7D full review at dpreview
Charles
eNo
> Very positive!
Indeed. In my review of the review, I focused on Noise and AF
performance. Check out my thoughts at:
David J Taylor
news:hd25no$ft2$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Very positive!
Live View and no swivel finder - what an omission considering the price.
David
Ray Fischer
Ofnuts
> Very positive!
Where is RichA when we need him? :-)
--
Bertrand
Ray Fischer
>Charles wrote:
>> Very positive!
>
>Where is RichA when we need him? :-)
1) Hiding
2) Writing an attack of DPReview
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task
It's only considered not useful by pretend-photographer trolls who have
never used any cameras at all, or uncreative snapshooters who have never
taken a photograph from any other position than standing up, camera held at
the same level as their head. Judging by how many trolls here are like
that, then you would be correct to say "isn't considered useful by a lot of
usenet trolls and piss-poor snapshooters."
David J Taylor
news:4af5bbf2$0$1628$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Not a feature I use often, but one which adds considerably to the value of
Live View. A disappointing omission, IMHO.
David
Ray Fischer
>On 07 Nov 2009 18:26:58 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>David J Taylor <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>>"Charles" <charles...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:hd25no$ft2$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Very positive!
>>>
>>>Live View and no swivel finder - what an omission considering the price.
>>
>>Your pet feature isn't considered useful by a lot of people.
>
>It's only considered not useful by pretend-photographer trolls
People like you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>> Very positive!
>>>
>>>Live View and no swivel finder - what an omission considering the price.
>>
>> Your pet feature isn't considered useful by a lot of people.
>
>Not a feature I use often, but one which adds considerably to the value of
>Live View. A disappointing omission, IMHO.
Other people consider durability to be more important. A swivel
finder is a signifant weak point in any camera.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
David J Taylor
[]
> Other people consider durability to be more important. A swivel
> finder is a signifant weak point in any camera.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
Agreed - it's a trade-off, although as you can park the swivel finder with
its screen against the camera body rather than being exposed, that's a
point in the swivel's favour.
Cheers,
David
Ray Fischer
>> Other people consider durability to be more important. A swivel
>> finder is a signifant weak point in any camera.
>
>Agreed - it's a trade-off,
And since the camera is intended for people who make heavy use of a
camera it would be considered by most to be a significant liability to
have such a weak point.
> although as you can park the swivel finder with
>its screen against the camera body rather than being exposed,
Then it becomes just what Canon is selling except that it would cost a
lot more and make the camera much bigger and less durable.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Outing Trolls is FUN!
So says the pretend-photographer role-playing troll that doesn't realize
how they are even used, most likely never used one himself, if he ever use
any camera at all. They are only swung out from the camera and reversed to
the viewer when needed. Otherwise they fold flat against the camera and
lock in place. Especially nice are the ones where the LCD faces the camera
body when folded flat for storage while you are using the EVF. Then not
even the more delicate LCD screen is prone to nose-oil, dust, fingerprints,
scratches, or impacts. Though, I must admit, the LCD screen on an older
Sony camera (reticulated body mounted with the LCD) which can't be folded
away from the user is remarkably durable. It's been in sandstorms, survived
a tumble down a tailings-pile from the top of a mountain mine when
documenting quartz mining (while I tried to protect is as well as I could
as I went along for the ride). Another time it went along a controlled-fall
descent while I slid down a terminal-moraine when photographing glacier
habitats. Part of the AR coating eventually wore off in small part of a
corner outside the useful viewing area over the years of use, that corner
being under the side of the thumb where it makes normal contact. But not
one scratch on the LCD screen itself after 7 years of heavy use in harsh
and rugged environments. I sometimes wonder if it wasn't covered with a
quartz window. It'd be about the only thing that could account for its
robust durability.
Charles
> Very positive!
Now, as to the auto-focus issues that some users are reporting. I think:
1/ Most of them are due to a misunderstanding of how this camera functions.
2/ There is a real problem for others (perhaps a minority) who know what
they are doing.
3/ Canon fessed up to the ghosting issue ... will they (can they) correct
the AF issue, given that it is a real issue? The 7D has a separate AF
processor (as far as I can tell) and that leads one to believe that a
firmware update can fix that nasty AF issue. However, it could be a
mechanical tolerance issue, and that could be unfortunate for early buyers.
Kudos to Canon for advancing a stunning new camera. It really is. Now, we
must wait to see if they can fine tune it so as to please most of us.
