Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Survey

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 12:13:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Hi,
five reason to choise Nikon digital reflex and five reason to choise Canon
digital reflex ...
if you wont five reason to choise other.
Milena

More about : survey

Anonymous
March 1, 2005 12:13:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Milena" <milena@libero.it> wrote in message
news:NPLUd.602297$b5.27536500@news3.tin.it...
> Hi,
> five reason to choise Nikon digital reflex and five reason to choise Canon
> digital reflex ...
> if you wont five reason to choise other.
> Milena
>

How's this?

BOTH offer excellent cameras and superb lenses
BOTH are widely available, and hence, so are service locations
BOTH are dedicated to maintaining and expanding their systems

Now, for two differences that probably only apply to me.

Ergonomics: The Nikons feel better in my hands. Balance, controls,
everything just feels better to me. That is totally subjective.

Longevity: My personal experiences with both brands still lead me to feel
that Nikon bodies and, in particular, lenses, are more durable (though they
certainly made some cheap lenses in their consumer series). Nikon also has
a better history of backward compatibility, IMO.

When the Canon rep told me to plan on servicing my lenses annually and
replacing my lenses every 3 to 5 years, he sold me on staying with Nikon.
In nearly 30 years of shooting Nikon, I never needed to have a lens
serviced.

That said, I don't think you could go wrong with either system, especially
if you are starting from scratch. And, the Pentax, Minolta, and Olympus
systems certainly deserve consideration, especially for an amateur shooter.
Just my opinion though. I don't own a digital body yet (but one will be my
next purchase).

Walt
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 12:13:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Milena" <milena@libero.it> wrote in message
news:NPLUd.602297$b5.27536500@news3.tin.it...
> Hi,
> five reason to choise Nikon digital reflex and five reason to choise Canon
> digital reflex ...
> if you wont five reason to choise other.
> Milena

1/ If you like Nikon, buy Nikon
2/ If you like Nikon, buy Nikon
3/ If you like Nikon, buy Nikon
4/ If you like Nikon, buy Nikon
5/ If you like Nikon, buy Nikon

1/ If you like Canon, buy Canon
2/ If you like Canon, buy Canon
3/ If you like Canon, buy Canon
4/ If you like Canon, buy Canon
5/ If you like Canon, buy Canon

1/ If you like X, buy X
2/ If you like X, buy X
3/ If you like X, buy X
4/ If you like X, buy X
5/ If you like X, buy X
Related resources
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 12:13:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Walt Hanks wrote:

> "Brian Baird" <no@yeah.right> wrote in message
> > In article <1vidnWLXP_xoEr7fRVn-pA@comcast.com>,
walthanks@comcast.net
> > says...
> >> When the Canon rep told me to plan on servicing my lenses annually
and
> >> replacing my lenses every 3 to 5 years, he sold me on staying with
Nikon.
> >
> > That's nuts. To my knowledge, no one does that - unless maybe they
> > shoot outdoors near saltwater and sand.
>
> I thought so too. But, hey, it was a Canon rep, not just the typical
store
> clerk.

So you claim. Personally, I find it hard to believe any representative
of any company would make a statement along the lines you aver. Not
even car companies do this, for Bob's sake. So please specify the
date, context and the name of the "rep" who supposedly said what you
claim they said.

> I've also had two independent repair shops tell me that Canon
lenses
> aren't as durable as well.

Let me guess: they were stocked to the tits with used Nikon gear.

> So it did have a ring of truth to it.

Don't be so credulous.

> Still, as a non-pro only shooting 2 or 3 rolls a week, I doubt I
would
> have any problems.

Is this supposed to impress us?

> The ergonomics, though, are enough to keep me with Nikon, and that is
> just a personal thing. It says nothing about the value, or
> lack there-of, of the cameras.

I despise Nikon "ergonomics". In fact, I bought my EOS 5 way back when
simply because it was by far the easier camera to operate (the fancy,
modern, AF also weighed heavily). The 10D's interface was very nice as
well. Sadly, I can't say the same about the 1DMkII, but that's for
another posting.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 12:13:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Walt Hanks wrote:

>> So you claim. Personally, I find it hard to believe any
representative
>> of any company would make a statement along the lines you aver. Not
>> even car companies do this, for Bob's sake. So please specify the
>> date, context and the name of the "rep" who supposedly said what you
>> claim they said.
>
> Is that the best arguement you can make, to call me a liar?

