New: Nikon D5000
Focus
http://www.sofmap.com/product_detail/exec/_/sku=11190059/-/gid=AW03010200
2.7 swivel screen
Price about 650 ?
--
---
Focus
Get lost
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31583013
>
> http://www.sofmap.com/product_detail/exec/_/sku=11190059/-/gid=AW0301...
>
> 2.7 swivel screen
>
> Price about 650 ?
>
> --
> ---
> Focus
Seems (as with Olympus) the stratification of the low end is getting
finer and finer.
ASAAR
>> The idiot "Focus" will buy one, and find that one or two of his images
>> are out of focus, or poorly exposed. He will then post at length about
>> his "problems" on here, displaying the usual near-complete lack of
>> knowledge of the basic principles of photography.
>> . . .
>> Well, you should know the routine by now. It repeats itself every time
>> Nikon introduces a new model. ;-)
>
> To satisfy you and your illiterate buddies: yes, I will buy this one for a
> number of reasons.
Chief among them is that just as it is with the fabled scorpion,
you will buy because it is your nature.
> Poor Canon must be in tears: they never come up with something new or
> original. Just some increase in MP at the cost of IQ with every single new
> camera.
With pronouncements such as these, are you surprised that some
people regard you as an idiot? FYI, many of Canon's DSLRs (starting
with, but not limited to the 40D and 50D) are much better for macro
and some other types of photography than anything Nikon or other
companies offer, because Canon came up with something new and
original. Not long ago Nikon introduced three impressive PC-E
Nikkors, but Canon just trumped them with their new offering, which
also benefited from something new and original, at least where DSLR
lenses are concerned. Nikon now has some DSLRs that provide
amazingly good low noise, high ISO performance, but not until the D3
put them near par with Canon's DSLRs, which for several years had
sensors that offered something new and better than what other
manufacturers provided. While you may not be an idiot, you sure
display an unfortunate combination of ignorance, lack of wisdom, and
the propensity to have strong opinions of things you know little of.
> All people seem to be idiots to you, aren't they?
> You're just too kind with words.
I normally wouldn't have commented on that poorly constructed
sentence, but as you followed it with one talking about "words", it
seemed to beg for someone to help you out by noting that you should
have paid more attention in class when the rules for assembling
words into proper sentences were taught. Know whut I mean, Vern?
Focus
"ASAAR" <cau...@22.com> wrote in message
news:t11au414c9v9j5nse...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:30:24 +0100, Focus wrote:
>
>>> The idiot "Focus" will buy one, and find that one or two of his images
>>> are out of focus, or poorly exposed. He will then post at length about
>>> his "problems" on here, displaying the usual near-complete lack of
>>> knowledge of the basic principles of photography.
>>> . . .
>>> Well, you should know the routine by now. It repeats itself every time
>>> Nikon introduces a new model. ;-)
>>
>> To satisfy you and your illiterate buddies: yes, I will buy this one for
>> a
>> number of reasons.
>
> Chief among them is that just as it is with the fabled scorpion,
> you will buy because it is your nature.
And that would be a bad thing, right?
If more people stopped complaining about this darn "crisis" and buy more
stuff like me, the whole "crisis" would be over in a heartbeat.
>
>> Poor Canon must be in tears: they never come up with something new or
>> original. Just some increase in MP at the cost of IQ with every single
>> new
>> camera.
>
> With pronouncements such as these, are you surprised that some
> people regard you as an idiot? FYI, many of Canon's DSLRs (starting
> with, but not limited to the 40D and 50D) are much better for macro
> and some other types of photography than anything Nikon or other
> companies offer, because Canon came up with something new and
> original. Not long ago Nikon introduced three impressive PC-E
> Nikkors, but Canon just trumped them with their new offering, which
> also benefited from something new and original, at least where DSLR
> lenses are concerned. Nikon now has some DSLRs that provide
> amazingly good low noise, high ISO performance, but not until the D3
> put them near par with Canon's DSLRs, which for several years had
> sensors that offered something new and better than what other
> manufacturers provided. While you may not be an idiot, you sure
> display an unfortunate combination of ignorance, lack of wisdom, and
> the propensity to have strong opinions of things you know little of.
