The stink of plastic

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

No wonder I hate it so much.

http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47959941


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"

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

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:sis2h19l6ihqet99cn3riibtcro7nl25oi@4ax.com...
> No wonder I hate it so much.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47959941

Poor if failed like that in normal use , not surprising if run over by a
bus.

next.......

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

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:sis2h19l6ihqet99cn3riibtcro7nl25oi@4ax.com...
> No wonder I hate it so much.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47959941
>
>
> "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
> never gave us refunds for in the past"

Tell you what, Rich, drop your camera, what ever it is, nine stories onto
concrete or rocks, and then post a photo of the result...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

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

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:4ZhQe.5161$sw6.2084@fed1read05...
> "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:sis2h19l6ihqet99cn3riibtcro7nl25oi@4ax.com...
>> No wonder I hate it so much.
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47959941
>>
>>
>> "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
>> never gave us refunds for in the past"
>
> Tell you what, Rich, drop your camera, what ever it is, nine stories onto
> concrete or rocks, and then post a photo of the result...
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>

....or even better - drop your PC from 90 feet ;-o))

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

Skip M wrote:
> "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:sis2h19l6ihqet99cn3riibtcro7nl25oi@4ax.com...
>> No wonder I hate it so much.
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47959941
>>
>>
>> "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
>> never gave us refunds for in the past"
>
> Tell you what, Rich, drop your camera, what ever it is, nine stories
> onto concrete or rocks, and then post a photo of the result...

"Stories" do not equal "feet".

C'mon; someone keeps reminding us this is a "technical forum".

Joke-ish.

--
Frank S

"Verbing wierds language."
—Calvin

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

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:VPidnVTqIKGYe4zeRVn-2g@giganews.com...
> Skip M wrote:
>> "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>> news:sis2h19l6ihqet99cn3riibtcro7nl25oi@4ax.com...
>>> No wonder I hate it so much.
>>>
>>> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47959941
>>>
>>>
>>> "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
>>> never gave us refunds for in the past"
>>
>> Tell you what, Rich, drop your camera, what ever it is, nine stories
>> onto concrete or rocks, and then post a photo of the result...
>
> "Stories" do not equal "feet".
>
> C'mon; someone keeps reminding us this is a "technical forum".
>
> Joke-ish.

90ft = approx 9 stories
or
10* Stories = feet

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

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 05:19:13 -0700, "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net>
wrote:

>"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:sis2h19l6ihqet99cn3riibtcro7nl25oi@4ax.com...
>> No wonder I hate it so much.
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47959941
>>
>>
>> "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
>> never gave us refunds for in the past"
>
>Tell you what, Rich, drop your camera, what ever it is, nine stories onto
>concrete or rocks, and then post a photo of the result...

Not a good test. A camera could fall many different ways and end up
in many different "shapes" after the fall. But I doubt it would
"explode."
-Rich


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"

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

"Charles" <ckraft@SAMTRAP.west.net> wrote in message
news:nkt2h1t18qs5a361bit7n8po7hlohhujr6@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 04:14:38 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>No wonder I hate it so much.
>>
>>http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47959941
>>
>>
>>"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
>>never gave us refunds for in the past"
>
>
> Metal has it's failures as well.
>
> http://www.lyndonirwin.com/ebay2.jpg

Or how about this one? www.aloha.net/ ~icarus/243pg2.htm

Where the metal failed in flight.

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

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:VPidnVTqIKGYe4zeRVn-2g@giganews.com...
> Skip M wrote:
>> "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>> news:sis2h19l6ihqet99cn3riibtcro7nl25oi@4ax.com...
>>> No wonder I hate it so much.
>>>
>>> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47959941
>>>
>>>
>>> "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
>>> never gave us refunds for in the past"
>>
>> Tell you what, Rich, drop your camera, what ever it is, nine stories
>> onto concrete or rocks, and then post a photo of the result...
>
> "Stories" do not equal "feet".
>
> C'mon; someone keeps reminding us this is a "technical forum".
>
> Joke-ish.
>
> --
> Frank S
>
> "Verbing wierds language."
> —Calvin
A building story is considered to equal 10 feet, so 90 feet, what Mark
claims was the distance his camera fell, is roughly equal to 9 stories...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

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

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:43:40 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
<cds@erols.com> wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>> No wonder I hate it so much.
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47959941
>
>Take all the plastic out of your day to day life and then tell us how
>much you hate it.