Nitwit: I made no argument. You are the one who has to back up your
claim, not me. I will agree, however, that your _failure_ to
substantiate your statements will make you a liar. Fortunately, this
isn't my problem.

So once again, please cite the date, place and name of the person who
said what you claimed was said.

> > I despise Nikon "ergonomics". In fact, I bought my EOS 5 way back
when
> > simply because it was by far the easier camera to operate (the
fancy,
> > modern, AF also weighed heavily). The 10D's interface was very
nice as
> > well. Sadly, I can't say the same about the 1DMkII, but that's for
> > another posting.
>
> As I said, ergonomics are a personal thing and say nothing about the
> relative merits of a system. I'm glad you found something that feels
good
> to you. Too bad you don't seem to want to allow me the same
privilege.

You need to work on basic reading comprehension, elementary argument
structure, and avoid the distraction tactics of an infant. A hint:

www.google.com: "straw man" fallacy
March 1, 2005 12:13:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1vidnWLXP_xoEr7fRVn-pA@comcast.com...
>
> How's this?
>
> BOTH offer excellent cameras and superb lenses
> BOTH are widely available, and hence, so are service locations
> BOTH are dedicated to maintaining and expanding their systems
>
> Now, for two differences that probably only apply to me.
>
> Ergonomics: The Nikons feel better in my hands. Balance, controls,
> everything just feels better to me. That is totally subjective.
>
> Longevity: My personal experiences with both brands still lead me to feel
> that Nikon bodies and, in particular, lenses, are more durable (though
they
> certainly made some cheap lenses in their consumer series). Nikon also
has
> a better history of backward compatibility, IMO.
>
> When the Canon rep told me to plan on servicing my lenses annually and
> replacing my lenses every 3 to 5 years, he sold me on staying with Nikon.
> In nearly 30 years of shooting Nikon, I never needed to have a lens
> serviced.
>
> That said, I don't think you could go wrong with either system, especially
> if you are starting from scratch. And, the Pentax, Minolta, and Olympus
> systems certainly deserve consideration, especially for an amateur
shooter.
> Just my opinion though. I don't own a digital body yet (but one will be
my
> next purchase).
>
> Walt
>
>

Your Nikon lenses have only given you 30 years of flawless performance???
Mine have been going for up to 32 years without ever needing any service
(i.e.,
that is NO Nikon lens of mine has ever required service and they range in
age
up to 32 years old). AND they all work on my D70! ;^)

I get a little frustrated with Nikon's lack of desire to produce a full
frame sensor
DSLR at times, but the equipment works even better than the Energizer bunny.
I always prefer to pay for quality rather than maintenance and repairs (not
a Canon
slam...I have no experience with their SLRs or DSLRs).

George
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 12:13:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109634049.069401.231340@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Walt Hanks wrote:
>
>> > In article <1vidnWLXP_xoEr7fRVn-pA@comcast.com>,
> walthanks@comcast.net
>> > says...
>> >> When the Canon rep told me to plan on servicing my lenses annually
> and
>> >> replacing my lenses every 3 to 5 years, he sold me on staying with
> Nikon.
>> >
>> > That's nuts. To my knowledge, no one does that - unless maybe they
>> > shoot outdoors near saltwater and sand.
>>
>> I thought so too. But, hey, it was a Canon rep, not just the typical
> store
>> clerk.
>
> So you claim. Personally, I find it hard to believe any representative
> of any company would make a statement along the lines you aver. Not
> even car companies do this, for Bob's sake. So please specify the
> date, context and the name of the "rep" who supposedly said what you
> claim they said.
>

Is that the best arguement you can make, to call me a liar? Hey , really
persuasive, and from a anonymous poster at that..

> I despise Nikon "ergonomics". In fact, I bought my EOS 5 way back when
> simply because it was by far the easier camera to operate (the fancy,
> modern, AF also weighed heavily). The 10D's interface was very nice as
> well. Sadly, I can't say the same about the 1DMkII, but that's for
> another posting.
>

As I said, ergonomics are a personal thing and say nothing about the
relative merits of a system. I'm glad you found something that feels good
to you. Too bad you don't seem to want to allow me the same privilege.

