Canon EOS 40D
SteveB
Went to the camera store today to buy a Nikon D40x with the two lenses. Had
my check book in my pocket. The camera tekkie, a girl (woman) with military
and LEO experience steered me away from the D40x to the Canon 40D. In the
meantime, I held and looked at the Nikon 80 and 200. When asked what was
the best camera/deal, she had some convincing arguments.
What I found in the Canon was a camera that fit my hand better, had more
accessible controls, had the shutter release button in a more ergonomically
correct location, had a bigger LCD screen, had a brighter LCD screen, and
quite a bigger spread on some of the basic settings. More shutter exposures
per second. Electronic dust release on turn on/off. More weather
resistant.
It was about twice the price, too, with two lenses, but now I'm almost
convinced that instead of even the Nikon 200, a Canon EOS 40D is the better
camera.
Comments, please.
Thanks. I know this is an endless discussion re: the best camera et al.
But when spending two grand, I'd like to hear from people who been there,
done that, and what they learned. I want a camera that I will will to my
son because it will last that long, and I will be satisfied with it. Went
to stevesdigicams.com and they liked it and stated many of the same reasons
she had.
Steve, who finds Google hard to use.
Dudley Hanks
"SteveB" <old...@flatulence.com> wrote in message
news:xWvoj.18531$4H1...@newsfe07.phx...
Actually, Steve, you don't even have to go that high in the Canon
price-range to beat the Nikon.
When looking for a Christmas present for my wife, I ended up choosing the
Canon Rebel XT for her for many of the reasons you pointed out, but the
price wasn't $2,000.
Also, for people with older Canon 35mm EOS cameras, interchangeability with
older EF lenses is great, same with older flash units. While the older
items don't have all the functionality of the newer equivalents,
functionality is very respectable.
I've always liked both Canon and Nikon, but when it comes to digital SLR's,
I think that Canon is really hard to beat when viewed on a dollar-to-dollar,
feature-to-feature basis.
On the other hand, if Nikon sent me a camera bag stuffed with toys, free of
charge, I wouldn't send it back.
Smile,
Dudley
Paul Furman
> Also, for people with older Canon 35mm EOS cameras, interchangeability with
> older EF lenses is great, same with older flash units. While the older
> items don't have all the functionality of the newer equivalents,
> functionality is very respectable.
This comment applies much more to Nikon than Canon (compatibility of old
lenses).
Paul Furman
> I currently have a Sony DSC H1, and I've outgrown it.
>
> Went to the camera store today to buy a Nikon D40x with the two lenses. Had
> my check book in my pocket. The camera tekkie, a girl (woman) with military
> and LEO experience steered me away from the D40x to the Canon 40D. In the
> meantime, I held and looked at the Nikon 80 and 200. When asked what was
> the best camera/deal, she had some convincing arguments.
>
> What I found in the Canon was a camera that fit my hand better, had more
> accessible controls, had the shutter release button in a more ergonomically
> correct location,
You should probably go with the Canon then.
> had a bigger LCD screen, had a brighter LCD screen, and
> quite a bigger spread on some of the basic settings. More shutter exposures
> per second. Electronic dust release on turn on/off. More weather
> resistant.
I don't think the 40D is particularly well sealed or durable but of
course it's light years better than the D40 for features and is a
significant upgrade from a D200.
> It was about twice the price, too, with two lenses, but now I'm almost
> convinced that instead of even the Nikon 200, a Canon EOS 40D is the better
> camera.
>
> Comments, please.
>
> Thanks. I know this is an endless discussion re: the best camera et al.
> But when spending two grand, I'd like to hear from people who been there,
> done that, and what they learned.
When I got a DSLR it was a choice between a little icky silver Canon
Rebel, a Nikon D70 & the Canon (20D?) seemed too expensive so I went
with the D70. I dropped the D70 while hiking a few years later & got a
D200 a couple years ago. For your case in 2008, the 40D is better than
the D200 (except for durability) and the D300 probably sounds
unreasonably expensive.
> I want a camera that I will will to my
> son because it will last that long,
The metal body & weather seals on the D200/300 are a plus for this aim.