Oh I realize how it's made things cheap enough for
most people to afford, but some things could be made
of metal instead (like camera bodies). However, I wouldn't
expect my 19" $700 monitor to have a stainless steel or magnesium
chassis.
-Rich


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"

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

RichA wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:43:40 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> <cds@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>>RichA wrote:
>>
>>>No wonder I hate it so much.
>>>
>>>http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47959941
>>
>>Take all the plastic out of your day to day life and then tell us how
>>much you hate it.
>
>
> Oh I realize how it's made things cheap enough for
> most people to afford, but some things could be made
> of metal instead (like camera bodies). However, I wouldn't
> expect my 19" $700 monitor to have a stainless steel or magnesium
> chassis.

Any DSLR has a good bit of plastic in it. I don't understand what there
is to "hate" about it. Actually I bet the P&S cameras are more metal as
a total percentage than a DSLR.

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

"Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in message
news:KICdnVI2IuLfx4_eRVn-uA@giganews.com...
> RichA wrote:
>> No wonder I hate it so much.
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47959941
>
> Take all the plastic out of your day to day life and then tell us how much
> you hate it.

Where would Pamela Lee, or most of Hollywood be without plastic!

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

Darrell wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:KICdnVI2IuLfx4_eRVn-uA@giganews.com...
>
>>RichA wrote:
>>
>>>No wonder I hate it so much.
>>>
>>>http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47959941
>>
>>Take all the plastic out of your day to day life and then tell us how much
>>you hate it.
>
>
> Where would Pamela Lee, or most of Hollywood be without plastic!
>
>
>
>
>
All the way to the right [warning: bare breast pix]
http://www.implantinfo.com/beforea [...] larger.htm
;-P
--
Slack

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

Darrell wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:KICdnVI2IuLfx4_eRVn-uA@giganews.com...
>
>>RichA wrote:
>>
>>>No wonder I hate it so much.
>>>
>>>http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47959941
>>
>>Take all the plastic out of your day to day life and then tell us how much
>>you hate it.
>
>
> Where would Pamela Lee, or most of Hollywood be without plastic!

More insecure than they already are?

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

hmmmm, if you fell off of a 9 story building would you want to land on 10'
of plastic peanuts, or 10' of metal bolts of similar size

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

RichA blathers:

>>I don't...But it's up to you to prove, because you're the one making the
>>allegation.
>
> It depends to on how the camera body is designed.

No, it depends on _you_ conducting the test.

> The Canon in question seemed to have been designed like a race car, to
> channel impact energy across the body, saving the occupants inside.

The camera was a total loss. It would almost certainly have been a
total loss had it been made of metal, plastic, or even popsicle sticks.

Your complaints started out as stupid, but are now just plain idiotic
to the extreme. You are so upset because the lowest-of-the-low lenses
at Canon are slightly worse that the junk-lenses at Nikon. Oh, the
horror of it all! Now you kvetch that when you drop a camera 30m, it,
like, BREAKS, and maybe a metal camera would break ever so less,
therefore "plastic stinks".

Basically, you are a FUDster. A rather dumb one, it would appear, but
still a FUDster.

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

On 29 Aug 2005 11:10:01 -0700, "eawckyegcy@yahoo.com"
<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>RichA blathers:
>
>>>I don't...But it's up to you to prove, because you're the one making the
>>>allegation.
>>
>> It depends to on how the camera body is designed.
>
>No, it depends on _you_ conducting the test.
>
>> The Canon in question seemed to have been designed like a race car, to
>> channel impact energy across the body, saving the occupants inside.
>
>The camera was a total loss. It would almost certainly have been a
>total loss had it been made of metal, plastic, or even popsicle sticks.
>
>Your complaints started out as stupid, but are now just plain idiotic
>to the extreme. You are so upset because the lowest-of-the-low lenses
>at Canon are slightly worse that the junk-lenses at Nikon. Oh, the
>horror of it all! Now you kvetch that when you drop a camera 30m, it,
>like, BREAKS, and maybe a metal camera would break ever so less,
>therefore "plastic stinks".
>
>Basically, you are a FUDster. A rather dumb one, it would appear, but
>still a FUDster.