Walt
March 1, 2005 1:01:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:13:17 GMT, "Milena" <milena@libero.it> wrote:

>Hi,
>five reason to choise Nikon digital reflex and five reason to choise Canon
>digital reflex ...

I think the best I can do is quote "The Digital Shopping Dilemma" by
Mike Johnston.

(full article at http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column5/ )

Begin quote...
The Shopping Dilemma
All over the internet, it seems like gearheads and equipment mavens
are always industriously comparing the merits of three competing
digital cameras. Doesn't matter which ones you pick — six months ago
it was the D100, S2, and D60. Last year it was the Dimage 7, Sony
F707, and Coolpix 5000. Next summer it will be the 10D, *ist D, and
S3. The momentous question always is, Which One Shall I Buy?

Is it just me, or does this whole exercise strike anybody else as
being faintly silly? In most cases, aren't all three of the cameras
good ones? Aren't all three going to be old news within a year or two?
Isn't it possible to find enthusiasts of all three models who love
'em? Beyond fastidious little differences, brand loyalty, and personal
preference, what the heck difference does it make? Buy one and get to
work. Is it really such a hard shopping decision to make when all
three choices are so close to being equivalent that it's hard to
detect major differences at all?

Any given person could almost blindfold themselves, pick one at
random, and within a few weeks of acclimatization they'd have gotten
used to the camera and be making nice pictures.

When shopping decisions are easy, it's because there's a clear
distinction. Like Goldilocks, we can see that one's too this, one's
too that, and one's just right. However, when shopping decisions get
harder and harder, it's usually because all the choices are getting
closer and closer together, and one choice doesn't jump out as being
clearly better than the others. This should make shopping decisions
less important. Or so I'd think.

Strangely, though, what this makes people do is buckle down and work
harder and harder to reach their conclusions — and then it makes them
doubly partisan and belligerent about the rightness of their choice.
What's the point here? Ego? Arguing for the sake of argument?

For Pete's sake. Here's the question: You're considering three
competing cameras. They're all decent. Which one should you buy? And
here's the right answer: one of 'em.
....end quote


Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 1:25:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I bought my first Nikkor in 1967 and the 50mm1.4 from then is still going
strong today after being AI converted around 1979. Since that first
purchase, up through today's AF-S Nikkors, I have never required lens
service of any kind. Also through Ftn, F2as, F3, F3hp, F4s, F4e, F-100, F5
and digitals (two - 4300 and D2), I have never required any major body
service (only a meter adjustment on the Ftn).
I think that speaks favorably for Nikon's reliability.
Bob

"George" <nowhere@newsonly.com> wrote in message
news:WvMUd.1443$Bm.1402@fe04.lga...
>
> "Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1vidnWLXP_xoEr7fRVn-pA@comcast.com...
>>
>> How's this?
>>
>> BOTH offer excellent cameras and superb lenses
>> BOTH are widely available, and hence, so are service locations
>> BOTH are dedicated to maintaining and expanding their systems
>>
>> Now, for two differences that probably only apply to me.
>>
>> Ergonomics: The Nikons feel better in my hands. Balance, controls,
>> everything just feels better to me. That is totally subjective.
>>
>> Longevity: My personal experiences with both brands still lead me to feel
>> that Nikon bodies and, in particular, lenses, are more durable (though
> they
>> certainly made some cheap lenses in their consumer series). Nikon also
> has
>> a better history of backward compatibility, IMO.
>>
>> When the Canon rep told me to plan on servicing my lenses annually and
>> replacing my lenses every 3 to 5 years, he sold me on staying with Nikon.
>> In nearly 30 years of shooting Nikon, I never needed to have a lens
>> serviced.
>>
>> That said, I don't think you could go wrong with either system,
>> especially
>> if you are starting from scratch. And, the Pentax, Minolta, and Olympus
>> systems certainly deserve consideration, especially for an amateur
> shooter.
>> Just my opinion though. I don't own a digital body yet (but one will be
> my
>> next purchase).
>>
>> Walt
>>
>>
>
> Your Nikon lenses have only given you 30 years of flawless performance???
> Mine have been going for up to 32 years without ever needing any service
> (i.e.,
> that is NO Nikon lens of mine has ever required service and they range in
> age
> up to 32 years old). AND they all work on my D70! ;^)
>
> I get a little frustrated with Nikon's lack of desire to produce a full
> frame sensor
> DSLR at times, but the equipment works even better than the Energizer
> bunny.
> I always prefer to pay for quality rather than maintenance and repairs
> (not
> a Canon
> slam...I have no experience with their SLRs or DSLRs).
>
> George
>
>
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 1:53:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1vidnWLXP_xoEr7fRVn-pA@comcast.com>, walthanks@comcast.net
says...
> When the Canon rep told me to plan on servicing my lenses annually and
> replacing my lenses every 3 to 5 years, he sold me on staying with Nikon.

