CANON stomps Nikon .... Again !!!

"Dallas" wrote in message
Tony, you really are becoming a boor. Take it out on your dog, if you have
one.

You don't think 5 DSLR's in 3 years is a bit too much?

Those DSLRs were marketed to three different groups.
1 series to pros.
30, 60 and 10 to mid-level
Digital Rebel to amateurs.

So no.
5 isn't too mush...

Why do they keep
bringing out new versions with such alarmingly short lifespans between
generations? I'll tell you why: the previous one's they have been fobbing
off on their customer base have all been substantially lacking in more
than one area.

I predict that we will probably see another new DSLR from them before
middle of next year. It will most likely replace the 300D.

BTW, I am not a professional photographer. I own a decorative concrete
business, although I did manage to put the D70 through my business as a
cap-ex.

Also, any Nikkor lens with an aperture ring will work on any FM2, a model
which I hasten to add, I have never owned. Seeing as you know so much
about me, I'm sure you knew that too. Didn't you?

--
Dallas
www.dallasdahms.com
"Is that a Nikon? Omigod! Can I touch it?"

(Annika1980) writes:

I'll bet green money that Canon could've made the 20D shoot 20
frames in RAW mode instead of just 6, but then they'd lose 1D MKII
sales. As someone else surmised, I'm sure it is a software issue
and it wouldn't surprise me if someone hacks it and figures out a
way to get more shots in the buffer in RAW mode. That's what I'm
betting on, anyway.

I'd bet green money against you, if we could get the terms of the bet
clearly enough defined. But it'd be hard to get the inside
information necessary to settle how and why they made the decision.

However -- it's trivial to make the buffer bigger; memory is a
commodity item. So yes, of course they could make the buffer big
enough for 20 frames raw. But that memory costs *money*, and also
consumes power. So they might well not be able to do it *at this
price point* and perhaps without impacting battery life (I don't
actually know if the buffer memory is a significant load on the
battery relative to all the other stuff in the camera).

The chance of a software hack is zero. The memory won't be in the
camera.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

In article ,
Michael Benveniste wrote:
Nikon regularly takes flack for the D70 and D100's
inability to meter with lenses produced in _1977_.

You mean introduced in 1977. non-CPU MF lenses are still in Nikon's
catelogue.

Take for example the Reflex-Nikkors. There is no aperture to changed or
coupled. Disabling the light meter for those is lenses simply a standard
trick on budget cameras.



--
The Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video
recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving
you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for
you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

In article ,
Michael Benveniste wrote:
Nikon regularly takes flack for the D70 and D100's
inability to meter with lenses produced in _1977_.

You mean introduced in 1977. non-CPU MF lenses are still in Nikon's
catelogue.

Take for example the Reflex-Nikkors. There is no aperture to changed or
coupled. Disabling the light meter for those is lenses simply a standard
trick on budget cameras.



--
The Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video
recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving
you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for
you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Michael Benveniste writes:

On 20 Aug 2004 17:57:50 -0400,
(Stephen H. Westin) wrote:

Of course, the Mk II buyer gets a wider field of view with the 14mm
f:2.8L USM than is possible with any Canon lens on the 20D.

Hmmm. 14x1.3 = 18.2mm. 10x1.6 = 16mm. Am I missing something?

I don't mean this as a slam against the 14mm, which I assume is an
extraordinary lens, but $1700+ is a lot of money for a 91 degree
field of view.

Yup, my mistake.

snip

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 16:55:54 +0000, Brian C. Baird wrote:

In article pan.2004.08.22.14.29.51.628000@southafrican,
says...
Huh, I haven't even touched a D100 but I know for a fact that it is eons
ahead of the Dsuxty.

Again Dallas, these are the kinds of comments that get you in such
trouble.

Geez, you Canon shooters are a touchy bunch!! Maybe I should get into the
habit of putting smilies on everything I say (like Tony Polson).

--
Dallas
www.dallasdahms.com
"Is that a Nikon? Omigod! Can I touch it?"

