Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Just to add fuel to the debate about the canon kit lens

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 11:27:39 AM

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

Hi Folks,

Just to add fuel to the debate about the quality of the canon kit lens.

I entered 3 photos in the Davis, Utah county Fair that I shot with the
kit lens on the Canon Digital Rebel. I entered in the Pro-Am division.

My photo Edinburgh Castle took first place in category - Senic
Landscape
My photo of a Highland Coo took 2nd place in its category -
animals/domestic.
(It was beaten out by a photo of a deer laying on a grave... impact
counts!)

The photo of the deer on the grave actually took best in show. I also
should have cropped the photo a bit more after looking at it hanging
there.

As far as judging the photo of a bride I entered - they said it was a
photo the bride would buy, but not one for competition.

For the state fair I will end up having the photos reprinted on glossy
paper, and crop the cow photo a little different.

The photo of the bride on the couch is an 11x17, and the state fair
only wants 11x14, so I am not sure what for a 3rd print. I have to
think about that.

roland
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 12:54:29 PM

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

I realize subject and composition are most important.
However, I just thought it would add more fuel to this debate about the
image quality of the Canon Kit lens.

roland
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 4:36:45 PM

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

Ed Lowe wrote:

> Am I imagining this, or are Canon users particularly thin-skinned about their
> choice of equipment?

You are imagining it. When the Nikon Nutcases know they have no solid
ground to stand on, they engage in idiotic debate at the low end:

"The Nikon POS (PieceOfShit) 10-55mm/5.6-8.0 is a better lens than the
Canon HOC (HeapOfCrap) 18-55/4.0-5.6. Why is this? How can the people
at Canon sleep at night knowing their lowest-end piece of junk lens is
_worse_ that the Nikon equivalent, a lens that I wouldn't even wipe my
ass with?"

(cf. RichA, et al, recent 'arguments'.)

> Many of the posts in this group seem to be Canonistas
> defending why they use Canon and casting aspersions on those who use other
> equipment. Not quite ad hominem attacks, more like ad machinam. Users of
> equipment other than Canon seem to be far more secure and happy with their
> choices.

Since you offer no evidence for your claims, is not your very posting
guilty of the crimes you claim others of committing?
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 6:10:56 PM

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

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
> Ed Lowe wrote:
>
>> Many of the posts in this group seem to be Canonistas
>>defending why they use Canon and casting aspersions on those who use other
>>equipment. Not quite ad hominem attacks, more like ad machinam. Users of
>>equipment other than Canon seem to be far more secure and happy with their
>>choices.
> >
> Since you offer no evidence for your claims, is not your very posting
> guilty of the crimes you claim others of committing?
>
Hmmm. Verrrryy Interrrresting observation. One of the more subtle Canon
user tweaks. Well done!

Last I counted there were less than a couple dozen of the rabidly
pro-any-specific-camera and about the same number of virulently
anti-any-brand-specific groupies.

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 6:19:10 PM

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

BJ in Texas wrote:

> ||
> || Am I imagining this, or are Canon users particularly
> || thin-skinned about their choice of equipment? Many of the
> || posts in this group seem to be Canonistas defending why they
> || use Canon and casting aspersions on those who use other
> || equipment. Not quite ad hominem attacks, more like ad
> || machinam. Users of equipment other than Canon seem to be far
> || more secure and happy with their choices.

A lens is a tool. It depens on what you do with it.
I purchased a Canon Digital Rebel because I have money invested in
Canon Lenses from years gone by shooting 35mm Canon Cameras.

The camera is a tool. The photographer takes a photo, not the camera.
This is the age old debate. Put "Guns, and "Kill People" in and you
have a political debate about people kill people, not guns killing
people. Same debate, same emotions running just as high.

The camera and the gun are the tool. The person, or the photograher
takes the action that results in the final product - the photograph or
the death of a person or animal. Same debate. Same stupidity about
it.

You can take a great award winning photo with a 110 pocket camera, and
you can take a piece of garbage photo with the most advance Digital SLR
if you don't frame your subject properly, pay attention to the rule of
3rds, and other techinical aspects of photography.

The lens doesn't make the photo. Now, if you put a really great lens
on the Canon Digital Rebel you will increase what you are able to do
with the camera. You can gain f-stops, avoid vingetting on shots where
you are pushing the lens to the limit, things like that.

For most people - the kit lens is going to do fine. For some people,
they are going to want a better lens. It really depends on what you
are trying to do with the lens.

However, it is just a tool. If I want something I can really push to a
better limit I do have a Kiev 88 with some real wonderful glass on it.
The thing is not an easy camera to use, as it is all mechanical, and
you have to take a lot more time to set up a photo, and ...well you are
a lot more careful about what you shoot as the film and developing are
not cheap.