I'm not talking about the past. I live in the here and now. The last few
camera that came out from Canon have seen an increase in MP, but a decrease
in IQ, while Nikon has gone the other way: same "old" 12 MP, but every new
one has an increase in IQ.
Don't know about others, but I prefer the latter.
>> All people seem to be idiots to you, aren't they?
>> You're just too kind with words.
>
> I normally wouldn't have commented on that poorly constructed
> sentence, but as you followed it with one talking about "words", it
> seemed to beg for someone to help you out by noting that you should
> have paid more attention in class when the rules for assembling
> words into proper sentences were taught. Know whut I mean, Vern?
Well, excuse me for the fact that I speak 4 languages fluently, 3 more a
little bit and Portuguese I'm still learning. English being my second
language.
After a car accident, a few years ago, my spelling isn't that great anymore.
But before I post again, I'll have it checked by my sister who's a professor
in English literature.
--
---
Focus
PDM
"Focus" <do...@mail.me> wrote in message
news:Va2dncbEwOOoy37U...@novis.pt...
the D300 which at least some of us were expecting. Wonder what real
improvements, if any, there are?
PDM
Rob Morley
"Focus" <do...@mail.me> wrote:
> After a car accident, a few years ago, my spelling isn't that great
> anymore.
So did you have OCD/impulse control problems before your brain injury,
or did they result from it?
Nobody
"Get lost" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2c075aa8-7211-4d02...@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 13, 11:11 am, "Focus" <d...@mail.me> wrote:
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=31583013
>
> http://www.sofmap.com/product_detail/exec/_/sku=11190059/-/gid=AW0301...
>
> 2.7 swivel screen
>
> Price about 650 ?
>
AF-S Nikon 10~24/3.5-4.5 is $1100 CAD.
nospam
<pdcm99[deletethisbit]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> Strange thing is, it appears to be a replacement/upgrade to the D90 and not
> the D300 which at least some of us were expecting. Wonder what real
> improvements, if any, there are?
it's an upgrade for the d60, not the d90.
ASAAR
>> With pronouncements such as these, are you surprised that some
>> people regard you as an idiot? FYI, many of Canon's DSLRs (starting
>> with, but not limited to the 40D and 50D) are much better for macro
>> and some other types of photography than anything Nikon or other
>> companies offer, because Canon came up with something new and
>> original. Not long ago Nikon introduced three impressive PC-E
>> Nikkors, but Canon just trumped them with their new offering, which
>> also benefited from something new and original, at least where DSLR
>> lenses are concerned. Nikon now has some DSLRs that provide
>> amazingly good low noise, high ISO performance, but not until the D3
>> put them near par with Canon's DSLRs, which for several years had
>> sensors that offered something new and better than what other
>> manufacturers provided. While you may not be an idiot, you sure
>> display an unfortunate combination of ignorance, lack of wisdom, and
>> the propensity to have strong opinions of things you know little of.
>
> I'm not talking about the past. I live in the here and now. The last few
> camera that came out from Canon have seen an increase in MP, but a decrease
> in IQ, while Nikon has gone the other way: same "old" 12 MP, but every new
> one has an increase in IQ.
Only the last (better high ISO performance) refers to Canon's past
superiority. Nikon is still behind Canon in the other areas
mentioned. Did this escape your attention or is your problem one of
comprehension? Also, you can ask your sister to also proofread that
last sentence.
>>> All people seem to be idiots to you, aren't they?
>>> You're just too kind with words.
>>
>> I normally wouldn't have commented on that poorly constructed
>> sentence, but as you followed it with one talking about "words", it
>> seemed to beg for someone to help you out by noting that you should
>> have paid more attention in class when the rules for assembling
>> words into proper sentences were taught. Know whut I mean, Vern?
>
> Well, excuse me for the fact that I speak 4 languages fluently, 3 more a
> little bit and Portuguese I'm still learning. English being my second
> language.
> After a car accident, a few years ago, my spelling isn't that great anymore.
> But before I post again, I'll have it checked by my sister who's a professor
> in English literature.
