|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#21
August 24th 04, 06:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
In this case it means ONLY. Nikon is out in the cold of the very market
(journalism) they owned in 1970. This either says Canon makes a better camera, or Nikon is pretty incompetent in the old marketing department. Having owned Nikons I'll go for Canon being better. My 1991 Rebel is still looking and working as new, and has never had a repair. Reliability, quality, convienience what more can a photographer want? -- http://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html "peter Geran" wrote in message news  Quantity...........Not QUALITY More does not alway mean BEST . "Mark M" wrote in message news:K2DWc.99694$Lj.60834@fed1read03... "Chris Loffredo" wrote in message ... PhotoMan wrote: http://www.photomalaysia.com/forum/i...wtopic=569&hl= Ah sports: The ultimate source of fine-art photography! Ah. So fine art is the standard for 300-600mm+ lenses then? A rather...well...interesting argument. Strange that artsy Nikon similarly makes so many of these worthless, non-artistic long teles like Canon does. Why would they do that??  All my favourite photogs (Martin Paar, HCB, Walker Evans, etc.) are famous for their sublime sports shots. My ultimate wish is to photograph people playing overglorified games... Look up "sour grapes" in the dictionary, mate. 
|
|
#22
August 24th 04, 06:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In this case it means ONLY. Nikon is out in the cold of the very market
(journalism) they owned in 1970. This either says Canon makes a better camera, or Nikon is pretty incompetent in the old marketing department. Having owned Nikons I'll go for Canon being better. My 1991 Rebel is still looking and working as new, and has never had a repair. Reliability, quality, convienience what more can a photographer want? -- http://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html "peter Geran" wrote in message news Quantity...........Not QUALITY More does not alway mean BEST . "Mark M" wrote in message news:K2DWc.99694$Lj.60834@fed1read03... "Chris Loffredo" wrote in message ... PhotoMan wrote: http://www.photomalaysia.com/forum/i...wtopic=569&hl= Ah sports: The ultimate source of fine-art photography! Ah. So fine art is the standard for 300-600mm+ lenses then? A rather...well...interesting argument. Strange that artsy Nikon similarly makes so many of these worthless, non-artistic long teles like Canon does. Why would they do that?? All my favourite photogs (Martin Paar, HCB, Walker Evans, etc.) are famous for their sublime sports shots. My ultimate wish is to photograph people playing overglorified games... Look up "sour grapes" in the dictionary, mate.
|
|
#23
August 24th 04, 06:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
As I see it most "art" photographers are using Holgas -- Do you suppose
Nikon quality has dropped so far that they are not equated with Holga? -- http://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html "Mark M" wrote in message news:K2DWc.99694$Lj.60834@fed1read03... "Chris Loffredo" wrote in message ... PhotoMan wrote: http://www.photomalaysia.com/forum/i...wtopic=569&hl= Ah sports: The ultimate source of fine-art photography! Ah. So fine art is the standard for 300-600mm+ lenses then? A rather...well...interesting argument. Strange that artsy Nikon similarly makes so many of these worthless, non-artistic long teles like Canon does. Why would they do that?? All my favourite photogs (Martin Paar, HCB, Walker Evans, etc.) are famous for their sublime sports shots. My ultimate wish is to photograph people playing overglorified games... Look up "sour grapes" in the dictionary, mate.
|
|
#24
August 24th 04, 06:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
As I see it most "art" photographers are using Holgas -- Do you suppose
Nikon quality has dropped so far that they are not equated with Holga? -- http://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html "Mark M" wrote in message news:K2DWc.99694$Lj.60834@fed1read03... "Chris Loffredo" wrote in message ... PhotoMan wrote: http://www.photomalaysia.com/forum/i...wtopic=569&hl= Ah sports: The ultimate source of fine-art photography! Ah. So fine art is the standard for 300-600mm+ lenses then? A rather...well...interesting argument. Strange that artsy Nikon similarly makes so many of these worthless, non-artistic long teles like Canon does. Why would they do that?? All my favourite photogs (Martin Paar, HCB, Walker Evans, etc.) are famous for their sublime sports shots. My ultimate wish is to photograph people playing overglorified games... Look up "sour grapes" in the dictionary, mate.