That's nuts. To my knowledge, no one does that - unless maybe they
shoot outdoors near saltwater and sand.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 1:53:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Brian Baird" <no@yeah.right> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c8d6aef38242c2198a6fb@news.verizon.net...
> In article <1vidnWLXP_xoEr7fRVn-pA@comcast.com>, walthanks@comcast.net
> says...
>> When the Canon rep told me to plan on servicing my lenses annually and
>> replacing my lenses every 3 to 5 years, he sold me on staying with Nikon.
>
> That's nuts. To my knowledge, no one does that - unless maybe they
> shoot outdoors near saltwater and sand.

I thought so too. But, hey, it was a Canon rep, not just the typical store
clerk. I've also had two independent repair shops tell me that Canon lenses
aren't as durable as well. So it did have a ring of truth to it. Still, as
a non-pro only shooting 2 or 3 rolls a week, I doubt I would have any
problems.

The ergonomics, though, are enough to keep me with Nikon, and that is just a
personal thing. It says nothing about the value, or lack there-of, of the
cameras.

Walt
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 3:31:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

As we all know, one should not clutter the 'net with an "I agree!!"
post. So I won't post anything...

(O;
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 1:11:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Drifter wrote:

> too that, and one's just right. However, when shopping decisions get
> harder and harder, it's usually because all the choices are getting
> closer and closer together, and one choice doesn't jump out as being
> clearly better than the others. This should make shopping decisions
> less important. Or so I'd think.

Most people serious about photography already have moderate to serious
investments in lenses and flash systems for their film SLR's. So their brand
choice is set unless they want to sell their equipment (at a loss) and buy all
the new lenses and flashes to replace them (coupled with new sets of filters,
cause the size isn't the same; ...etc).

If I were building from scratch, It would likely be Canon for the simple reason
that they seem to be well ahead of the pack in "35mm" size DSLR's. I don't like
the Canon control layout (of the cameras I've used), but I'd get used to it.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 8:27:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Milena" <milena@libero.it> wrote in message
news:NPLUd.602297$b5.27536500@news3.tin.it...
> Hi,
> five reason to choise Nikon digital reflex and five reason to choise Canon
> digital reflex ...
> if you wont five reason to choise other.
> Milena

Canon
-------
1. Ergonomics
2. Low-noise CMOS sensors
3. Upgrade path, since Canon offers cameras in all segments from entry-level
to professional, while Nikon has no professional models yet.
4. Lens selection
5. Vertical grip available, even for entry-level, not the case on Nikon D70
6. Canon U.S. will repair Canon products, no matter where they are
purchased.

Nikon
-------
1. Nikon hasn't changed the F mount like Canon changed from FD to EOS
2. Nikon has better flash attachments
3. More used lenses out on the market, since Nikon has been building F mount
lenses for so long
4. 802.11 wireless option on some models
5. 1.5 crop factor on their consumer and prosumer models, versus 1.6 crop
factor for Canon on their consumer and prosumer models (unfortunately, Nikon
hasn't come up with a smaller crop factor for a semi-professional or
professional model).
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 8:39:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Drifter" <zespectre@askme.com> wrote in message
news:9hm721du02gjfa46bchr8h0mle9gisouoi@4ax.com...