It's not about a spelling error. You also didn't pay attention to
the words that I wrote, because you'll see that you were told that
the problem had to do with the words that you used. Spelling errors
or typos tend to be due to letter mistakes. The ability to speak
eight languages would normally be something to be admired, but in
your case we'd like to know if you switched to the other languages
when you found something in the previous ones that displeased you.
PDM
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:150420090634558670%nos...@nospam.invalid...
Thanks for putting me right. As the price is pitched around the same price
as a D90 (got my D90 body for £562, new) I assumed it was a replacement for
this model. So having only just bought it, I'm relieved; hate buying stuff
that gets replaced only weeks away.
PDM
measekite
It appears to be a downgrade to the D90 in many respects. While it has an
articulating LCD (nice) the resolution and size is found lacking.
Focus
Vraag jij je zus maar of je haar vanavond weer neuken mag. Achterlijk stuk
inteelt.
>>>> All people seem to be idiots to you, aren't they?
>>>> You're just too kind with words.
>>>
>>> I normally wouldn't have commented on that poorly constructed
>>> sentence, but as you followed it with one talking about "words", it
>>> seemed to beg for someone to help you out by noting that you should
>>> have paid more attention in class when the rules for assembling
>>> words into proper sentences were taught. Know whut I mean, Vern?
>>
>> Well, excuse me for the fact that I speak 4 languages fluently, 3 more a
>> little bit and Portuguese I'm still learning. English being my second
>> language.
>> After a car accident, a few years ago, my spelling isn't that great
>> anymore.
>> But before I post again, I'll have it checked by my sister who's a
>> professor
>> in English literature.
>
> It's not about a spelling error. You also didn't pay attention to
> the words that I wrote, because you'll see that you were told that
> the problem had to do with the words that you used. Spelling errors
> or typos tend to be due to letter mistakes. The ability to speak
> eight languages would normally be something to be admired, but in
> your case we'd like to know if you switched to the other languages
> when you found something in the previous ones that displeased you.
Als je het over wij hebt, bedoel je ook de stemmetjes in je hoofd zeker?
Zoek een baan, langharig werkschuw tuig...
Wally
>"ASAAR" <cau...@22.com> wrote in message
>news:3vsbu4hah0hqj6ai6...@4ax.com...
>> Only the last (better high ISO performance) refers to Canon's past
>> superiority. Nikon is still behind Canon in the other areas
>> mentioned. Did this escape your attention or is your problem one of
>> comprehension? Also, you can ask your sister to also proofread that
>> last sentence.
>
>Vraag jij je zus maar of je haar vanavond weer neuken mag. Achterlijk stuk
>inteelt.
>
>> It's not about a spelling error. You also didn't pay attention to
>> the words that I wrote, because you'll see that you were told that
>> the problem had to do with the words that you used. Spelling errors
>> or typos tend to be due to letter mistakes. The ability to speak
>> eight languages would normally be something to be admired, but in
>> your case we'd like to know if you switched to the other languages
>> when you found something in the previous ones that displeased you.
>
>Als je het over wij hebt, bedoel je ook de stemmetjes in je hoofd zeker?
>Zoek een baan, langharig werkschuw tuig...
Say what you want, but this is one of the best NGs to learn new swear
words.
I used to know an even better one, but it has since died... nobody
there any more.
People come here for information on digital photography. But the
regulars surely have enough of that already, so are here for
companionship. Those lonely people spend their time here vehemently
cursing out people they don't even know.
Can you understand it?
As for you, Focus, the best I can offer you is Uitgedroogd stukje
vetpudding!
Wally
ASAAR
>>>>> All people seem to be idiots to you, aren't they?
>>>>> You're just too kind with words.
>> It's not about a spelling error. You also didn't pay attention to
>> the words that I wrote, because you'll see that you were told that
>> the problem had to do with the words that you used. Spelling errors
>> or typos tend to be due to letter mistakes. The ability to speak
>> eight languages would normally be something to be admired, but in
>> your case we'd like to know if you switched to the other languages
>> when you found something in the previous ones that displeased you.
>
> Als je het over wij hebt, bedoel je ook de stemmetjes in je hoofd zeker?
> Zoek een baan, langharig werkschuw tuig...