All in all, the kit lens is enough for what I normally shoot. That
along with the lenses I had for the 35mm. Well, I did break down and
get the Peleng 8mm fisheye.

roland
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 7:20:56 PM

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

piperut <rbehunin@alumni.weber.edu> wrote:
|| Hi Folks,
||
|| Just to add fuel to the debate about the quality of the canon
|| kit lens.
||
|| I entered 3 photos in the Davis, Utah county Fair that I shot
|| with the kit lens on the Canon Digital Rebel. I entered in
|| the Pro-Am division.
||
|| My photo Edinburgh Castle took first place in category -
Senic
|| Landscape
|| My photo of a Highland Coo took 2nd place in its category -
|| animals/domestic.
|| (It was beaten out by a photo of a deer laying on a grave...
|| impact counts!)
||
|| The photo of the deer on the grave actually took best in
|| show. I also should have cropped the photo a bit more after
|| looking at it hanging there.
||
|| As far as judging the photo of a bride I entered - they said
|| it was a photo the bride would buy, but not one for
|| competition.
||
|| For the state fair I will end up having the photos reprinted
|| on glossy paper, and crop the cow photo a little different.
||
|| The photo of the bride on the couch is an 11x17, and the
|| state fair only wants 11x14, so I am not sure what for a 3rd
|| print. I have to think about that.
||
|| roland

Ergo, the subject and composition are most important in such
competitions as long as the image quality is adequate. Some
get hung up on image quality as compensation for technique.

BJ
--
"A pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an
optimist has more fun." -- Robert A. Heinlein - Time Enough For
Love
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 8:07:38 PM

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

>I realize subject and composition are most important.
> However, I just thought it would add more fuel to this debate about the
> image quality of the Canon Kit lens.

.... yeah, because that would be a *good* thing.

Not.

It's a pointless argument, let it die.

steve
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 9:30:21 PM

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

"piperut" <rbehunin@alumni.weber.edu> wrote in message
news:1124375259.562691.169320@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Folks,
>
> Just to add fuel to the debate about the quality of the canon kit lens.
>
> I entered 3 photos in the Davis, Utah county Fair that I shot with the
> kit lens on the Canon Digital Rebel. I entered in the Pro-Am division.
>
> My photo Edinburgh Castle took first place in category - Senic
> Landscape
> My photo of a Highland Coo took 2nd place in its category -
> animals/domestic.
> (It was beaten out by a photo of a deer laying on a grave... impact
> counts!)
>
> The photo of the deer on the grave actually took best in show. I also
> should have cropped the photo a bit more after looking at it hanging
> there.
>
> As far as judging the photo of a bride I entered - they said it was a
> photo the bride would buy, but not one for competition.
>
> For the state fair I will end up having the photos reprinted on glossy
> paper, and crop the cow photo a little different.
>
> The photo of the bride on the couch is an 11x17, and the state fair
> only wants 11x14, so I am not sure what for a 3rd print. I have to
> think about that.
>
> roland
>

Am I imagining this, or are Canon users particularly thin-skinned about their
choice of equipment? Many of the posts in this group seem to be Canonistas
defending why they use Canon and casting aspersions on those who use other
equipment. Not quite ad hominem attacks, more like ad machinam. Users of
equipment other than Canon seem to be far more secure and happy with their
choices.
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 10:31:37 PM

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

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:20:56 GMT, "BJ in Texas" <bjtexas@hotmale.con>
wrote:

>piperut <rbehunin@alumni.weber.edu> wrote:
>|| Hi Folks,
>||
>|| Just to add fuel to the debate about the quality of the canon
>|| kit lens.
>||
>|| I entered 3 photos in the Davis, Utah county Fair that I shot
>|| with the kit lens on the Canon Digital Rebel. I entered in
>|| the Pro-Am division.
>||
>|| My photo Edinburgh Castle took first place in category -
>Senic
>|| Landscape
>|| My photo of a Highland Coo took 2nd place in its category -
>|| animals/domestic.
>|| (It was beaten out by a photo of a deer laying on a grave...
>|| impact counts!)
>||
>|| The photo of the deer on the grave actually took best in
>|| show. I also should have cropped the photo a bit more after
>|| looking at it hanging there.
>||
>|| As far as judging the photo of a bride I entered - they said
>|| it was a photo the bride would buy, but not one for
>|| competition.
>||
>|| For the state fair I will end up having the photos reprinted
>|| on glossy paper, and crop the cow photo a little different.
>||
>|| The photo of the bride on the couch is an 11x17, and the
>|| state fair only wants 11x14, so I am not sure what for a 3rd
>|| print. I have to think about that.
>||
>|| roland
>
>Ergo, the subject and composition are most important in such
>competitions as long as the image quality is adequate. Some
>get hung up on image quality as compensation for technique.
>
>BJ

Outstanding! Now Canon buyers don't have to shell out thousands
on L-series lenses anymore!!
-Rich


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 11:17:10 PM

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

Ed Lowe <elowe@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Am I imagining this, or are Canon users particularly thin-skinned about their
> choice of equipment? Many of the posts in this group seem to be Canonistas
> defending why they use Canon and casting aspersions on those who use other
> equipment. Not quite ad hominem attacks, more like ad machinam. Users of
> equipment other than Canon seem to be far more secure and happy with their
> choices.