Ray Fischer
>On 07 Nov 2009 21:10:59 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>David J Taylor <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>> David J Taylor
>>>>>"Charles" <charles...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>>>> Very positive!
>>>>>
>>>>>Live View and no swivel finder - what an omission considering the price.
>>>>
>>>> Your pet feature isn't considered useful by a lot of people.
>>>
>>>Not a feature I use often, but one which adds considerably to the value of
>>>Live View. A disappointing omission, IMHO.
>>
>>Other people consider durability to be more important. A swivel
>>finder is a signifant weak point in any camera.
>
>So says
Go away, asshole troll.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
David J Taylor
[]
> And since the camera is intended for people who make heavy use of a
> camera it would be considered by most to be a significant liability to
> have such a weak point.
People will make their own choice, I can't speak for "most" people.
>> although as you can park the swivel finder with
>>its screen against the camera body rather than being exposed,
>
> Then it becomes just what Canon is selling except that it would cost a
> lot more and make the camera much bigger and less durable.
Nikon can make a swivel finder without any great increase in size or cost,
and I'm sure that Canon could too. I expect we'll see a swivel finder in
a future version.
Cheers,
David
Ray Fischer
>> And since the camera is intended for people who make heavy use of a
>> camera it would be considered by most to be a significant liability to
>> have such a weak point.
>
>People will make their own choice, I can't speak for "most" people.
Then don't try. If you want a swivel screen then there are many P&S
cameras that have them.
>>> although as you can park the swivel finder with
>>>its screen against the camera body rather than being exposed,
>>
>> Then it becomes just what Canon is selling except that it would cost a
>> lot more and make the camera much bigger and less durable.
>
>Nikon can make a swivel finder without any great increase in size or cost,
How would you know?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
David J Taylor
[]
> Then don't try. If you want a swivel screen then there are many P&S
> cameras that have them.
.. and an increasing number of DSLRs, for example:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sonydslra550/page2.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond5000/page2.asp
[]
>>Nikon can make a swivel finder without any great increase in size or
>>cost,
>
> How would you know?
By comparing Nikon's range of recent DSLRs
Cheers,
David
Ray Fischer
>news:4af68d7e$0$1624$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>[]
>> Then don't try. If you want a swivel screen then there are many P&S
>> cameras that have them.
>
>.. and an increasing number of DSLRs, for example:
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sonydslra550/page2.asp
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond5000/page2.asp
Both low-end SLRs intended for a different market than the 7D.
>>>Nikon can make a swivel finder without any great increase in size or
>>>cost,
>>
>> How would you know?
>
>By comparing Nikon's range of recent DSLRs
That doesn't even make sense.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
David J Taylor
> David J Taylor
> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>>>Nikon can make a swivel finder without any great increase in size or
>>>>cost,
>>>
>>> How would you know?
>>
>>By comparing Nikon's range of recent DSLRs
>
> That doesn't even make sense.
I recently upgraded from one Nikon model to another, one with fixed LCD
and the other with swivel LCD. Having the swivel LCD did not - as you
suggested - "make the camera much bigger", nor was the camera
significantly more expensive.
Cheers,
David
Ray Fischer
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:4af72072$0$1593$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> David J Taylor
>> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>[]
>>>>>Nikon can make a swivel finder without any great increase in size or
>>>>>cost,
>>>>
>>>> How would you know?
>>>
>>>By comparing Nikon's range of recent DSLRs
>>
>> That doesn't even make sense.
>
>I recently upgraded from one Nikon model to another, one with fixed LCD
>and the other with swivel LCD. Having the swivel LCD did not - as you
>suggested - "make the camera much bigger",
Which two cameras?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
David J Taylor
[]
>>I recently upgraded from one Nikon model to another, one with fixed LCD
>>and the other with swivel LCD. Having the swivel LCD did not - as you
>>suggested - "make the camera much bigger",
>
> Which two cameras?
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net
It was from the D60 to the D5000, Ray. Although the brochure lists the
depth as increasing from 64mm to 80mm, the actual depth change with a lens
attached is around 5mm, as shown by the DP Review illustrations:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond60/page3.asp - 64mm
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond5000/page4.asp - 69mm
David
SamSez
@news.eternal-september.org:
> Very positive!
>
>
No auto CA correction.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>>Nikon can make a swivel finder without any great increase in size or
>>>>>cost,
>>>> How would you know?
>>>By comparing Nikon's range of recent DSLRs
>> That doesn't even make sense.