I do hope that this made you feel better. The only problem being
that where your OPs and replies made you appear juvenile, this one
pushes you into infantile behavior territory. There are a couple of
folk on DPR that post their insults in more obscure languages. It's
a strange mix of infantile and cowardly behavior, and like you, that
it harms their reputation and makes them appear foolish doesn't
concern them in the least. It also damages your credibility, since
you've now given us reason to doubt 1. that you have a sister that's
an English professor (or if she does exist, maybe she's not capable
of spotting your mistake) and 2. that the photographic "credentials"
you regularly display may be puffed up just a bit, or worse.
ASAAR
> You know, you have more than some justification in your criticism of Focus'
> comments regarding photographic matters.
> However, to pick on somebody's use of English when it is obviously not his
> first language only shows *you* up as an arrogant, self-centred pedant!
I hardly ever criticize grammatical, spelling or punctuation
errors. I even mentioned this when I referred to the error :
>> I normally wouldn't have commented on that poorly constructed
>> sentence, but as you followed it with one talking about "words", it
>> seemed to beg for someone to help you out by noting
At the time I posted this reply, Focus hadn't yet indicated that
English wasn't his primary language, which he writes well enough
anyway that one wouldn't make reasonably make that assumption. He
also said that he's *fluent* in four of eight languages, so since he
said that English is his second language, it would be reasonable to
assume that it's one of the four languages that he claims to be
fluent in. As such, your hostile reaction is misdirected and should
have been turned towards yourself. You show more than the average
amount of cluelessness, ignorance and arrogance in your
shoot-from-the-hip reply. Even if you missed some of the earlier
replies in this thread that accounts for your ignorance, fetching
them before going on the attack with a bogus insult might have
helped prevent you from appearing to share Focus's foolishness.
ASAAR
>> I hardly ever criticize grammatical, spelling or punctuation
>> errors. I even mentioned this when I referred to the error :
>
> But you still chose to do it, didn't you, obviously just to have a
> cheap shot at Focus.
As I also previously said, by his ill considered and foolish
posts, Focus asks for and deserves whatever ridicule he gets. It's
well earned but he's earnest (perhaps too much so) and his
contributions are occasionally useful/welcome, unlike you that
materialized out of thin air and has no contributions yet other than
your attacks. It's entirely possible that you're a new sock puppet
reviving a dormant agenda, but whether you are or aren't, it's
unlikely that you'll ever be more than an inconsequential pest.
ASAAR
>> As I also previously said, by his ill considered and foolish
>> posts, Focus asks for and deserves whatever ridicule he gets. It's
>> well earned but he's earnest (perhaps too much so) and his
>> contributions are occasionally useful/welcome, unlike you that
>> materialized out of thin air
>
> "materialized out of thin air"?
> I've been posting regularly to Usenet using this nick for over ten years at
> least. Your not recognising it is irrelevant. Who remembers all posters?
Usenet is quite a bit larger than this newsgroup and I relied on
my newsreader's database, not on my memory. I don't even subscribe
to all of the ones that this msg. is addressed to ("aus.photo,
rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, and
uk.rec.photo.misc"). How long have you been posting to
rec.photo.digital? I didn't find any other messages from you going
back a good number of months. Perhaps you posted here years ago, or
perhaps more recently to other newsgroups, almost all of which I
never read?
>> and has no contributions yet other than
>> your attacks.
>
> Attacks? LOL. I criticised you, not for your criticism of Focus' apparent
> foolish posts on matters photographic (in fact, I agreed with you).
The "?" after "Attacks" indicates that you think that what you
wrote wasn't an attack, and the "LOL" indicates that you found it
amusing. If you think that when you wrote that you think that I'm
an "arrogant, self-centred pedant!" (and repeated it in your next
reply) then there's a disconnect between you and reality.
> You're entitled to your opinion, of course, doesn't make you less of an
> arrogant pedant though.
Ah, the third time's the charm. You have little imagination and
are stuck in a verbal rut. As Mr. T would say, I pity the fool . . .
As you didn't comment on the possibility that you may be a sock
puppet, its odds go up a bit. I await your next release of bile.