No, it's pretty back and forth. See Douglas/Ryadia/Stacey/Preddy for
counterexamples. There are probably others, but those are the ones
that come to mind first.

--
Zed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org>
PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 12:47:28 AM

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

Ed Lowe <elowe@hotmail.com> wrote:
|| "piperut" <rbehunin@alumni.weber.edu> wrote in message
|| news:1124375259.562691.169320@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
||| Hi Folks,
|||
||| Just to add fuel to the debate about the quality of the
||| canon kit lens.
|||
||| I entered 3 photos in the Davis, Utah county Fair that I
||| shot with the
||| kit lens on the Canon Digital Rebel. I entered in the
||| Pro-Am division.
|||
||| My photo Edinburgh Castle took first place in category -
||| Senic
||| Landscape
||| My photo of a Highland Coo took 2nd place in its category -
||| animals/domestic.
||| (It was beaten out by a photo of a deer laying on a grave...
||| impact counts!)
|||
||| The photo of the deer on the grave actually took best in
||| show. I also should have cropped the photo a bit more after
||| looking at it hanging
||| there.
|||
||| As far as judging the photo of a bride I entered - they said
||| it was a
||| photo the bride would buy, but not one for competition.
|||
||| For the state fair I will end up having the photos reprinted
||| on glossy paper, and crop the cow photo a little different.
|||
||| The photo of the bride on the couch is an 11x17, and the
||| state fair
||| only wants 11x14, so I am not sure what for a 3rd print. I
||| have to
||| think about that.
|||
||| roland
|||
||
|| Am I imagining this, or are Canon users particularly
|| thin-skinned about their choice of equipment? Many of the
|| posts in this group seem to be Canonistas defending why they
|| use Canon and casting aspersions on those who use other
|| equipment. Not quite ad hominem attacks, more like ad
|| machinam. Users of equipment other than Canon seem to be far
|| more secure and happy with their choices.

No, it pretty much works both ways.

--
--
"This cause of exploration and discovery is not an option we
choose; it is a desire written in the human heart. We are that
part of creation which seeks to understand all creation. We find
the best among us, send them forth into unmapped darkness, and
pray they will return." -- George W. Bush
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 1:27:16 AM

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

Ed Lowe wrote:

> Am I imagining this, or are Canon users particularly thin-skinned about their
> choice of equipment?

Definitely imagining it.

What is happening is that a small group of posters have turned into
professional Canon-bashers. They will sieze on the most minor of issues
with anything Canon, and attempt to blow it beyond all proportion.

One of the favorite things to complain about is that one of the kit
lenses that Canon's offers with the 20D and 350XT is not as good as a
kit lens offered by Nikon (at more than 4x the price). This is despite
the fact that Canon offers kit lens that is far better than the Nikon
lens (at a mere 2x the price).

These posters have created strawmen to respond to, mythical people that
supposedly attack anything non-Canon. I have not seen any Canon owner
ever attack another brand of camera, or the people that use them. What I
have seen, and what I have done personally, is to calmly point out the
pros and cons of each model of digital SLR. This includes pointing out
the facts regarding the availability of lenses, the performance at high
ISO settings, the availability of certain accessories, etc. This
information is essential to those people looking for read advice, that
goes beyond the useless "find a good store," or "buy a camera that you
like the feel of."

All models have their pros and cons, including Canon. I would not
recommend that someone who requires spot-metering by a Canon 20D or
350xt--they don't have it, just as I would not recommend someone that
has a need for the best high ISO performance, buy anything other than
Canon. I have cameras from Olympus, Minolta, Canon, and Fuji, and each
has their strong points and weak points, which I am not afraid to admit.

As to the motivation of the Canon-bashers, it's a combination of
insecurity, jealousy, anger, and the need for attention. Their posts are
pointless. They will not convince newbies of anything with that type of
attack, nor will they offend any current Canon owner, because their
attacks are so transparent.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 1:27:17 AM

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

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:27:16 GMT, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Ed Lowe wrote:
>
>> Am I imagining this, or are Canon users particularly thin-skinned about their
>> choice of equipment?
>
>Definitely imagining it.
>
>What is happening is that a small group of posters have turned into
>professional Canon-bashers. They will sieze on the most minor of issues
>with anything Canon, and attempt to blow it beyond all proportion.
>
>One of the favorite things to complain about is that one of the kit
>lenses that Canon's offers with the 20D and 350XT is not as good as a
>kit lens offered by Nikon (at more than 4x the price). This is despite
>the fact that Canon offers kit lens that is far better than the Nikon
>lens (at a mere 2x the price).
>

Sigma's equivalent costs what the Canon does and is a better lens.
So much for the "price = appropriate quality" argument.
-Rich



"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 4:22:44 AM

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

In article <1124399950.835162.188300@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
rbehunin@alumni.weber.edu says...
> Well, I did break down and
> get the Peleng 8mm fisheye.