> I recently upgraded from one Nikon model to another, one with fixed LCD
> and the other with swivel LCD. Having the swivel LCD did not - as you
> suggested - "make the camera much bigger", nor was the camera
> significantly more expensive.
I'll not argue about size --- except to point out that there is
usually a size difference between low end and high end models
(even with the same crop factor).
I'll argue that pricing is driven by marketing, not by production
and design costs (except for a lower limit below which you've
got a loss leader or a 'cheap razor, expensive blades' mixed
calculation). Hence: you cannot tell if a swivel finder makes
the camera significantly more expensive, even if you were to
compare otherwise completely identical models (which you didn't
as there aren't, to my best knowledge). At best you'd find out
what marketing thinks a swivel LCD is worth --- and if we take
your word, "not much" is the answer.
-Wolfgang
Ray Fischer
>>>I recently upgraded from one Nikon model to another, one with fixed LCD
>>>and the other with swivel LCD. Having the swivel LCD did not - as you
>>>suggested - "make the camera much bigger",
>>
>> Which two cameras?
>
>It was from the D60 to the D5000, Ray. Although the brochure lists the
>depth as increasing from 64mm to 80mm, the actual depth change with a lens
>attached is around 5mm, as shown by the DP Review illustrations:
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond60/page3.asp - 64mm
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond5000/page4.asp - 69mm
Almost double the price going fromk 10MP to 12MP?
And from DPReview ...
The D5000 is something of a departure for Nikon - it's bigger than
the D40/D60 sized cameras but still smaller than the D80/D90 body
style. And it's not exactly what we'd call pretty. From a
conceptual point of view, the D5000 is most of a D90 shoe-horned
into a D60 body with an articulated screen added to the back, and
it looks as if the designers took that as an instruction for what
it should look like. It's adorned with a profusion of bumps, lumps
and nubs.
In many respects, the D5000 harks back to the D50 - it's a
surprisingly large compared to its peers and, unlike recent little
Nikons, has a feature set that will prompt many a debate about
whether to buy this camera or the model above.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Because the camera doesn't have to use cheap lenses. You can actually
use lenses that don't need correction for chromatic aberration. And
because it's absurd to expect the camera to have a database for
dozens to hundreds of lenses, some of which don't even exist yet.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Outing Trolls is FUN!
>SamSez <samt...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>"Charles" <charles...@comcast.net> wrote in news:hd25no$ft2$1
>>@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> Very positive!
>>
>>No auto CA correction.
>
>Because the camera doesn't have to use cheap lenses. You can actually
>use lenses that don't need correction for chromatic aberration.
NO lens exists that is 100% free from CA, unless you consider an all-mirror
lens system.
Only a clueless moron troll like yourself wouldn't know this.
Ray Fischer
>>SamSez <samt...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>"Charles" <charles...@comcast.net> wrote in news:hd25no$ft2$1
>>>@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>>> Very positive!
>>>
>>>No auto CA correction.
>>
>>Because the camera doesn't have to use cheap lenses. You can actually
>>use lenses that don't need correction for chromatic aberration.
>
>NO lens exists that
Go away, lying troll.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
David J Taylor
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:p19ks6-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...
[]
> I'll not argue about size --- except to point out that there is
> usually a size difference between low end and high end models
> (even with the same crop factor).
Agreed.
> I'll argue that pricing is driven by marketing, not by production
> and design costs (except for a lower limit below which you've
> got a loss leader or a 'cheap razor, expensive blades' mixed
> calculation). Hence: you cannot tell if a swivel finder makes
> the camera significantly more expensive, even if you were to
> compare otherwise completely identical models (which you didn't
> as there aren't, to my best knowledge). At best you'd find out
> what marketing thinks a swivel LCD is worth --- and if we take
> your word, "not much" is the answer.
>
> -Wolfgang
Agreed that price-setting is somewhat artificial, although that's not as
true of today's DSLRs as it was a few years back. If anything, the price
of some high-end P&S is being hiked. If the swivel LCD doesn't add to the
cost, for whatever reason, then that's great for the consumer.
Cheers,
David
David J Taylor
[]
> Almost double the price going fromk 10MP to 12MP?
You will always find that cameras drop in price from their introduction,
making it difficult if you take a snapshot of today's prices. According
to DP Review D60 was Euro 699 at introduction, and the D5000 Euro 799. In
my view, the extra Euro 100 would be worth it just for the higher ISO
capability of the newer sensor.
> And from DPReview ...