On the other hand, this isn't 1978 & nothing these days is built to pass
on to your children so I can't say with a straight face that *any*
modern camera will be appealing in 20 years. That line of reasoning
suggests the D80 with better lenses: the lenses *will* be worthy and
appealing in 20 years if they are good stuff and my Nikon bias says that
Nikon has superior lenses. If you get the D200 you could get 30 year-old
lenses that kick ass and still will be appealing in another 20 years.
The lenses are the key component, expect the camera to die or become
obsolete. OTOH Canon's lenses are fine and it's a great solid system &
if the camera feels better that's good.
Paul Furman
> I dropped the D70 while hiking a few years later
It rolled 50 feet downhill & smashed into a rock.
SteveB
"Joel" <Jo...@NoSpam.com> wrote
>> Steve, who finds Google hard to use.
>
> May I suggest you to learn to take advantage of Google? or it's hard
> because you never spent time to learn to take advantage of it, and some of
> us find easy after spending times learning how to use it.
I had a traumatic brain injury nearly four years ago, and get lost and
overloaded at times. I'm smart, but it doesn't stay with me for long. I
also find that there are so many hits you get that are only remotely
associated with what you're actually looking for. And then there's all the
sifting through information. It's very difficult at times.
Steve
SteveB
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:ijAoj.5073$5K1....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
> Paul Furman wrote:
>> I dropped the D70 while hiking a few years later
>
> It rolled 50 feet downhill & smashed into a rock.
If you're like me, the memory still runs in slow motion.
Steve
The One
> On the other hand, if Nikon sent me a camera bag stuffed with toys, free
of
> charge, I wouldn't send it back.
>
> Smile,
> Dudley
>
I would instantly.
Colin_D
That depends on your notion of interchangeability. Sure, when Canon
axed the FD mount in favor of the EF (EOS) mount, it obsoleted all the
FD lenses, but the totally redesigned EF mount - now 20-odd years old -
accepts every EF lens on every EOS camera with no exceptions apart from
the EF-S lenses designed for the crop-sensor cameras.
Nikon, on the other hand, have lenses which fit the cameras but on some
bodies the metering doesn't work, or the auto focusing fails because
there's no focus motor in some bodies, or the lenses without aperture
rings can't be used on non-auto bodies because there's no way to set the
aperture.
IMHO I prefer Canon's clean-break approach rather than Nikon's
hodge-podge of half-working lenses and bodies.
YMMV.
Colin D.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
suddengunfire
> I've always liked both Canon and Nikon, but when it comes to digital SLR's,
> I think that Canon is really hard to beat when viewed on a dollar-to-dollar,
> feature-to-feature basis
And please note, that even in entry level slrs, like 400D, Canon is
using the most prestigious cmos-type sensor, which you can find at
Nikon's most expensive slrs only
Elmore
> SteveB wrote:
>> I currently have a Sony DSC H1, and I've outgrown it.
>> I want a camera that I will will to my son because it will last that
>> long,
>
Nice thought Steve, but new DSLR's are like computers, they are almost
obsolete by the time you get them home. Assuming you are not planning on
dying any time soon your son will most likely be inheriting a camera that's
something like an IBM XT computer with DOS software. If you want something
for your son to inherit then buy some Canon stock and hope for the best. If
you want a camera then buy a camera.
plb49
> "Joel" <J...@NoSpam.com> wrote
You might like Clusty.com as a search engine better.
Paul B.
SteveB
"Joel" <Jo...@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:anj6q39b92hp8qbt2...@4ax.com...
>
> - Twenty some years ago I got so many health problem that I had to retired
> early in my late 40's. And it took me 4-5 years to be able to learn to
> walk
> again, and still depend on many medicines to stay alive these days. But
> it
> has been much better.
>
> - During the illness, I have quite a bit of memory loss. PLUS English
> isn't
> my native language so it's a BONUS to my problem. But that doesn't give
> me
> any good excuse to continue to take advantage of Internet to learn from
> millions of people around the world. And thing is getting even harder at
> the age of 71... but I'm still not giving up learning.
>
> - The links some of us have posted here once awhile would give you much
> more
> information than you would like to know, and it may take an average person
> 4-6 months worth of reading. And the benefit of reading thing you don't
> look for is a bonus (at least to me), and that's one of many reasons why I
> enjoy Google.
>
> - Because most thing won't change overnight, so it's a good thing to read
> the old questions already been answered (including some debates) without
> having to ask the same question to get the same answer. This is the
> reason
> why I hardly ask any question, or because I always try to find the answer
> first before asking the same quesion.