How do you like that? I'm considering buying one myself. Samples!

--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 8:55:32 AM

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

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:b43ag193cff54haoavr34hgujuqh6c70fr@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:27:16 GMT, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
> Sigma's equivalent costs what the Canon does and is a better lens.
> So much for the "price = appropriate quality" argument.
> -Rich
>
>
>
I just bought a Sigma 28-70 F2.8-4 HSZ lens for my Rebel XT.
I did an extremely rudimentary test using both that lens and the kit
lens and found them both to be nearly identical in image quality.
However, the Sigma lens feels to be much more solidly built than
the 18-55 kit lens. I just might buy another Sigma lens.
Perhaps the 24-70 F2.8??

T.W.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 9:04:20 AM

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

"Ed Lowe" <elowe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:NA3Ne.2978$Z%6.2812@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>

>
> Am I imagining this, or are Canon users particularly thin-skinned about
> their choice of equipment? Many of the posts in this group seem to be
> Canonistas defending why they use Canon and casting aspersions on those
> who use other equipment. Not quite ad hominem attacks, more like ad
> machinam. Users of equipment other than Canon seem to be far more secure
> and happy with their choices.
>
Not thin skinned, tired of owners of other cameras trumpeting the
superiority of their choices. I frankly don't give a tinker's dam what
other people use, I just wish others would let me enjoy my choice without
telling me how much better their equipment is than mine. And I also wish
that some others would refrain from making statements about the equivalency
of selection, or the non necessity or desirability of features like IS, USM,
or whatever.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 9:42:52 AM

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

In article <de4aam02s95@enews3.newsguy.com>, Taswolf <taswolf@svtv.com>
wrote:

> I just bought a Sigma 28-70 F2.8-4 HSZ lens for my Rebel XT.
> I did an extremely rudimentary test using both that lens and the kit
> lens and found them both to be nearly identical in image quality.
> However, the Sigma lens feels to be much more solidly built than
> the 18-55 kit lens. I just might buy another Sigma lens.
> Perhaps the 24-70 F2.8??

Why not? Just keep throwing your money away.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 10:40:31 AM

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

Brian Baird wrote:
> In article <1124399950.835162.188300@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> rbehunin@alumni.weber.edu says...
> > Well, I did break down and
> > get the Peleng 8mm fisheye.
>
> How do you like that? I'm considering buying one myself. Samples!
>
> --
> http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

Hi Brian,

email me with your email address.
a good email address is rolandbehuin at mail.weber.edu

I one I post from was updated a few years back, and well with the spam
problems I just kept using it and never changed it to the new address.
I don't get as much spam that way.

I have a few good photos from it. I actually deleted one of the best
ones I took by accident.

There are some problems shooting with a 8mm lens - sun spots. If you
shoot in bright sunlight, you get sun spots. You have to figure out a
way to shade the lens.

roland
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 11:56:37 AM

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

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:190820050542525678%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <de4aam02s95@enews3.newsguy.com>, Taswolf <taswolf@svtv.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I just bought a Sigma 28-70 F2.8-4 HSZ lens for my Rebel XT.
>> I did an extremely rudimentary test using both that lens and the kit
>> lens and found them both to be nearly identical in image quality.
>> However, the Sigma lens feels to be much more solidly built than
>> the 18-55 kit lens. I just might buy another Sigma lens.
>> Perhaps the 24-70 F2.8??
>
> Why not? Just keep throwing your money away.
Ok, find me a Canon lens with the same specs as the Sigma for the
same price and I will buy it...

T.W.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 11:56:38 AM

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

In article <de4ku7020tf@enews4.newsguy.com>, Taswolf <taswolf@svtv.com>
wrote:

> Ok, find me a Canon lens with the same specs as the Sigma for the
> same price and I will buy it...