>
> The D5000 is something of a departure for Nikon - it's bigger than
> the D40/D60 sized cameras but still smaller than the D80/D90 body
> style. And it's not exactly what we'd call pretty. From a
> conceptual point of view, the D5000 is most of a D90 shoe-horned
> into a D60 body with an articulated screen added to the back, and
> it looks as if the designers took that as an instruction for what
> it should look like. It's adorned with a profusion of bumps, lumps
> and nubs.
>
> In many respects, the D5000 harks back to the D50 - it's a
> surprisingly large compared to its peers and, unlike recent little
> Nikons, has a feature set that will prompt many a debate about
> whether to buy this camera or the model above.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
Owning both a D60 and a D5000 I can tell you that the size difference is
very little - just a few mm in depth. As it produces excellent images,
I'm not that fussed if it's not quite as "pretty" as other cameras.
David
Ray Fischer
>
>news:4af77c58$0$1655$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>[]
>> Almost double the price going fromk 10MP to 12MP?
>
>You will always find that cameras drop in price from their introduction,
Spare me the bullshit rationalizations.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
David J Taylor
Well, if you are trying to compare prices, if does not make sense to
compare the price of a new model with one at the end-of-life discount
period.
I have tried to be polite and courteous to you in these discussions, but
as you have been unable to extend the same courtesy to me, I regret that I
will no longer be reading your messages. Goodbye, Mr Fisher.
David
Ray Fischer
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:4af8e6c9$0$1588$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> David J Taylor
>> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>news:4af77c58$0$1655$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>>[]
>>>> Almost double the price going fromk 10MP to 12MP?
>>>
>>>You will always find that cameras drop in price from their introduction,
>>
>> Spare me the bullshit rationalizations.
>
You claimed that adding a swivel screen wouldn't add significantly
to the price or size. Your own evidence shows otherwise.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Agreed that price-setting is somewhat artificial, although that's not as
> true of today's DSLRs as it was a few years back.
There is no non-artifical price setting, except for selling at
cost (and even that is artifical, since you have to predict the
number of items being sold to factor in development and other
one-time costs).
There is also no "fair" price --- you take what you can get
within the limits of the market and your plans.
> If anything, the price
> of some high-end P&S is being hiked.
You can assume all P&S cameras have a markup.
> If the swivel LCD doesn't add to the
> cost, for whatever reason, then that's great for the consumer.
The swivel LCD doesn't add (much) to the assumed (by the marketing
department) percieved worth of the camera, else there would be
a noticable price step between similar models with and without.
Whereas during the megapixel race more pixels (whatever their
quality) were (and still are) an argument much advertized, to
the point that there are few low megapixel cameras still around
(usually in speciality niches) because they wouldn't sell for a
price that would still make money.
-Wolfgang
David J Taylor
[]
> You can assume all P&S cameras have a markup.
Everything has /a/ markup - some items have more markup than others.
> The swivel LCD doesn't add (much) to the assumed (by the marketing
> department) percieved worth of the camera, else there would be
> a noticable price step between similar models with and without.
Yes, my price and size comparison showed that the it didn't add
significantly to cost or size.
> Whereas during the megapixel race more pixels (whatever their
> quality) were (and still are) an argument much advertized, to
> the point that there are few low megapixel cameras still around
> (usually in speciality niches) because they wouldn't sell for a
> price that would still make money.
>
> -Wolfgang
I would like to think that marketing by MP count only applied to P&S
cameras but, sadly, DSLRs are not immune. For my own needs, an 8MP sensor
with double the ISO capability would be what I would buy over a 12MP
sensor, but that option isn't available.
Cheers,
David
Ray Fischer
>> The swivel LCD doesn't add (much) to the assumed (by the marketing
>> department) percieved worth of the camera, else there would be
>> a noticable price step between similar models with and without.
>
>Yes, my price and size comparison showed that the it didn't add
>significantly to cost or size.
If one considers to be a near doubling of price to be insignifant.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
David J Taylor
> David J Taylor
> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>Yes, my price and size comparison showed that the it didn't add
>>significantly to cost or size.
>
> If one considers to be a near doubling of price to be insignifant.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net
D60 was Euro 699 at introduction
D5000 Euro 799
Ray Fischer
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:4afa7f98$0$1648$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> David J Taylor
>> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>[]
>>>Yes, my price and size comparison showed that the it didn't add
>>>significantly to cost or size.
>>
>> If one considers to be a near doubling of price to be insignifant.
>
>D5000 Euro 799
And if you think that 100 euros is insignificant then you're an idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Wolfgang Weisselberg
>> You can assume all P&S cameras have a markup.