Good for you!
Steve
SteveB
"Elmore" <elm...@todoornotodo.net> wrote in message
news:xLadnaV3rMRpgz7a...@comcast.com...
Was merely trying to state that I want a camera that will last a long time.
I have a 13 year history of heart problems, CABGX5 AVR, and HOPE I'm still
alive for ten more years. My son will be getting his MBA in business in
July, so I think I will let him buy whatever HE wants. I just gave him a
new Sony DSC H1, as he used mine and liked it. As a college student, he has
only had P&S small cameras. While the Sony might not be the best camera, he
can learn a lot, and it's about two light years ahead of the cigarette pack
sized cameras he's used to. He'll have fun with the Sony and learn a lot,
and if he's serious, he'll move into the field of DSLRs himself. And at his
expense, too. And I'll pass info along to him as I learn it, too to
influence his path.
Steve
Dave Cohen
You can't beat a Nikon for mobility.
Dave Cohen
Paul Furman
It had a tiny lens mounted so was kind of snowball shaped.
Dudley Hanks
"Dave Cohen" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
news:SLIoj.9$FW3.2@trndny03...
And, it probably took a half dozen good shots on its way down.
Impressive.
Paul Furman
I don't know why people keep turning this into an issue. Anyone who
wants put some strange 40 year old lens on their camera is going to be
willing to spend a little time to figure out how it works. I never heard
of anyone seeking out a 20 year old Canon lens.
Elmore
I think I'm getting the picture (so to speak) Steve. The Canon 40D is a
more serious tool than the Nikon 40x. More serious money too, but if you've
got it to spend I'd say go for it. I'm thinking you would be wanting to
upgrade the Nikon sooner and therefore the Canon 40D will save you money in
the long run because you will be happier with it longer. How's that for a
nice rationalization to get the 40D. I have a semi-pro friend upgraded to
one and he claims there's nothing not to like about the 40D. I have another
friend who had a Nikon 40 and upgraded a 40x. He was disappointed that he
spent the extra money and couldn't make better photographs with the 40x.
And so it goes.
Have fun and make lots of photographs.
Paul Furman
To summarize: get the 40D because you like it and it's about the most
you want to spend, the next step would be a D300. Alternatively, get a
Nikon D80 and a couple nice lenses because it's the lenses that really
matter and will make a truly lasting purchase. If you don't plan to
spend more on lenses it doesn't really make sense to spend $2,000 on a
fancy camera with mediocre lenses although I can certainly understand
the appeal.
Dudley Hanks
When I mentioned it, I was just referring to experience my wife and I had
when we upgraded to a Canon Rebel XT.
I've used Canon's for a number of years, so it was convenient that the
lenses from my old A2 fit the Rebel so nicely. Even more interesting, is
the 1.7, or is it 1.6, telescopic effect one experiences when putting the
old lens on a new digital camera. Suddenly, my old 50 to 300 mm lens turned
into something like an 80 to 480 lens. Couple that with the two
ex-tele-converter and all of a sudden we've got a 960 mm mini telescope that
is a lot of fun to play with.
While I may sound very pro-Canon at times, it is often a very difficult
choice for me to choose between Canon and Nikon. (Actually, you can throw
Pentax into the mix as well because I use an old Pentax P3 as well.) When I
bought my first cameras, I nearly went Nikon but a friend of mine was into
Canons, and he let me use a lot of his accessories, so that was whyI went
with the brand. I have never regretted that decision, but I doubt I would
have regretted it had I gone with Nikon either.
Sometimes, I think that things which would normally pass as innocent remarks
in a casual conversation end up looking much more stark and critical when
viewed in a textbased message.
Not wanting to offend you,
Dudley
Colin_D
Well, Paul, you just did that with your remark above about compatibility
of old lenses, in answer to Dudley.
The only reason anyone wants to put a 20-year-old lens on a camera is
either they believe it is somehow superior to newer lenses, or it is
cheaper - a powerful reason to convince yourself that it is better than
a more expensive new lens. However, with Canon they can and it will
work, period. With Nikon they can, but will it work? Maybe.