Sigma has always made junky stuff. Buy it if you want, I don't care.
But we don't want to hear you bitching when the thing falls apart or
won't work with your next DSLR.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 12:57:19 PM

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

Skip M wrote:
> "Ed Lowe" <elowe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:NA3Ne.2978$Z%6.2812@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> >
>
> >
> > Am I imagining this, or are Canon users particularly thin-skinned about
> > their choice of equipment? Many of the posts in this group seem to be
> > Canonistas defending why they use Canon and casting aspersions on those
> > who use other equipment. Not quite ad hominem attacks, more like ad
> > machinam. Users of equipment other than Canon seem to be far more secure
> > and happy with their choices.
> >
> Not thin skinned, tired of owners of other cameras trumpeting the
> superiority of their choices. I frankly don't give a tinker's dam what
> other people use, I just wish others would let me enjoy my choice without
> telling me how much better their equipment is than mine. And I also wish
> that some others would refrain from making statements about the equivalency
> of selection, or the non necessity or desirability of features like IS, USM,
> or whatever.
>

This was really my point.

The lens that comes in the kit with the Canon Digital Rebel may not be
on par with the Canon L series lenses. However, it is a lens that will
take fairly good photos for most people.

It is not meant to be a professional grade lens. It does have
vinyetting on the edges when used on the wide angles settings.
However, my 8mm Peleng has this on a more extreme basis. Some spots on
the lens are a bit soft in focus.
It is a good light weight lens to pack around on a day trip.

Now if you are going to set up in a studio to shoot portraits with
studio lighting, well you would want a different lens, with a bit more
telephoto zoom.

I can't afford the L series lens. Some people seem to think the Sigma
Lens at the same price range would have been a better choice. Maybe
so. I didn't buy the Sigma lens. I bought the kit lens, as that is
what was available when I bought the camera.

It all boils down to what you do with it. A little bit better lens is
going to get you a little bit better quality photo. However, you can
get good photos with what you have.

I have seen photos from 110 cameras blow away things from more
expensvie camera when they were printed. Now, the only problen they
had were they were a little grainy when they were blown up to any size.

I have also seen, (and even shot myself) some really horrible stuff
with the Digital Rebel, with a medium format, and with a large format
camera from time to time when I didn't pay attention, when I was
learning the camera, or a camera jammed, or I took a meter reading
wrong. People do make mistakes, and you get some real awful stuff, and
some funny stuff this way sometimes.

So, I guess the bottom line - be happy with the equipment you have and
enjoy shooting photos. Learn to use the equipment you have. That's
what I am doing.

The photos I entered in the fair are some of the first from switching
over to digital from 35mm and medium format. Now, I was not real happy
with some of the results from the vacation I went on to Scotland. It
rained a lot, and was foggy. The photos in the rain didn't turn out
like I would have liked. They were a bit dark. When I came back I
ended up taking a digital photo class because of this. I learned a few
things about digital photos vs film.

Mainly, the rain is a bit different, and the camera can be set for rain
exposure and white balance. I was really used to old manual settings
on medium format cameras. Okay, I had a 35mm Rebel, but I used it
mostly in the all manual mode, or just a few functions, not really
using the camera.

Also, the digital media is closer to slide flim then to negative flim
for exposure lattitude.

The new cameras have a lot more settings then the old manual cameras.

roland
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 1:04:40 PM

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

My daddy's Corvette can beat you daddy's Porsche on the drag stip!

By my daddy's Porsche can beat your daddy's Viper around the mountain
road.

Yeah but your daddy's Porsche doesn't have two DVD players for
passengers in the back seat.

Oh yeah, my daddy's Canon can beat your daddy's Nikon for...

Sheesh, what a buncha little kids!!!
August 19, 2005 5:48:15 PM

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

>
> Sigma's equivalent costs what the Canon does and is a better lens.
> So much for the "price = appropriate quality" argument.
> -Rich

Is the sigma equivalent the 18-50 3.5-5.6 DC at approx the same cost and
gets reviews like " pictures are bad to very bad, Money could have been
saved or put to a good lens instead of tossed into a fire..." ?
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 6:25:37 PM

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

Skip M wrote:
> "Ed Lowe" <elowe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:NA3Ne.2978$Z%6.2812@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...


> And I also wish
> that some others would refrain from making statements about the equivalency
> of selection, or the non necessity or desirability of features like IS, USM,
> or whatever.

This is one of the most amusing traits of the Canon bashers, the attempt
to rationalize away the desirability of features that are not available
on certain other brands.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 6:26:47 PM

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

Taswolf wrote:

> Ok, find me a Canon lens with the same specs as the Sigma for the
> same price and I will buy it...

If you are going by specs and price, rather than quality, then indeed
you should keep buying Sigma lenses.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 6:31:53 PM

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

pixby wrote:

> Hail the God of EOS!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eos

"Eos was free with her favors and had many consorts, both among the
generation of Titans and among the handsomest mortals."

There is then little doubt she would have nothing to do with you filthy
Nikon Nutcases. Eos looks at you and your pathetic supplications from
her home near Oceanus and laughs.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 8:39:25 PM

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

Lets face it, you could have done all that with a home made pin hole
camera. After all subject and emotional impact is what counts.How Mr.
Rich what pearls of wisdom do you have on this.



