dealer or not. anything to make a buck.

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

friday i called the camera store and ask the dealer for the RC1 wireless
remote for the canon rebel xt he told me it does not work on it i told me it
does he said no and i dhould get the RC5. today i called again and ask for
the CANON EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 II LENS he did not have any but went on to
tell me that he has a TAMRON AF 28-80mm F/3.5-5.6 Aspherical. i told him i
did not want a tamron lens but a canon lens the JACK ASS tells me on the
phone that TAMRON IS THE COMPANY THATS MAKES ALL THE LENS FOR CANON. so i
should get the tamron lens i think canon should have a look at some of it's
dealers. i guess anything to make a buck. i hang up the phone. any comments
on that.


Vinnie

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

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:33:51 -0400, "Vinnie" <Vinnie@nospam.net>
wrote:

>friday i called the camera store and ask the dealer for the RC1 wireless
>remote for the canon rebel xt he told me it does not work on it i told me it
>does he said no and i dhould get the RC5. today i called again and ask for
>the CANON EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 II LENS he did not have any but went on to
>tell me that he has a TAMRON AF 28-80mm F/3.5-5.6 Aspherical. i told him i
>did not want a tamron lens but a canon lens the JACK ASS tells me on the
>phone that TAMRON IS THE COMPANY THATS MAKES ALL THE LENS FOR CANON. so i
>should get the tamron lens i think canon should have a look at some of it's
>dealers. i guess anything to make a buck. i hang up the phone. any comments
>on that.
>
>
>Vinnie
>

It could be true, but then to what level of quality does Canon spec
it's lenses that Tamron makes versus Tamron's own lenses?
However, what if you compared that aspherical Tamron to the old tech
Canon and the Tamron was better? Would you still be so BRAND
DRIVEN????

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

David J Taylor wrote:
> Vinnie wrote:
> []
> TAMRON IS THE COMPANY THATS MAKES ALL THE LENS FOR CANON.
>
> Explains a lot, doesn't it?
>
> <G>
>
>

I don't think so. I do recall reading that Tamron makes some lenses for
Canon but not the "L" series lenses and the Diffractive lenses. Tamron,
so far, is limited to making the Canon kit lenses.

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

> How patronising. You smug turd.

Thank you very much.

> However, I'm very pleased to observe that you only made yourself look
> superlatively idiotic by your failure to know the difference between its
and
> it's.
>
> Rule one: if correcting somebody's spelling or grammatical errors on
Usenet,
> ensure that your correction is absolutely perfect.

I was trying to make a (subtle) point that people who post what is, in
essence, several paragraphs as one - continuous - sentence with little other
attempts at grammar make the effort extremely hard to read. Nobody on usenet
expects a high standard - especially where many are communicating in what is
a 2nd language to them - but (IMHO) there is still an unwritten desire that
people at least make a minimum effort out of courtesy to their reader.

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

> I'd qualify that by excluding Americans.
>
> The Washington Times
> www.washingtontimes.com
> Book readership slips in U.S.
> By Monique E. Stuart
> THE WASHINGTON TIMES
> Published July 9, 2004
> Fewer Americans are reading books, with rates declining the fastest
> among younger and Hispanic readers, a report says.
> "The lowest absolute reading rate is [among] Hispanics, even when
> taking into account books in other languages, which we did," said Dana
> Gioia, chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), which
> conducted the survey. "But the largest absolute decline is among
> younger readers."
> The NEA reports that 47 percent of American adults read
> literature, defined as novels and nonfictional books, short stories,
> poems and plays. The most widely read among the literature group are
> novels and short stories, which are read by 45 percent of Americans,
> or 93 million people.
> The study says literary reading overall has declined 10 percent
> from 1982 to 2002. This represents a loss of 20 million readers.
> Mr. Gioia said significant social and cultural implications are at
> stake.
> "If competing in the 21st century, some imaginative development
> has been, and only can be, expressed through reading and writing. A
> decline in reading will diminish our productivity and innovation.
> Compared to nonreaders, readers attend sporting events 3-to-1. Readers
> also volunteer more and do more charity. They go to museums and plays
> more," he said.
> He said computers, pocket video games and DVD players have
> contributed significantly to the decline in reading.
> "Active and engaged reading produces active and engaged citizens.
> With all of the new inventions -- DVDs, VCRs, IPods, computers, the
> Internet, and video games -- people still watch the same amount of TV
> as they did 20 years ago, [and] that time is being taken away from two
> major activities: reading and civic engagement," Mr. Gioia said.
> Book sales decreased about 1 percent from 2002 to 2003. The
> biggest decline was in adult literature, but sales of the popular
> Harry Potter series are estimated to have offset this number.
> "The categories [juvenile and adult] move independently," said
> Jeff Abraham, executive director of the Book Industry Study Group,
> which researches and monitors issues affecting book sales. "There is
> no doubt that things like Harry Potter dampened the effects of the
> overall decrease, but all in all, the bottom line has remained
> relatively flat."
> However, Mr. Abraham warned that book sales don't give an accurate
> measurement of readership.
> "An increase in net dollar sales doesn't necessarily indicate an
> increase in the number of actual units sold. Net dollar sales are
> determined by changes in prices. When books cost more, there are
> higher net dollar sales, but that doesn't mean that there are higher
> amounts of books being sold," he said.
> Book sales are expected to dip again this year but rise from 2005
> to 2007.
> "There are more college grads than ever, but fewer are reading,"
> Mr. Gioia said. "We need to develop ideas to develop adult readers --
> the problem isn't just kids. Oprah's book club is good, but we need
> hundreds more like it."
> The Census Bureau conducted the study, "Reading at Risk: A Survey
> of Literary Reading in America," at the NEA's request.
> "The NEA doesn't have all of the answers," Mr. Gioia said. "This
> is going to require national efforts, with many groups, institutions
> and organizations working in many ways to reverse this, but we will
> make this information available for the public. We want to create a
> national debate about the importance of this. There are different
> solutions for different groups. Everyone falls into a group, no matter
> how you define that group. ... We consider this a national crisis."

So in essence what we're saying here is that both reading AND writing
standards are declining? Thank goodness I grew up in a time where schools
used to focus on teaching the basics - I can see serious consequences of
what was written in The Washington Times article.

Personally, I'm just going to delete some of these poorly written diatribes
in future. I certainly don't mind "pidgeon english" from those who have
obviously learnt English as a 2nd language, but if authors aren't prepared
to put just a little effort into making a post readable, then from now on
I'm not prepared to spend 3 times as long plowing through it all trying to
make sense of it.