SteveB
"Elmore" <elm...@todoornotodo.net> wrote
> I think I'm getting the picture (so to speak) Steve. The Canon 40D is a
> more serious tool than the Nikon 40x. More serious money too, but if
> you've
> got it to spend I'd say go for it. I'm thinking you would be wanting to
> upgrade the Nikon sooner and therefore the Canon 40D will save you money
> in
> the long run because you will be happier with it longer. How's that for a
> nice rationalization to get the 40D. I have a semi-pro friend upgraded to
> one and he claims there's nothing not to like about the 40D. I have
> another
> friend who had a Nikon 40 and upgraded a 40x. He was disappointed that he
> spent the extra money and couldn't make better photographs with the 40x.
>
> And so it goes.
>
> Have fun and make lots of photographs.
I have a full life. I have always liked photography, even had a black and
white darkroom with a Beseler 45 mcrx traveling head enlarger with half a
dozen Zeiss lenses. All the stuff. Several cameras in the 2 1/4" format
including a Hasselblad.
But today as my sunset approaches, I just want to indulge myself without
total immersion. I have neither the time nor inclination to go full bore
into photography, but enjoy the hell out of it seasonally when the
hummingbirds are flying and when I can get afield.
Ergo, I wanted a "good" better camera than I had. I don't expect to ever
fully understand it, or get way deep into the processing, but it's like a
lake. I'm a retired commercial diver. You can go as deep as you want, and
you don't always have to go to the bottom. Just getting underwater is fun,
and once you put your head under, it's all pretty much the same. I find it
so with photography, too. But now I want to go a little deeper, and stay a
little longer, and want the good stuff that will do what I want it to.
I also think I will be less likely to outgrow the 40D than to outgrow the
Nikon. There's a HUGE difference in just how they feel in my hands, with
Canon winning out.
It will do all I want to do with it, and my current camera won't. Which was
the point of my original question.
Thanks to all for the nice discussion and tips.
Steve
Dudley Hanks
"The One" <n...@here.com> wrote in message
news:47a2e26c$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
Smile,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
Well said, Steve. And, good luck with your camera.
Take Care,
Dudley
Elmore
"Dudley Hanks" <hanks....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aOToj.2386$cc3.1813@edtnps82...
Or send it to me.
This is an open invitation to anyone, such as The One, needing to instantly
purge their lives of whatever wretched Nikon equipment is possessing them.
Address furnished on request.
Elmore
>
> "Elmore" <elm...@todoornotodo.net> wrote
>
>> I think I'm getting the picture (so to speak) Steve. The Canon 40D is a
>> more serious tool than the Nikon 40x. More serious money too, but if
>> you've
>> got it to spend I'd say go for it. I'm thinking you would be wanting to
>> upgrade the Nikon sooner and therefore the Canon 40D will save you money
>> in
>> the long run because you will be happier with it longer. How's that for
>> a
>> nice rationalization to get the 40D. I have a semi-pro friend upgraded
>> to
>> one and he claims there's nothing not to like about the 40D. I have
>> another
>> friend who had a Nikon 40 and upgraded a 40x. He was disappointed that
>> he
>> spent the extra money and couldn't make better photographs with the 40x.
>>
>> And so it goes.
>>
>> Have fun and make lots of photographs.
>
> I have a full life. I have always liked photography, even had a black and
> white darkroom with a Beseler 45 mcrx traveling head enlarger with half a
> dozen Zeiss lenses. All the stuff. Several cameras in the 2 1/4" format
> including a Hasselblad.
>
I have access to a college campus darkroom and greatly enjoy spending time
there whenever I can come up with some worthy negatives. I too have a
couple of 2 1/4" cameras one of which is not a Hasselblad (I'm sorry to
say).
> But today as my sunset approaches, I just want to indulge myself without
> total immersion. I have neither the time nor inclination to go full bore
> into photography, but enjoy the hell out of it seasonally when the
> hummingbirds are flying and when I can get afield.
>
> Ergo, I wanted a "good" better camera than I had. I don't expect to ever
> fully understand it, or get way deep into the processing, but it's like a
> lake. I'm a retired commercial diver. You can go as deep as you want,
> and you don't always have to go to the bottom. Just getting underwater is
> fun, and once you put your head under, it's all pretty much the same. I
> find it so with photography, too. But now I want to go a little deeper,
> and stay a little longer, and want the good stuff that will do what I want
> it to.
