Maybe Canon is right? re: kit lens

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

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 02:41:00 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>From a marketing standpoint.
>They made a cheap kit lens that performs...cheaply.
>Your alternative is to spend considerably more to get
>something better from them.


It is another stroke of genius from a company with an unparalleled
marketing strategy.

The lowest end of the camera line doesn't make much money. Those
cameras are designed to bring customers into your fold so they can buy
lenses. By selling a kit with a deliberately poor performing lens
that will become the talk of magazines, user groups, and usenet you
have killed two birds with one stone. You brought the customer in,
and you have immediately started them on the upgrade path to new
glass.

This is why Canon is No. 1.

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

If you don't like the kit lens then don't buy it, it's not compulsory.

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

Damn, you just can't let this topic go. Why the hell do you care so
much about the quality of the kit lens? I'm sure there is medication
that can help you live a normal life. Check it out and give the rest of
us a break.

RichA wrote:
> From a marketing standpoint.
> They made a cheap kit lens that performs...cheaply.
> Your alternative is to spend considerably more to get
> something better from them.
> However, Olympus made it's kit lens to perform better and the next
> lens up from it does not exceed it's performance by that much. But
> it costs (to move) over 2x as much which might not be as attractive to
> people as getting a better Canon lens to replace it's kit lens.
> -Rich

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

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 02:41:00 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>-Rich

You really ought to get out more.
---------------------
Remember Glencoe.
Visit:
http://members.aol.com/Skyelander/glencoe.html
---------------------

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

Angus wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 02:41:00 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>
>>-Rich
>
>
> You really ought to get out more.

I really need to figure out how to make a message filter that kills not
just his messages ,but all replies to him. This intelligence of this ng
(dubious at times) would improve substantially. (Anyone know how to do
that in Thunderbird?)

Dave

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

David Geesaman wrote:
> Angus wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 02:41:00 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -Rich
>>
>>
>>
>> You really ought to get out more.
>
>
> I really need to figure out how to make a message filter that kills
> not just his messages ,but all replies to him. This intelligence of
> this ng (dubious at times) would improve substantially. (Anyone know
> how to do that in Thunderbird?)
>
The letter k kills the extant thread forever. Works in my schema, ymmv.

--
John McWilliams

"Youth is full of sport, age's breath is short; youth is nimble, age is
lame; Youth is hot and bold, age is weak and cold; Youth is wild, and
age is tame."
-- William Shakespeare

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

Could you talk about something else?

Sheesh... you're a broken record.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

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

RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

> They made a cheap kit lens that performs...cheaply.

Have you ever considered just not buying one?

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

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

In article <dd2svc12l1f@news4.newsguy.com>, David Geesaman
<dgeesamanIHateSpam@yahoo.com> writes
>
> I really need to figure out how to make a message filter that
>kills not just his messages ,but all replies to him. This intelligence
>of this ng (dubious at times) would improve substantially. (Anyone
>know how to do that in Thunderbird?)
>
Reminds me of the politician who changed sides from party A to party B
(replace with appropriate names to suite your country and political
taste). A commentator (clearly a supporter of party A) said this was a
good thing all round, as it improved the average IQ of both sides.

David
--
David Littlewood

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

Since Canon also sell their 2 most popular DSLR cameras both with and
without the "kit" lens, isn't this in effect giving the customer the best of
both worlds?



"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:4mm8f1h44m97hjbgf00sprjt2ufogqronq@4ax.com...
> From a marketing standpoint.
> They made a cheap kit lens that performs...cheaply.
> Your alternative is to spend considerably more to get
> something better from them.
> However, Olympus made it's kit lens to perform better and the next
> lens up from it does not exceed it's performance by that much. But
> it costs (to move) over 2x as much which might not be as attractive to
> people as getting a better Canon lens to replace it's kit lens.
> -Rich

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

Cockpit Colin wrote:

> Since Canon also sell their 2 most popular DSLR cameras both with and
> without the "kit" lens, isn't this in effect giving the customer the
> best of both worlds?

Obviously. The point of a DSLR is that each photographer can select
the right lenses for the jobs at hand.

Obsessing that one cheap lens doesn't offer state-of-the-art
performance seems a bit obessive; if you don't like the performance of
that lens, there are dozens of others on the market.

Sheesh.

--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting

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

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 18:33:02 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
wrote:

>RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>> They made a cheap kit lens that performs...cheaply.
>
>Have you ever considered just not buying one?

I made that decision a long time ago.
-Rich

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

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 13:45:27 -0400, David Geesaman
<dgeesamanIHateSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Angus wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 02:41:00 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>-Rich
>>
>>
>> You really ought to get out more.
>
> I really need to figure out how to make a message filter that kills not
>just his messages ,but all replies to him. This intelligence of this ng
>(dubious at times) would improve substantially. (Anyone know how to do
>that in Thunderbird?)
>
> Dave

And yet you respond. Funny, isn't it?
-Rich

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

"Albert Nurick" <albert@nurick.com> wrote in message
news:xn0e5odrtc53grb00a@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> Obsessing that one cheap lens doesn't offer state-of-the-art
> performance seems a bit obessive; if you don't like the performance of
> that lens, there are dozens of others on the market.

Who's obsessing?