Canon: The "hits" just keep on coming

Good GOD what is WRONG with this company???

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=25439610

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
RichA wrote:

Good GOD what is WRONG with this company???

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=25439610

There's nothing wrong with Canon! It's the dumb ******* using the Mk II.
This fool doesn't realize that the Mk II is way past its 18-month "Use By"
date and is now spoiled goods. You wouldn't eat chicken a year after it
passes its "Use By" date, why the hell would you even think about using the
Mk II?





Rita

If I'm to take you seriously, you're stating that the used camera market
should not exist, since either you have new gear, or you have
'spoiled' gear.

If I don't take you seriously, This is as disjointed a statement as I've
seen on this NG.. It's up there with starting a sentence about a camera
and ending with a statement about a teddy bear.

What, if any, was the usefulness of your post? It even fails in the
humour department.

P.

Pboud wrote:
Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
Snipped bits out

If I'm to take you seriously, you're stating that the used camera market
should not exist, since either you have new gear, or you have 'spoiled'
gear.

If I don't take you seriously, This is as disjointed a statement as I've
seen on this NG.. It's up there with starting a sentence about a camera
and ending with a statement about a teddy bear.

What, if any, was the usefulness of your post? It even fails in the
humour department.

Does this really surprise you? Or have I seen your handle in other NGs
and you're new to the "Rita"?

--
john mcwilliams

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
No, I love the used camera market! The issue you fail to grasp is
that one should never keep a dSLR body past 18-months so they can
reap the most benefit from the economic/use ratio. Of course, once
sold and bought by the new owner the 18-month timer resets and the
process begin again. You get more bang for your buck on the second
and third reset.

Ok, let me get that straight: if after 18 months I sell that camera to
myself and then again after 36 months, then I will get the most bang for the
buck? Because I made the deal three times, not only once?

jue

On Nov 17, 9:07 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:

Most people find that following the 18-month they have
actually made them money.

I'd like to know how that works.
Say I buy a 1Ds3 for $8K.
How much will it bring in 18 months?
Maybe $6K?
So I'm down $2K and now I don't have a camera.

So how do you make money with this system? Volume?

The only ones making cash with the 18-month rule are the camera
companies.

"Pboud" wrote in message
news:9Po%i.5103$Ji6.3137@edtnps89...
Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
RichA wrote:

Good GOD what is WRONG with this company???

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=25439610

There's nothing wrong with Canon! It's the dumb ******* using the Mk II.
This fool doesn't realize that the Mk II is way past its 18-month "Use
By"
date and is now spoiled goods. You wouldn't eat chicken a year after it
passes its "Use By" date, why the hell would you even think about using
the
Mk II?





Rita

If I'm to take you seriously,

That would probably be a mistake.


you're stating that the used camera market should not exist, since either
you have new gear, or you have 'spoiled' gear.

Yep, that's pretty much what he or she is saying. Everyone should sell his
camera body when it gets to be 18 months old, buy a new one, and repeat, ad
infinitum.


If I don't take you seriously, This is as disjointed a statement as I've
seen on this NG.. It's up there with starting a sentence about a camera
and ending with a statement about a teddy bear.

What, if any, was the usefulness of your post? It even fails in the humour
department.

Yep. But Rita (or "Rita") is on a holy mission to convince everyone of the
importance of the "18-month rule," has produced probably hundreds of posts
on this subject so far, and seems likely to keep on doing so for years to
come.

Neil

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:21:50 -0500, The Rita Ä Berkowitz capon
wrote:

Good GOD what is WRONG with this company???

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=25439610

There's nothing wrong with Canon! It's the dumb ******* using the Mk II.
This fool doesn't realize that the Mk II is way past its 18-month "Use By"
date and is now spoiled goods. You wouldn't eat chicken a year after it
passes its "Use By" date, why the hell would you even think about using the
Mk II?

So when your hens approach their "Use By" date, you sell them on
eBay in order to purchase more birds that also won't be eaten? Or
has your logic a bit of a fowl odor?

Jürgen Exner wrote:
Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

The issue you fail to grasp is
that one should never keep a dSLR body past 18-months so they can
reap the most benefit from the economic/use ratio. Of course, once
sold and bought by the new owner the 18-month timer resets and the
process begin again. You get more bang for your buck on the second
and third reset.

Ok, let me get that straight: if after 18 months I sell that camera to
myself and then again after 36 months, then I will get the most bang for the
buck? Because I made the deal three times, not only once?

Of course, since that way you keep a perfectly working camera as
long as it keeps working, getting every ounce of service out of it.

If you sell it to someone else, you are out of your camera.

It works even better if you sell yourself your camera every
month or two --- you always have a brand new toy to play with,
and yet you know exactly how to use it best. (This advice is
also valuable for human-human relationships.)

-Wolfgang

Neil Harrington wrote:

Yep. But Rita (or "Rita") is on a holy mission to convince everyone of the
importance of the "18-month rule," has produced probably hundreds of posts
on this subject so far, and seems likely to keep on doing so for years to
come.

Well, that's one take. Another is that "Rita" enjoys his role as dog in
the manger. He's a bright fellow, seldom pinned down, and when he is,
puts on a good squirm and weasel.

There's no more an 18 month "rule" than there's a live man on the moon.

--
John McWilliams

On 2007-11-17 13:19:24 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:


"Pboud" wrote in message
news:9Po%i.5103$Ji6.3137@edtnps89...
Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
RichA wrote:

Good GOD what is WRONG with this company???

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=25439610

There's nothing wrong with Canon! It's the dumb ******* using the Mk II.
This fool doesn't realize that the Mk II is way past its 18-month "Use By"
date and is now spoiled goods. You wouldn't eat chicken a year after it
passes its "Use By" date, why the hell would you even think about using the
Mk II?





Rita

If I'm to take you seriously,

That would probably be a mistake.


you're stating that the used camera market should not exist, since
either you have new gear, or you have 'spoiled' gear.

Yep, that's pretty much what he or she is saying. Everyone should sell
his camera body when it gets to be 18 months old, buy a new one, and
repeat, ad infinitum.


If I don't take you seriously, This is as disjointed a statement as
I've seen on this NG.. It's up there with starting a sentence about a
camera and ending with a statement about a teddy bear.

What, if any, was the usefulness of your post? It even fails in the
humour department.

Yep. But Rita (or "Rita") is on a holy mission to convince everyone of
the importance of the "18-month rule," has produced probably hundreds
of posts on this subject so far, and seems likely to keep on doing so
for years to come.

Neil

Rita
first three letters of RITZ + last letter of CAMERA
coincidence, or devious marketing conspiracy?
--
"Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know."