>
> I also think I will be less likely to outgrow the 40D than to outgrow the
> Nikon. There's a HUGE difference in just how they feel in my hands, with
> Canon winning out.
>
The feel of a tool in your hands is not to be discounted in the least.
Good luck with the humming birds. I suppose they will be back before you
know it. I don't understand their migration, but it astounds me that such
seemingly fragile birds with such great energy requirements to fly are able
to cover such great distances.
SteveB
"Elmore" <elm...@moretoys.net> wrote
> Good luck with the humming birds. I suppose they will be back before you
> know it. I don't understand their migration, but it astounds me that such
> seemingly fragile birds with such great energy requirements to fly are
> able to cover such great distances.
>
Here are a couple of my pictures:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/deserttraveler/
They are fascinating to watch and challenging to photograph. I'm getting
the hang of this camera, and understanding what it takes to catch them. The
roufuses are the hardest to catch. They are all amazing.
Steve
OG
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>
>> Also, for people with older Canon 35mm EOS cameras, interchangeability
>> with older EF lenses is great, same with older flash units. While the
>> older items don't have all the functionality of the newer equivalents,
>> functionality is very respectable.
>
> This comment applies much more to Nikon than Canon (compatibility of old
> lenses).
If you want compatibility with old lenses, Pentax is the place to be
looking - and with SR built into the sensor, you even get it on 30 year old
lenses. Just don't mistake Ricoh K mount lenses for Pentax K mount lenses.
Just my 5p worth
Paul Furman
It's not that hard to figure out.
Paul Furman
> Sorry, Paul, didn't mean to start another issue.
Nah, nothing personal, just debating :-)
DaveS
> snip <
> It was about twice the price, too, with two lenses, but now I'm almost
> convinced that instead of even the Nikon 200, a Canon EOS 40D is the
> better camera.
>
> Comments, please.
I have a Canon 20D right now. I love it. I WILL have a Canon 40D at some
point. The specs make it worth the upgrade. I'm just saving the
pennies.... :O)
Have fun,
Dave
Peter
You are correct of course, automatic metering does not work with all Nikon
bodies. That was precisely the reason that I got the D200. The metering
system works fine with my old lenses. For example, my 200 macro lens, which
are used frequently, is as clear and sharp as the day I bought it. I would
not want auto focusing on a macro lens, for what should be obvious reasons.
On occasion are used by old 50F 1.2 and I really do not mind the lack of
auto focusing. It makes an excellent low light lens. I really think a
lengthy debate on this topic would not serve a useful purpose. We are all
continually learning, while most of us anyway, so that information can be
exchanged and the potential purchaser able to make a somewhat informed
decision. I purchased my camera based upon what I think my needs are.
Besides, every so often I like to pull out my old F3 and see whether I still
know how to use film.
--
Peter
Peter
>
> I also think I will be less likely to outgrow the 40D than to outgrow the
> Nikon. There's a HUGE difference in just how they feel in my hands, with
> Canon winning out.
>
The way the camera feels in your hands is a very important criteria. I hope
you enjoy many happy and healthy years getting enjoyment from the use of
your camera.
--
Peter
SteveB
"Peter" <pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:47a51ed6$0$13865$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...
WHAT!? Are you saying that one size does NOT fit all?
Steve ;-)
SteveB
I broke my right thumb when I was fifteen. My right hand is slightly off of
normal, so much so that I had to convince bowling ball drillers to drill the
thumb hole out of whack from normal. They would finally do it, swearing it
wouldn't work. I had several balls intentionally plugged and drilled that
way.
The way the shutter release button is on the Canon, my finger goes right to
it. On the Nikon, I almost have to let loose with my other fingers to get
my pointer on top where the button is.
Like you said, the feel of a camera is very important. I also shoot. When
I pick up a pistol, I either like it or I don't, and it has nothing to do
with quality, caliber, or manufacturer. It's ALL feel on that one.
Steve
Jay
few months.
I don't like Canon at all........... not even close.
For me Nikon lasts longer and I always end up having the Canons more in the
repair shop than the Nikons I use.
J
Peter
news:cEopj.5597$Ch6....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
> For two grand I'd get the D300 with a kit lens then buy a better lens in a
> few months.
> I don't like Canon at all........... not even close.
> For me Nikon lasts longer and I always end up having the Canons more in
> the repair shop than the Nikons I use.