As far as the lenses are concerned, Olympus's "low end" 40-150 zoom
basically wasted the competition from all commers in a recent test
and Nikon's ED kit zooms are much better than Canon's non-ED zoom.
Now I'm seeing Canon's WA lenses are nothing much either, "L" series
or not. As witnessed by one of the sample images from the D5 images
on dpreview.com. This say alot.
As for the post about the plastic Canon disintingrating on impact,
you could be right or wrong about your conclusions as to what kind
of damage a body can take. What I DO know is I once dropped an all
metal Olympus OM-1 from 10 feet onto concrete and it ended up with
a ding in the prism housing, which didn't displace the prism and had
no effect on the camera's performance. Try it with a D-Rebel and see
if you don't crack the body, which would basically ruin the camera.
No cheating by landing the camera on it's lens though.
-Rich


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"

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

RichA wrote:

>>No, it depends on _you_ conducting the test.
>>
>>> The Canon in question seemed to have been designed like a race car, to
>>> channel impact energy across the body, saving the occupants inside.
>>
>>The camera was a total loss. It would almost certainly have been a
>>total loss had it been made of metal, plastic, or even popsicle sticks.
>>
>>Your complaints started out as stupid, but are now just plain idiotic
>>to the extreme. You are so upset because the lowest-of-the-low lenses
>>at Canon are slightly worse that the junk-lenses at Nikon. Oh, the
>>horror of it all! Now you kvetch that when you drop a camera 30m, it,
>>like, BREAKS, and maybe a metal camera would break ever so less,
>>therefore "plastic stinks".
>>
>>Basically, you are a FUDster. A rather dumb one, it would appear, but
>>still a FUDster.
>
> As far as the lenses are concerned, Olympus's "low end" 40-150 zoom
> basically wasted the competition from all commers in a recent test
> and Nikon's ED kit zooms are much better than Canon's non-ED zoom.
> Now I'm seeing Canon's WA lenses are nothing much either, "L" series
> or not. As witnessed by one of the sample images from the D5 images
> on dpreview.com. This say alot.

Canon wide-angle performance problems have been known for a _long_
time. Where have you been? Right: comparing the smell of brand X
dogshit to brand Y dogshit. I would ask "why", but I am not
particularly interested in your scatological fascinations...

> As for the post about the plastic Canon disintingrating on impact,
> you could be right or wrong about your conclusions as to what kind
> of damage a body can take. What I DO know is I once dropped an all
> metal Olympus OM-1 from 10 feet onto concrete and it ended up with
> a ding in the prism housing, which didn't displace the prism and had
> no effect on the camera's performance.

Documentary evidence of this claim is ... where?

> Try it with a D-Rebel and see
> if you don't crack the body, which would basically ruin the camera.

Why should I try anything? You are the one making the (idiot) claims.
Go ahead, take your "OM-1" and drop it from 90 feet and get back to us
with the result.

> No cheating by landing the camera on it's lens though.

Why don't you try thinking instead of acting as a particularly dumb
FUDster? It is fun, and in fact, it is easier.

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

In article <1gh7h11n82hitsiig6k2qt9qcjer55t1fh@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm
says...
> In message <C_idnWgcOJvmnY7eRVn-pw@rogers.com>,
> "Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote:
>
> >hmmmm, if you fell off of a 9 story building would you want to land on 10'
> >of plastic peanuts, or 10' of metal bolts of similar size
>
> What about 10' of solid plastic, vs 10' of steel wool?

What about 10' of hot chicks versus 10' of chicks?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

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

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 04:14:38 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>No wonder I hate it so much.
>
>http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47959941
>
>
>"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
>never gave us refunds for in the past"


Flesh appears to have some drawbacks as well:

http://www.latimes.com/travel/outd [...] &cset=true

Hiker dies posing for photo at Yosemite
Joe Robinson
IT'S the hard-won payoff for a vertical Sierra hike: a
stomach-dropping overlook from a cliff-side perch, captured for
posterity with a photo. But a snapshot with too much of an edge can
turn fatal, as it did last week for an Irish student who fell to his
death from Upper Yosemite Fall.

Dublin resident Shane Kinsella, 21, who had hiked to the top of
Yosemite National Park's famed waterfall with friends, was posing for
a picture at the edge of the falls when he slipped and fell 1,430 feet
over the precipice. His body was recovered in a pool at the base of
the falls.

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

In article <1gh7h11n82hitsiig6k2qt9qcjer55t1fh@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm
wrote:

> In message <C_idnWgcOJvmnY7eRVn-pw@rogers.com>,
> "Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote:
>
> >hmmmm, if you fell off of a 9 story building would you want to land on 10'
> >of plastic peanuts, or 10' of metal bolts of similar size
>
> What about 10' of solid plastic, vs 10' of steel wool?

Steel wool?! Ow!!!