On the 18 Aug 2005 07:27:39 -0700, "piperut"
<rbehunin@alumni.weber.edu> wrote:

>Hi Folks,
>
>Just to add fuel to the debate about the quality of the canon kit lens.
>
>I entered 3 photos in the Davis, Utah county Fair that I shot with the
>kit lens on the Canon Digital Rebel. I entered in the Pro-Am division.
>
>My photo Edinburgh Castle took first place in category - Senic
>Landscape
>My photo of a Highland Coo took 2nd place in its category -
>animals/domestic.
>(It was beaten out by a photo of a deer laying on a grave... impact
>counts!)
>
>The photo of the deer on the grave actually took best in show. I also
>should have cropped the photo a bit more after looking at it hanging
>there.
>
>As far as judging the photo of a bride I entered - they said it was a
>photo the bride would buy, but not one for competition.
>
>For the state fair I will end up having the photos reprinted on glossy
>paper, and crop the cow photo a little different.
>
>The photo of the bride on the couch is an 11x17, and the state fair
>only wants 11x14, so I am not sure what for a 3rd print. I have to
>think about that.
>
>roland

---------------------
Remember Glencoe.
Visit:
http://members.aol.com/Skyelander/glencoe.html
---------------------
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 9:27:15 PM

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

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>
>> Many of the posts in this group seem to be Canonistas
>>defending why they use Canon and casting aspersions on those who use other
>>equipment. Not quite ad hominem attacks, more like ad machinam. Users of
>>equipment other than Canon seem to be far more secure and happy with their
>>choices.
>
>
> Since you offer no evidence for your claims, is not your very posting
> guilty of the crimes you claim others of committing?
>

Hail the God of EOS!

--
Douglas,
You never really make it on the 'net
until you get your own personal Troll.
Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites!
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 9:44:56 PM

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

"piperut" <rbehunin@alumni.weber.edu> wrote in message
news:1124467039.953337.322410@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Skip M wrote:
>> "Ed Lowe" <elowe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:NA3Ne.2978$Z%6.2812@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > Am I imagining this, or are Canon users particularly thin-skinned about
>> > their choice of equipment? Many of the posts in this group seem to be
>> > Canonistas defending why they use Canon and casting aspersions on those
>> > who use other equipment. Not quite ad hominem attacks, more like ad
>> > machinam. Users of equipment other than Canon seem to be far more secure
>> > and happy with their choices.
>> >
>> Not thin skinned, tired of owners of other cameras trumpeting the
>> superiority of their choices. I frankly don't give a tinker's dam what
>> other people use, I just wish others would let me enjoy my choice without
>> telling me how much better their equipment is than mine. And I also wish
>> that some others would refrain from making statements about the equivalency
>> of selection, or the non necessity or desirability of features like IS,
>> USM,
>> or whatever.
>>
>
> This was really my point.
>
> The lens that comes in the kit with the Canon Digital Rebel may not be
> on par with the Canon L series lenses. However, it is a lens that will
> take fairly good photos for most people.
>
> It is not meant to be a professional grade lens. It does have
> vinyetting on the edges when used on the wide angles settings.
> However, my 8mm Peleng has this on a more extreme basis. Some spots on
> the lens are a bit soft in focus.
> It is a good light weight lens to pack around on a day trip.
>
> Now if you are going to set up in a studio to shoot portraits with
> studio lighting, well you would want a different lens, with a bit more
> telephoto zoom.
>
> I can't afford the L series lens. Some people seem to think the Sigma
> Lens at the same price range would have been a better choice. Maybe
> so. I didn't buy the Sigma lens. I bought the kit lens, as that is
> what was available when I bought the camera.
>
> It all boils down to what you do with it. A little bit better lens is
> going to get you a little bit better quality photo. However, you can
> get good photos with what you have.
>
> I have seen photos from 110 cameras blow away things from more
> expensvie camera when they were printed. Now, the only problen they
> had were they were a little grainy when they were blown up to any size.
>
> I have also seen, (and even shot myself) some really horrible stuff
> with the Digital Rebel, with a medium format, and with a large format
> camera from time to time when I didn't pay attention, when I was
> learning the camera, or a camera jammed, or I took a meter reading
> wrong. People do make mistakes, and you get some real awful stuff, and
> some funny stuff this way sometimes.
>
> So, I guess the bottom line - be happy with the equipment you have and
> enjoy shooting photos. Learn to use the equipment you have. That's
> what I am doing.
>
> The photos I entered in the fair are some of the first from switching
> over to digital from 35mm and medium format. Now, I was not real happy
> with some of the results from the vacation I went on to Scotland. It
> rained a lot, and was foggy. The photos in the rain didn't turn out
> like I would have liked. They were a bit dark. When I came back I
> ended up taking a digital photo class because of this. I learned a few
> things about digital photos vs film.
>
> Mainly, the rain is a bit different, and the camera can be set for rain
> exposure and white balance. I was really used to old manual settings
> on medium format cameras. Okay, I had a 35mm Rebel, but I used it
> mostly in the all manual mode, or just a few functions, not really
> using the camera.
>
> Also, the digital media is closer to slide flim then to negative flim
> for exposure lattitude.
>
> The new cameras have a lot more settings then the old manual cameras.
>
> roland
>