> Everything has /a/ markup - some items have more markup than others.
Counterexample: printers, razors, xbox. The money is made with ink
and blades and games ... the products themselves are often
sold below manufacturing costs.
OK, the store will add a markup.
> I would like to think that marketing by MP count only applied to P&S
> cameras but, sadly, DSLRs are not immune.
However, large as the pixels still are, the effect isn't too
severe.
> For my own needs, an 8MP sensor
> with double the ISO capability would be what I would buy over a 12MP
> sensor, but that option isn't available.
If you wanted twice the ISO capability at the same tech level,
you'd get a 6 MP sensor at the same size as the 12 MP sensor.
-Wolfgang
David J Taylor
You stated that "Then it becomes just what Canon is selling except that it
would cost a lot more and make the camera much bigger and less durable."
800 Euros isn't "a lot more" than Euro 700.
I see that letting you back out of the killfile has only resulted in more
name-calling.
David
Ray Fischer
>
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:4afb0581$0$1671$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> David J Taylor
>> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>news:4afa7f98$0$1648$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>>> David J Taylor
>>>> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>>[]
>>>>>Yes, my price and size comparison showed that the it didn't add
>>>>>significantly to cost or size.
>>>>
>>>> If one considers to be a near doubling of price to be insignifant.
>>>
>>>D60 was Euro 699 at introduction
>>>D5000 Euro 799
>>
>> And if you think that 100 euros is insignificant then you're an idiot.
>
>would cost a lot more and make the camera much bigger and less durable."
>800 Euros isn't "a lot more" than Euro 700.
Yes, it is.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
SamSez
$742e...@news.sonic.net:
the lying troll being someone claiming a lens with no CA ?
Robert Coe
Can either of you guys explain why this increasingly bitter argument makes
sense? One of you thinks an articulated LCD screen is worth its size and cost
penalty; the other doesn't. Both configurations are available in very usable
cameras. What more is there to say?
Bob
Robert Coe
We don't consider 799 US dollars to be anywhere near double 699 US dollars.
Does one apply different rules of arithmetic to euros?
Bob
George Kerby
On 11/21/09 7:43 AM, in article 28rfg5luv24vrv4af...@4ax.com,
"Robert Coe" <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
Fishead-Rot has never achieved adulthood.
He is the definition of the word 'man-boy'.
David J Taylor
news:28rfg5luv24vrv4af...@4ax.com...
[]
> Can either of you guys explain why this increasingly bitter argument
> makes
> sense? One of you thinks an articulated LCD screen is worth its size and
> cost
> penalty; the other doesn't. Both configurations are available in very
> usable
> cameras. What more is there to say?
>
> Bob
Bob, Ray claimed that by adding a swivel LCD finder to a Canon 7D "it
would cost a
lot more and make the camera much bigger and less durable", whereas I
presented some evidence that this did not appear to apply to roughly
comparable Nikon cameras, which are neither significantly bigger, nor do
they cost more in the swivel finder version.
I've had a camera with a swivel finder before and found it surprisingly
handy, and am pleased to see this feature extend to DSLRs. A pity it's
not on not the 7D, though.
Cheers,
David
Ray Fischer
>news:28rfg5luv24vrv4af...@4ax.com...
>[]
>> Can either of you guys explain why this increasingly bitter argument
>> makes
>> sense? One of you thinks an articulated LCD screen is worth its size and
>> cost
>> penalty; the other doesn't. Both configurations are available in very
>> usable
>> cameras. What more is there to say?
>>
>> Bob
>
>Bob, Ray claimed that by adding a swivel LCD finder to a Canon 7D "it
>would cost a
>lot more and make the camera much bigger and less durable", whereas I
>presented some evidence that this did not appear to apply to roughly
>comparable Nikon cameras, which are neither significantly bigger, nor do
>they cost more in the swivel finder version.
Don't start lying.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
David J Taylor
> David J Taylor
> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>Bob, Ray claimed that by adding a swivel LCD finder to a Canon 7D "it
>>would cost a
>>lot more and make the camera much bigger and less durable", whereas I
>>presented some evidence that this did not appear to apply to roughly
>>comparable Nikon cameras, which are neither significantly bigger, nor do
>>they cost more in the swivel finder version.
>
> Don't start lying.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net
Sorry, Ray, but you're not going to wind me up again by false accusations.
Anyone who wants to can read the past posts and form their own
conclusions. I'm only sorry that you appear to have misunderstood what I
wrote.
