this day and age. (You did mean WFT, not
WTF,
didn't you?)

....and the answer "why anybody would want a sensor shaking mirror"
was.......?

"Skip M" wrote in message
news:JQsEc.2544$876.279@fed1read07...
Your overall ignorance is breathtaking. Since there are digital SLRs
(really, there are!) posts about them are germane to this group.
Maybe almost all digital cameras have through the lens viewing, but the
point and shoots do it with a low res, or relatively low res LCD, not a
prism.
The images obtainable with those SLRs with their wound spring watch
technology, are still superior to anything the smaller sensored point and
shoots will produce. If you don't believe me, check comparisons between
the
Sony 8mp camera and the 8 mp Canon 1D mkII. Not much of a contest.
And to answer your question, a lot of photographers who are serious about
it
care about SLR technology in this day and age. (You did mean WFT, not
WTF,
didn't you?)

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Gymmy Bob" wrote in message
...
Why would any intelligent person want a mirror to shake the camera at
the
last minute when taking pictures?

Almost all digital cameras are through the lens viewing so why don't
people
take their obsolete SLR technology, left over from the wound spring
watch
days and stop crossposting their ignorance to a digital camera site?

WFT cares about SLR technology in this day and age?


"Chris" wrote in message
.. .

"Giorgio Preddio" wrote in message
om...
ADVICE: Lose the Canon. Did you know that add on lens extenders
severely degrade image quality? Now imagine what one of those things
would do to an already ****ty camera? Buy yourself a Sigma SD10 and
you can use whatever lenses you want on there. Here is another
thread
where I explain why Sigma is light years ahead of Canon:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?B255549A8

Are you claiming that Canon's camera is "****ty"?

Comparing an SLR to a P&S, and you're sure you're instructing
photography
courses in a University?

It seems that you either are misrepresenting yourself, academically,
or
you
are grossly deficient in your job requirements.

They're not the same kind of camera, but to call the professionally
weaker
camera "****ty", verses a genuine SLR camera "professional" camera, is
rude,
unfair, and fully rhetorical. If you're going to be offering camera
advice,
maybe you should get some first, before the next question.

You claimed elsewhere that you favor Sigma, which makes your opinion
biased,
but to compare the SD10 against an underpowered non-SLR, you make it
look
as
though Sigma's camera can't review alongside a fairly similar camera.
In
doing so, you risk giving Sigma a bad name, and jeopardize your own
credibility.