>
Also you can't use a Canon for some types of macro work.
Ever try to shoot flies with a cannon?
<Sorry I couldn't resist >
--
Peter
Peter
news:538h75-...@news.infowest.com...
>
> "Peter" <pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:47a51ed6$0$13865$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...
>> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
>> You are correct of course, automatic metering does not work with all
>> Nikon bodies. That was precisely the reason that I got the D200. The
>> metering system works fine with my old lenses. For example, my 200 macro
>> lens, which are used frequently, is as clear and sharp as the day I
>> bought it. I would not want auto focusing on a macro lens, for what
>> should be obvious reasons. On occasion are used by old 50F 1.2 and I
>> really do not mind the lack of auto focusing. It makes an excellent low
>> light lens. I really think a lengthy debate on this topic would not serve
>> a useful purpose. We are all continually learning, while most of us
>> anyway, so that information can be exchanged and the potential purchaser
>> able to make a somewhat informed decision. I purchased my camera based
>> upon what I think my needs are. Besides, every so often I like to pull
>> out my old F3 and see whether I still know how to use film.
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>
>
> WHAT!? Are you saying that one size does NOT fit all?
>
> Steve ;-)
>
Some of use are know how to use an off camera meter and don't think manual
focus is a person of Hispanic origin. :-)
--
Peter
Nospam
<pete...@nospamoptonline.net> writes
Er; just to be pedantic,
Did you mean Cannon? (See below)
canon1 [kánn?n] (plural canons)
n
1. general rule: a general rule, principle, or standard
one of the fundamental canons of free-market economics
2. religious decree: a decree issued by a religious authority,
especially one ruling on religious practices
3. body of religious writings: a set of religious writings regarded as
authentic and definitive and forming a religion’s body of scripture
4. set of artistic works: a set of artistic works established as
genuine and complete, for example the works of a particular writer,
painter, or filmmaker
It’s not one of the best-known pictures in the Welles canon.
5. part of Mass: in the Roman Catholic Mass, the prayer during which
the bread and wine are consecrated
6. music staggered singing or playing: a musical technique in which
different instruments or voices enter one after the other, each playing
or singing exactly the same sequence of notes, resulting in often
complex counterpoint
[Pre-12th century. Via Latin from Greek kanon ‘rule’.]
Microsoft® Encarta® Premium Suite 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
cannon [kánn?n]
n (plural cannons)
1. (plural cannons or cannon)former weapon: a weapon used in former
times, now used only ceremonially, consisting of a simple iron tube
mounted on wheels. It fires heavy iron balls and other projectiles.
The cannon fired a 21-gun salute.
2. modern weapon: a modern heavy artillery weapon large enough to need
to be mounted for firing, for example one mounted on a warship or on a
tracked vehicle
3. aircraft gun: a rapid-firing gun mounted on an aircraft
4. cue games billiards shot: in cue games, a shot in which the cue ball
hits one ball that then hits another ball. In billiards, this is a
point-scoring shot.
US term carom n.1
5. bell loop: the loop at the top of a bell from which it is suspended
v (3rd person present singular cannons, present participle cannoning,
past cannoned, past participle cannoned)
1. vt military See cannonade v.1
2. vi collide: to collide with something or bounce off it at great
speed and with a lot of force
a 35-yard shot that cannoned back off the post
The car, out of control on the icy road, cannoned into the bridge
abutment and burst into flames.
3. vi cue games make a cannon shot: in cue games, to make a cannon
shot.
US term carom v.1
[14th century. Via French canon from Italian cannone , literally
‘large tube’, from, ultimately, Latin canna ‘reed, tube’ (see cane).]
Microsoft® Encarta® Premium Suite 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
--
Nospam
Peter
news:c6adObOp...@nospam.demon.co.uk...
Incomplete response
http://www.ite.org/aboutite/Ethics.pdf
--
Peter
Dudley Hanks
Snip ...
>
>
> [Pre-12th century. Via Latin from Greek kanon 'rule'.]
> Microsoft® Encarta® Premium Suite 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation.
> All rights reserved.
>
>
Well, for those of us who believe that Canon is currently setting the
standards by which all other digital cameras are judged, and who shoot our
pictures with as much ferver and zeal as any zealot, and who have developed
a body of work which is immediately recognizable by all viewers (well, maybe
most viewers ... some viewers?), I think the name fits the description...