David
Ray Fischer
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>Bob, Ray claimed that by adding a swivel LCD finder to a Canon 7D "it
>>>would cost a
>>>lot more and make the camera much bigger and less durable", whereas I
>>>presented some evidence that this did not appear to apply to roughly
>>>comparable Nikon cameras, which are neither significantly bigger, nor do
>>>they cost more in the swivel finder version.
>>
>> Don't start lying.
>
>Sorry, Ray, but you're not going to wind me up again by false accusations.
You're going to stick with your own revisionism?
>Anyone who wants to can read the past posts and form their own
>conclusions.
I showed, using your own examples, that the camera with the flip-out
screen was indeed larger and more expensive. And just above you claim
that's not the case, which makes you a liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
David J Taylor
No I told the truth, that the camera was not "much bigger" nor did it cost
"a lot more". Anyone can see that from the record of the discussion. 5mm
thicker is not "much bigger", and $799 is not the "near doubling of
price", and not "a lot more", than $699 which you claimed.
But this is on the record already. Whilst I am quite happy to engage in
reasoned argument, I regard persistently being called a liar and an idiot
as impolite at best, and close to harassment.
David
David J Taylor
[]
> We don't consider 799 US dollars to be anywhere near double 699 US
> dollars.
> Does one apply different rules of arithmetic to euros?
>
> Bob
Bob, thanks for your contribution. As you surmise, relative number of
Euros behave in the same way as relative numbers of US dollars!
I have added rfis...@sonic.net to my kill-file, although whether that
will have any effect on his impoliteness to one and all and unreasoned
discussion I somewhat doubt.
Cheers,
David
Ray Fischer
>
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:4b084b90$0$1622$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> David J Taylor
>> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>> David J Taylor
>>
>>>>>Bob, Ray claimed that by adding a swivel LCD finder to a Canon 7D "it
>>>>>would cost a
>>>>>lot more and make the camera much bigger and less durable", whereas I
>>>>>presented some evidence that this did not appear to apply to roughly
>>>>>comparable Nikon cameras, which are neither significantly bigger, nor
>>>>>do
>>>>>they cost more in the swivel finder version.
>>>>
>>>> Don't start lying.
>>>
>>>Sorry, Ray, but you're not going to wind me up again by false
>>>accusations.
>>
>> You're going to stick with your own revisionism?
>>
>>>Anyone who wants to can read the past posts and form their own
>>>conclusions.
>>
>> I showed, using your own examples, that the camera with the flip-out
>> screen was indeed larger and more expensive. And just above you claim
>> that's not the case, which makes you a liar.
>
>"a lot more".
And yet it's still bigger, significantly more expensive, and less durable.
> Anyone can see that from the record of the discussion. 5mm
>thicker is not "much bigger", and $799 is not the "near doubling of
>price", and not "a lot more", than $699 which you claimed.
Now you're lying outright. I made no such claim.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
John Turco
>
> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:4af8e6c9$0$1588$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> > David J Taylor
> > <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> >>news:4af77c58$0$1655$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> >>[]
> >>> Almost double the price going fromk 10MP to 12MP?
> >>
> >>You will always find that cameras drop in price from their introduction,
> >
> > Spare me the bullshit rationalizations.
>
>
> compare the price of a new model with one at the end-of-life discount
> period.
>
> I have tried to be polite and courteous to you in these discussions, but
> as you have been unable to extend the same courtesy to me, I regret that I
> will no longer be reading your messages. Goodbye, Mr Fisher.
>
> David
Apparently, words such as "polite" and "courteous" are completely foreign
to Ray Fischer's vocabulary. (His lexicon is well stocked with expletives,
evidently.)
--
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>
Teraposa Lunodas
have
never used any cameras at all, or uncreative snapshooters who have
never
taken a photograph from any other position than standing up, camera
held at
the same level as their head. Judging by how many trolls here are like
that, then you would be correct to say "isn't considered useful by a
lot of
usenet trolls and piss-poor snapshooters."
Bob Larter
> It's only considered not useful by pretend-photographer trolls who
Fuck off, P&S Troll.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
wrote:
>Teraposa Lunodas wrote:
>> It's only considered not useful by pretend-photographer trolls who
>> have [*SLAP!*]
>
>Fuck off, P&S Troll.
Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer
Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy:
alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004)
Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."
<http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&num=10&as_ugroup=alt.kook.lionel-lauer>
"Results 1 - 10 of about 2,170 for group:alt.kook.lionel-lauer."