|
|
#25
August 24th 04, 06:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
This set up is being used in commercials and even a few movies. The
subject is turned into a multiple image on one fram like the strobe shots of Edgerton, but with solid subjects. It earns top dollar and getting the timing is a real bitch. Here are two rather simple examples using only one camera and film: http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/gallery1/mpix/mpix07.html If you hit P you can look at a few more. -- http://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html "Gordon Moat" wrote in message ... PhotoMan wrote: http://www.photomalaysia.com/forum/i...wtopic=569&hl= What a bizarre set-up. So many cameras on remote control, a trained monkey could have taken usable shots. Maybe this type of thing is why some sports photographers get paid so poorly, and have largely ****ty "all rights" contracts. Where it the skill and creative vision? Reminds me of McDonald's . . . . . . . . Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!
|
|
#26
August 24th 04, 06:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
This set up is being used in commercials and even a few movies. The
subject is turned into a multiple image on one fram like the strobe shots of Edgerton, but with solid subjects. It earns top dollar and getting the timing is a real bitch. Here are two rather simple examples using only one camera and film: http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/gallery1/mpix/mpix07.html If you hit P you can look at a few more. -- http://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html "Gordon Moat" wrote in message ... PhotoMan wrote: http://www.photomalaysia.com/forum/i...wtopic=569&hl= What a bizarre set-up. So many cameras on remote control, a trained monkey could have taken usable shots. Maybe this type of thing is why some sports photographers get paid so poorly, and have largely ****ty "all rights" contracts. Where it the skill and creative vision? Reminds me of McDonald's . . . . . . . . Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!
|
|
#27
August 24th 04, 06:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
says... Reliability, quality, convienience what more can a photographer want? The ability to be a snob for snob's sake? -- http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
|
|
#28
August 24th 04, 06:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tonka" wrote in message ...
"PhotoMan" wrote in message ... http://www.photomalaysia.com/forum/i...wtopic=569&hl= No Nikons because these guys/gals are not after superb quality pictures. They only require a quick shot good enough for a front page of a news paper. Wow, thanks for devaluing my industry. Thomas E. Witte www.gophotography.net www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=42
|
|
#29
August 24th 04, 06:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tony Spadaro wrote:
In this case it means ONLY. Nikon is out in the cold of the very market (journalism) they owned in 1970. This either says Canon makes a better camera, or Nikon is pretty incompetent in the old marketing department. Having owned Nikons I'll go for Canon being better. My 1991 Rebel is still looking and working as new, and has never had a repair. Reliability, quality, convienience what more can a photographer want? Lets see, among the never repaired Cameras I have (AFIK: at least during my ownership): Nikon F (1969): heavy brassing (i.e about 10% brass). Works like new. Nikon F2 (1977): Dent in top plate. Works like new. Nikon FM (1978?): Many dents, ect. (my mountain camera - among other things, fell down a gorge): Works like new. Exakta Varex IIa (1954?): Works and (almost) looks like new. Soviet Leningrad (1957?): Works and (almost) looks like new. Rolleiflex SL2000F (1984?): Looks & works like new. Rolleiflex SL35-E (1984?): Looks & works like new. Leica M6 (1984?): Looks & works like new. You really don't know how amazing I find the fact that your 1991 Canon Rebel still works!
|
|
#30
August 24th 04, 06:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tony Spadaro wrote:
In this case it means ONLY. Nikon is out in the cold of the very market (journalism) they owned in 1970. This either says Canon makes a better camera, or Nikon is pretty incompetent in the old marketing department. Having owned Nikons I'll go for Canon being better. My 1991 Rebel is still looking and working as new, and has never had a repair. Reliability, quality, convienience what more can a photographer want? Lets see, among the never repaired Cameras I have (AFIK: at least during my ownership): Nikon F (1969): heavy brassing (i.e about 10% brass). Works like new. Nikon F2 (1977): Dent in top plate. Works like new. Nikon FM (1978?): Many dents, ect. (my mountain camera - among other things, fell down a gorge): Works like new. Exakta Varex IIa (1954?): Works and (almost) looks like new. Soviet Leningrad (1957?): Works and (almost) looks like new. Rolleiflex SL2000F (1984?): Looks & works like new. Rolleiflex SL35-E (1984?): Looks & works like new. Leica M6 (1984?): Looks & works like new. You really don't know how amazing I find the fact that your 1991 Canon Rebel still works!
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Stolen Nikons - buyers beware | Mike Henley | Digital Photography | 0 | August 1st 04 04:14 PM |
| this one time at band camp | Ron Hunter | Digital Photography | 29 | July 2nd 04 05:03 PM |
Linear Mode