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 16:55:54 +0000, Brian C. Baird wrote:

In article pan.2004.08.22.14.29.51.628000@southafrican,
says...
Huh, I haven't even touched a D100 but I know for a fact that it is eons
ahead of the Dsuxty.

Again Dallas, these are the kinds of comments that get you in such
trouble.

Geez, you Canon shooters are a touchy bunch!! Maybe I should get into the
habit of putting smilies on everything I say (like Tony Polson).

--
Dallas
www.dallasdahms.com
"Is that a Nikon? Omigod! Can I touch it?"

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 18:29:30 +0000, Annika1980 wrote:

From: Dallas

If you think the D100 is better than the Totally Digital D60, then I
kinda doubt anything you say. You been drinkin from Dallas' kool-aid?

Huh, I haven't even touched a D100 but I know for a fact that it is eons
ahead of the Dsuxty.

In what way? The features are certainly similar, although the old
outdated discontinued Totally Digital D60 boasts higher resolution. So
how does the D100 surpass the D60? I don't claim to know a lot about
Nikons, but it appears to me that the D70 is better than the D100, no?

It was a joke.

Must be the Kool Aid.

--
Dallas
www.dallasdahms.com
"Is that a Nikon? Omigod! Can I touch it?"

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 18:29:30 +0000, Annika1980 wrote:

From: Dallas

If you think the D100 is better than the Totally Digital D60, then I
kinda doubt anything you say. You been drinkin from Dallas' kool-aid?

Huh, I haven't even touched a D100 but I know for a fact that it is eons
ahead of the Dsuxty.

In what way? The features are certainly similar, although the old
outdated discontinued Totally Digital D60 boasts higher resolution. So
how does the D100 surpass the D60? I don't claim to know a lot about
Nikons, but it appears to me that the D70 is better than the D100, no?

It was a joke.

Must be the Kool Aid.

--
Dallas
www.dallasdahms.com
"Is that a Nikon? Omigod! Can I touch it?"

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 17:12:32 +0000, Tony Spadaro wrote:

Rediculous. No one held a gun to your head and said "Buy or die". You
seem
to be the only person on these forums who feels cheated by Canon because
they have new models coming out, but I doubt I will hear much complaining
when your D70 becomes "so last year". I'm typing this on an ancient
windows 98 machine -- I don't feel cheated because there are newer
machines on the market, and most people I know (here and in real life)
greet new models with a certain amount of joy.
Perhaps i you had waited until dSLRS could do what you wanted instead
of
having to have the latest and the greatest at every moment - you'd be
happy. But I might be wrong -- perhaps there was a gun to your head.
Perhaps the evil camera mongers are indeed forcing you to upgrade every
year or so.
I thought you were raving over an FM2 a few months ago. But I could
have
gotten it crossed up. You seem to be buying new cameras every week or so,
and instead of taking the time to learn how to use them, moving on the the
next big thing. Me and my EOS 3 have really gotten to know one another in
the three or four years I've had it. I'll miss it when I go digital, but
I'll bet the interface of the 20D is pretty close to it, and even closer
to my wife's Elan 7.

Tony, I only ever bought two of the DSLR's I mentioned. If you recall the
first (a D30) was replaced under duress by Canon.

I agree, we should all wait before jumping in and getting these new
cameras. This is precisely why I waited to buy the D70. It does what I
need it to do & then some! I could have gone for the Fuji S1, S2 or
Nikon's D100, but they didn't appeal to me.

It would appear that I do buy a lot of cameras, but bear in mind, most of
them are collectibles. The only camera I wasn't using was my EOS 30 (Elan
7e). But if I find a good condition FM2 at a good price I probably will
buy it.

For the record, this is what I have bought body-wise this year:

Canon A-1
Nikon F2
Canon F-1N
Nikon F4s
Nikon D70.

I sold the A-1 to help pay for the F4s.

--
Dallas
www.dallasdahms.com
"Is that a Nikon? Omigod! Can I touch it?"