> Is it just me, or does this whole exercise strike anybody else as
> being faintly silly? In most cases, aren't all three of the cameras
> good ones? Aren't all three going to be old news within a year or two?
> Isn't it possible to find enthusiasts of all three models who love
> 'em? Beyond fastidious little differences, brand loyalty, and personal
> preference, what the heck difference does it make? Buy one and get to
> work. Is it really such a hard shopping decision to make when all
> three choices are so close to being equivalent that it's hard to
> detect major differences at all?

He tries to be humorous, but I disagree with his conclusion. When spending a
couple of thousand dollars on a purchase, it is rather important to
carefully choose a product that meets your needs. While there may not be
major differences, it's often the little differences that matter. Have you
seen the whining on one of the Nikon forums regarding the lack of a vertical
grip, and lack of mirror lock-up, on/for the Nikon D70? Have you seen the
Russian firmware hack to add mirror-lock-up to the EOS-300D. Do the lenses
you want exist for the body you are buying? It's not difficult to narrow
down your choices by the features you need, followed by a more subjective
process to select from the few models that are left.

What I do agree with, is that once some people make a specific choice, they
get belligerant about the rightness of their choice, and get extremely upset
if anyone points out issues with whatever they have chosen. Fortunately, not
all that many people are like this, and on Usenet they are easily filtered
out with the "Block Sender" feature.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 11:53:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 01-Mar-05 00:38:47, eawckyegcy@yahoo.com said
>Walt Hanks wrote:

>>> So you claim. Personally, I find it hard to believe any
>representative
>>> of any company would make a statement along the lines you aver. Not
>>> even car companies do this, for Bob's sake. So please specify the
>>> date, context and the name of the "rep" who supposedly said what you
>>> claim they said.
>>
>> Is that the best arguement you can make, to call me a liar?

>Nitwit: I made no argument. You are the one who has to back up your
>claim, not me. I will agree, however, that your _failure_ to
>substantiate your statements will make you a liar. Fortunately, this
>isn't my problem.

I would suggest it is. The OP was reporting his experiences and your
response was IMO rather insulting. Why is that necessary? If you don't
believe him, fair enough, but inflicting this nonsense on what was a
mature and interesting discussion seems rather anti-social to me.
Thanks for your time.


All the best,
Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)

I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga
Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 1:55:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Angus Manwaring wrote:

>>> Is that the best arguement you can make, to call me a liar?
>
>>Nitwit: I made no argument. You are the one who has to back up your
>>claim, not me. I will agree, however, that your _failure_ to
>>substantiate your statements will make you a liar. Fortunately, this
>>isn't my problem.
>
> I would suggest it is.

Don't be a nitwit.

> The OP was reporting his experiences and your response was IMO
> rather insulting.

When Walt Hanks (not the "OP", but hey) told us that some
"representative" for a major camera/optical told him that you have to:

"[...] plan on servicing my lenses annually and replacing my lenses
every 3 to 5 years [...]"

he was not a "reporting his experiences". In legal circles it is
called "hearsay", and is not admissible evidence. Go ahead, google it
up. Extra points to find out why.

Hence my calls for the name of the witness and the venue where the
alleged statement was made.

I don't expect a postive response from Hanks, though. Indeed, I find
it highly unlikely a "representative" of a major camera/optical company
is going to tell a potential customer anything of the sort (even if it
was true -- which it is most certainly not).

> Why is that necessary? If you don't believe him, fair enough,

Hanks was shovelling it fast and furious; Brian Baird called his
bluff, and I concurred. If you like bullshit, stick to the card game.

> but
> inflicting this nonsense on what was a mature and interesting
> discussion seems rather anti-social to me.

I'll repeat myself: don't be a terminally credulous dingbat.

> Thanks for your time.

Pound sand, dude. Pound it hard.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 5:02:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> I don't expect a postive response from Hanks, though. Indeed, I find
> it highly unlikely a "representative" of a major camera/optical company
> is going to tell a potential customer anything of the sort (even if it
> was true -- which it is most certainly not).
>

Nor will you get one. I don't comply to the demands of sniveling cowards
who hide behind Usenet anonymity while spewing their filth.

Should Brian or Angus request more detail, I would be happy to provide it.