Smile,
Dudley
The One
I wouldn't let anyone else suffer it....
The One
> This is an open invitation to anyone, such as The One, needing to
instantly
> purge their lives of whatever wretched Nikon equipment is possessing them.
> Address furnished on request.
Wreched, just crap..
The One
"suddengunfire" <darius...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:db582ab7-41a8-4d3d...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 1, 3:17 am, "Dudley Hanks" <hanks.dud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've always liked both Canon and Nikon, but when it comes to digital
SLR's,
> I think that Canon is really hard to beat when viewed on a
dollar-to-dollar,
> feature-to-feature basis
And please note, that even in entry level slrs, like 400D, Canon is
using the most prestigious cmos-type sensor, which you can find at
Nikon's most expensive slrs only
Yes the 450d xsi uses a 12mp CMOS DigicIII sensor. Giving this is entry
level is beats the cock off Nikons flagship, says a lot doesn't it.
Nikons are crap.
The One
You are talking out of your arse.
The One
"Peter" <pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:47a629ce$0$13879$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...
> news:cEopj.5597$Ch6....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
> > For two grand I'd get the D300 with a kit lens then buy a better lens in
a
> > few months.
> > I don't like Canon at all........... not even close.
> > For me Nikon lasts longer and I always end up having the Canons more in
> > the repair shop than the Nikons I use.
Thats funny! I myself have used Canons in all degrees of weather and
temperatures, got major water splashes yet the damn things just keep going.
You definately are talking out of your arse.
Dudley Hanks
Aw, but it was cute....
SteveB
I liked that moustache.
Rob Bradford
some time, when you start buying lenses,flash and other bit's it soon
becomes very costly to change brand.
I'm a Canon user, and have a 40D, but I almost switched to Nikon when I
bourght it, but it was cost of kit replacement that swung it for me.
Be sure the range has what you want, not the particular camera, because you
are going to be stuck with that range for a while unless you have cash to
spare.
Rob.B
--
(\__/) This is Bunny.
(='.'=) Help him and his friends by supporting the
(")_(") Rabbit Welfare Association: www.houserabbit.co.uk
"SteveB" <old...@flatulence.com> wrote in message
news:xWvoj.18531$4H1...@newsfe07.phx...
>I currently have a Sony DSC H1, and I've outgrown it.
>
> Went to the camera store today to buy a Nikon D40x with the two lenses.
> Had my check book in my pocket. The camera tekkie, a girl (woman) with
> military and LEO experience steered me away from the D40x to the Canon
> 40D. In the meantime, I held and looked at the Nikon 80 and 200. When
> asked what was the best camera/deal, she had some convincing arguments.
>
> What I found in the Canon was a camera that fit my hand better, had more
> accessible controls, had the shutter release button in a more
> ergonomically correct location, had a bigger LCD screen, had a brighter
> LCD screen, and quite a bigger spread on some of the basic settings. More
> shutter exposures per second. Electronic dust release on turn on/off.
> More weather resistant.
>
> It was about twice the price, too, with two lenses, but now I'm almost
> convinced that instead of even the Nikon 200, a Canon EOS 40D is the
> better camera.
>
> Comments, please.
>
> Thanks. I know this is an endless discussion re: the best camera et al.
> But when spending two grand, I'd like to hear from people who been there,
> done that, and what they learned. I want a camera that I will will to my
> son because it will last that long, and I will be satisfied with it. Went
> to stevesdigicams.com and they liked it and stated many of the same
> reasons she had.
>
> Steve, who finds Google hard to use.
>
The One
> price-range to beat the Nikon.
>
> When looking for a Christmas present for my wife, I ended up choosing the
> Canon Rebel XT for her for many of the reasons you pointed out, but the
> price wasn't $2,000.
>
> Also, for people with older Canon 35mm EOS cameras, interchangeability
> with older EF lenses is great, same with older flash units. While the
> older items don't have all the functionality of the newer equivalents,
> functionality is very respectable.
>
> SLR's, I think that Canon is really hard to beat when viewed on a
>
> On the other hand, if Nikon sent me a camera bag stuffed with toys, free
> of charge, I wouldn't send it back.
>
> Smile,
> Dudley
>
Better camera for what?
Can you take photos of quality?