Q.E.D.
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 12:27:20 AM

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

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:48:15 +0100, "dylan" <no@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
>>
>> Sigma's equivalent costs what the Canon does and is a better lens.
>> So much for the "price = appropriate quality" argument.
>> -Rich
>
>Is the sigma equivalent the 18-50 3.5-5.6 DC at approx the same cost and
>gets reviews like " pictures are bad to very bad, Money could have been
>saved or put to a good lens instead of tossed into a fire..." ?
>
>

No, it's the one they put through MTF tests that came out noticeably
better and completely acceptable compared to the Canon lens.
-Rich
>


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 12:28:33 AM

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

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 14:25:37 GMT, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Skip M wrote:
>> "Ed Lowe" <elowe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:NA3Ne.2978$Z%6.2812@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>> And I also wish
>> that some others would refrain from making statements about the equivalency
>> of selection, or the non necessity or desirability of features like IS, USM,
>> or whatever.
>
>This is one of the most amusing traits of the Canon bashers, the attempt
>to rationalize away the desirability of features that are not available
>on certain other brands.

Like pixel mapping and auto sensor cleaning, or IS inside the camera
body or spot metering?
-Rich


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"
August 20, 2005 2:25:59 AM

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

SMS wrote:

>
> These posters have created strawmen to respond to, mythical people that
> supposedly attack anything non-Canon. I have not seen any Canon owner
> ever attack another brand of camera,

So we must assume you either don't own a canon, have a VERY short memory or
are a liar?

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital.s...


"> 2. Olympus E-1, 14-54 f2.8-3.5, 50-200 f2.8-3.5

The E-1, and other Olympus dSLR cameras, be avoided."



--

Stacey
August 20, 2005 2:30:19 AM

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

Skip M wrote:

> I just wish others would let me enjoy my choice without
> telling me how much better their equipment is than mine.

LOL, how many times a day does someone (like was just posted by SMS!) tell
us how much better a canon is than anything else? And does this stuff
really keep you from enjoying your choice? Maybe that's the problem, you
are insecure about this and have a need to prove something to yourself?

> And I also wish
> that some others would refrain from making statements about the
> equivalency of selection, or the non necessity or desirability of features
> like IS, USM, or whatever.
>

Yet it's OK to go on and on about how important ISO 1600+ is?

--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 2:30:20 AM

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3mnitrF17udhqU3@individual.net...
> Skip M wrote:
>
>> I just wish others would let me enjoy my choice without
>> telling me how much better their equipment is than mine.
>
> LOL, how many times a day does someone (like was just posted by SMS!) tell
> us how much better a canon is than anything else? And does this stuff
> really keep you from enjoying your choice? Maybe that's the problem, you
> are insecure about this and have a need to prove something to yourself?

I've wondered the very same thing about you and your desire to deride
Canon's products at nearly every opportunity. I've never aimed any derision
at you choice, nor will I. Just because I didn't find the Olys suitable,
doesn't mean that experience should be generalized. When my wife was having
continuing problems with her 20D (since traced to a faulty Quantum module) I
even suggested she look at Oly, since she had such good results with her old
E-10.
But you fill band width with spurious comments aimed at convincing people
that Oly's smaller lens selection is really the equivalent of Canon's, that
a 1/2 size sensor is really as big as a 3/4 size, or full frame sensor, and
on you go. I, and others, seem driven to keep this misinformation from
being accepted as gospel by those less experienced than we (including you)
are.
This stuff doesn't prevent me from enjoying my equipment, or even put a dent
in it. What it does is reduce my enjoyment of these newsgroups, and their
utility as a learning too.
>
>> And I also wish
>> that some others would refrain from making statements about the
>> equivalency of selection, or the non necessity or desirability of
>> features
>> like IS, USM, or whatever.
>>
>
> Yet it's OK to go on and on about how important ISO 1600+ is?
I've never done that, but, if you need ISO 1600, anything less is just that,
less. It was you who suggested, instead of having IS/VR/AS, laying off of
the caffiene would be a good alternative.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
August 20, 2005 2:31:13 AM

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

SMS wrote:

> Skip M wrote:
>> "Ed Lowe" <elowe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:NA3Ne.2978$Z%6.2812@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>> And I also wish
>> that some others would refrain from making statements about the
>> equivalency of selection, or the non necessity or desirability of
>> features like IS, USM, or whatever.
>
> This is one of the most amusing traits of the Canon bashers, the attempt
> to rationalize away the desirability of features that are not available
> on certain other brands.