Walt
March 2, 2005 8:49:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 14:02:54 -0500, "Walt Hanks"
<walthanks@comcast.net> wrote:

>
><eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> I don't expect a postive response from Hanks, though. Indeed, I find
>> it highly unlikely a "representative" of a major camera/optical company
>> is going to tell a potential customer anything of the sort (even if it
>> was true -- which it is most certainly not).
>>
>
>Nor will you get one. I don't comply to the demands of sniveling cowards
>who hide behind Usenet anonymity while spewing their filth.
>
>Should Brian or Angus request more detail, I would be happy to provide it.
>
>Walt

Walt, just killfile the troll and save your bloodpressure <grin>

Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 8:59:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Walt Hanks wrote:

> <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > I don't expect a postive response from Hanks, though. Indeed, I
find
> > it highly unlikely a "representative" of a major camera/optical
company
> > is going to tell a potential customer anything of the sort (even if
it
> > was true -- which it is most certainly not).
>
> Nor will you get one.

Didn't I say I didn't expect one? (Your reading comprehension problems
are showing again). In any event, I couldn't care less: it's your
(unlikely, stupid, irrational) claim, not mine.

> I don't comply to the demands of sniveling cowards
> who hide behind Usenet anonymity while spewing their filth.

The truth is filth? Curious.

> Should Brian or Angus request more detail, I would be happy to
provide it.

Prediction: no real substantiation (a name, a phone number, other
witnesses, etc), just vague assurances.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 9:00:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Drifter" <zespectre@askme.com> wrote in message
news:0ngc21572l3vmut087i5h6ju0l5iacs3p8@4ax.com...
>
> Walt, just killfile the troll and save your bloodpressure <grin>
>
> Drifter
> "I've been here, I've been there..."

Best idea yet. It's done.

Walt
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 1:49:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Yes!

Dam. I wasn't going to post one of those.. (O;

I, like Drifter, am often struck but the extraordinarily small
differences in cameras, especially when it comes down to resolution and
color variations, that are agonised over.

Places like dpreview often get slammed for not having many (any?)
cameras ever fall below `above average`, but when you compare the
market leaders in DSLRs and prosumers, the differences really are
pretty small. The true 'dogs' of cameras never even get reviewed,
methinks. Go see ebay, and check out all the `10Mp` cameras being sold
there, like `Megxon` and `SVP`....We need a few more reviews of
*those*, to put things into perspective, I reckon...
March 3, 2005 5:19:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 2 Mar 2005 22:49:55 -0800, "Chrlz" <chrlz@go.com> wrote:

>Yes!
>
>Dam. I wasn't going to post one of those.. (O;
>
>I, like Drifter, am often struck but the extraordinarily small
>differences in cameras, especially when it comes down to resolution and
>color variations, that are agonised over.
>
>Places like dpreview often get slammed for not having many (any?)
>cameras ever fall below `above average`, but when you compare the
>market leaders in DSLRs and prosumers, the differences really are
>pretty small. The true 'dogs' of cameras never even get reviewed,
>methinks. Go see ebay, and check out all the `10Mp` cameras being sold
>there, like `Megxon` and `SVP`....We need a few more reviews of
>*those*, to put things into perspective, I reckon...

Well, just for giggles I posted a "quickie review" of the Aiptek
PocketCam X on Rec.Photo.Digital a few months ago.

This camera
http://www.aiptek.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PRO...
was purchased completely on impulse.

I'm still trying to find the review so I can re-post it but a quick
summary was roughly this...

No focus to worry about.

Flash was surprising (in that it had one, and it was pretty strong)

Digital zoom (as expected) was horrifying

movie mode (with an SD card for extra memory) was "decent" and sound
was surprisingly good

Still images were quirky with all the artifacting, etc. that you'd
expect from interpolated sensor and plastic lens...but in good
sunlight the camera takes better than expected pictures. Not really
good mind you, but better than expected.

In summary... I'm afraid to even set this camera on the same shelf
with my 10d because I don't want to give it a complex. But the bottom
line is that this camera is really fun to play with. I find myself
using it for some shots -because- of the oddball behavior (like
playing with pinhole cameras).
------------------------------------------------------------

There, a review from the OTHER end of the spectrum <grin>


Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 9:27:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Chrlz wrote:

> As we all know, one should not clutter the 'net with an "I agree!!"
> post. So I won't post anything...


OK, but if you HAD posted something it *may* have been in agreement, right?





mike
!