Yea like sensor dust being a non-issue...
--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 6:50:31 AM

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

In message <3mnitrF17udhqU3@individual.net>,
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Yet it's OK to go on and on about how important ISO 1600+ is?

I went to Central Park Tuesday, to shoot the Warblers on their return to
the tropics; I never once was able to drop below ISO 1600 in the wooded
areas, in mid-day. That was wide-open f/5.6 at 400mm, IS enabled; I
brought my teleconverters for nothing, because there wasn't enough
light.

People like you who cling to what the limitations of what film were to
determine what we need today and tomorrow are doing no one any favors,
and are just blowing your horn about how little you can do with as an
ego game.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 8:44:09 AM

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

Skip M wrote:
> I, and others, seem driven to keep this misinformation from
> being accepted as gospel by those less experienced than we (including you)
> are.

You know, I see this rationale over and over again, but I do not believe
that there are more than a handful of people dumb enough to take people
these liars seriously. I find that kill-filing them is more effective,
since it robs them of the attention that they are so desperately seeking.

> I've never done that, but, if you need ISO 1600, anything less is just that,
> less. It was you who suggested, instead of having IS/VR/AS, laying off of
> the caffiene would be a good alternative.

I think that the features that Canon offers that are not available
elsewhere, are the main reason why some people are so jealous, and why
they say such stupid things.

I don't ever see Canon people deriding the features that are present on
Nikon or Konica-Minolta, that are lacking on Canon. I wish the 20D did
have spot-metering, and it would be great if it had in-camera IS, but
these are trade-offs that I made in order to obtain features that the
competition did not have.
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 3:10:56 AM

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

Angus wrote:
>
> Lets face it, you could have done all that with a home made pin hole
> camera. After all subject and emotional impact is what counts.How Mr.
> Rich what pearls of wisdom do you have on this.

See below
>
> On the 18 Aug 2005 07:27:39 -0700, "piperut"
> <rbehunin@alumni.weber.edu> wrote:
>
> >Hi Folks,
> >
> >Just to add fuel to the debate about the quality of the canon kit lens.
> >
> >I entered 3 photos in the Davis, Utah county Fair that I shot with the
> >kit lens on the Canon Digital Rebel. I entered in the Pro-Am division.
> >
> >My photo Edinburgh Castle took first place in category - Senic
> >Landscape
> >My photo of a Highland Coo took 2nd place in its category -
> >animals/domestic.
> >(It was beaten out by a photo of a deer laying on a grave... impact
> >counts!)
> >
> >The photo of the deer on the grave actually took best in show. I also
> >should have cropped the photo a bit more after looking at it hanging
> >there.
> >
> >As far as judging the photo of a bride I entered - they said it was a
> >photo the bride would buy, but not one for competition.
> >
> >For the state fair I will end up having the photos reprinted on glossy
> >paper, and crop the cow photo a little different.
> >
> >The photo of the bride on the couch is an 11x17, and the state fair
> >only wants 11x14, so I am not sure what for a 3rd print. I have to
> >think about that.
> >
> >roland
>
What's with the snide remarks? You clearly haven't a clue what you're
talking about. Competitions are *not* won with blurred or out-of-focus
photos. Pinhole images only win in pinhole competitions. The whole
point of the OP's post was about the performance of the Canon kit lens,
and in view of the placings his shots attained, your remarks are
worthless. You're just having a thinly veiled shot at the Canon lens.

What really irks me are these pontificating pricks who probably have
never seen a Canon kit lens, let alone handled or used one, but like
lemmings, they all jump on the bandwagon of snide criticism, and just in
case you missed the inference, that means you, 'Angus'.

Many times, Canon owners have said THE BLOODY LENS IS NOT THE BEST IN
THE WORLD, BUT FOR THE PRICE IT IS PRETTY GOOD. What the hell else will
it take for you cretins to get the message?

And top posting only makes it worse.

Spare me, for God's sake,

Colin D.
August 29, 2005 3:09:06 AM

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

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 23:10:56 +1200, Colin D
<ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

>
>
>Angus wrote:

I spose next you are going to tell me I'll have to Canon because it
won't work on my Nikon? <:-))


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>>

>
>Many times, Canon owners have said THE BLOODY LENS IS NOT THE BEST IN
>THE WORLD, BUT FOR THE PRICE IT IS PRETTY GOOD. What the hell else will
>it take for you cretins to get the message?
>
>And top posting only makes it worse.
>
>Spare me, for God's sake,
>
>Colin D.
!