Canon domination?
DD
market and how anyone not using those cameras at sports events is
wasting their time and money.
Well, at this past weekend's A1GP I must report that the only people
using Canon cameras were the various press agency people, like AFP,
Reuters, local papers, etc. There were a few freelancers using Canon
20D's and I saw a 5D or two, but on the whole the majority of accredited
photographers shooting the event were using...Nikon cameras. Cold fact.
So much for that theory.
--
DD
www.dallasdahms.com
Tell your tits to stop staring at my eyes.
MoioM
I think you will find that the Professional marker is 50% Canon 50% Nikon.
Just so I don't get caught out, I have one of each !
"DD" <na...@dallasdahms.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e47d405e...@news.mweb.co.za...
: Of course we have all heard the claims of how Canon dominates the sports
Mark˛
> Of course we have all heard the claims of how Canon dominates the
> sports market and how anyone not using those cameras at sports events
> is wasting their time and money.
>
> Well, at this past weekend's A1GP I must report that the only people
> using Canon cameras were the various press agency people, like AFP,
> Reuters, local papers, etc. There were a few freelancers using Canon
> 20D's and I saw a 5D or two, but on the whole the majority of
> accredited photographers shooting the event were using...Nikon
> cameras. Cold fact.
>
> So much for that theory.
Canon officially has 59% of the DSLR market as a whole.
That leaves Nikon, Pentax, Konica-Minolta (oh, and Stigma) to split the
remaining 41%.
Personally, I'm not comfortable with such a lead for any one company--not
even my chosen company.
Apteryx
news:7GiDf.54770$V.29452@fed1read04...
I think you worry too much about that. They were stats over 2005 as a whole,
but Nikon had new dSLRs only in January and December (and the January ones
were only a small upgrade to the D70 and an almost equally small downgrade
of it). And as shown in the Japanese stats Ian cited when you expressed your
concern on rec.photo.digital, Nikon were ahead in January and December -
http://dpnow.com/bb/news.pl?read=147
I don't think the Japanese are unique in that. A new camera release by
either Nikon or Canon will put that company ahead until the other responds.
Its just that in the calendar year 2005, Canon introduced 2 new dSLRs
between the 2 Nikon releases, and one of them (the 350D) did extremely well.
But I wonder how many of the pros Dallas saw were using it.
The Japanese stats do show that the other companies are struggling though.
Their graphs also naturally show peaks when they release new cameras, but
their peaks are unable to match even the valleys for Canon and Nikon when
they are between releases. It will be interesting to see whether the
Pentax/Samsung cooperation changes that, and whether Sony can succeed where
Minolta failed. And maybe whether Olympus's continuing ingenuity can
eventually produce a market-busting camera in the mold of the OM1, sometime
before they are forced from the market.
--
Apteryx
DD
even number here)@cox..net> says...
I was most surprised by it, as were a few of the regular pro photogs I
know. Reinforces the fact that the top agencies are all using sponsored
gear.
Kinon O'Cann
> market and how anyone not using those cameras at sports events is
> wasting their time and money.
>
> Well, at this past weekend's A1GP I must report that the only people
> using Canon cameras were the various press agency people, like AFP,
> Reuters, local papers, etc. There were a few freelancers using Canon
> 20D's and I saw a 5D or two, but on the whole the majority of accredited
> photographers shooting the event were using...Nikon cameras. Cold fact.
>
> So much for that theory.
Here's my experience: three professional sporting events in the last two
years, including last year's SB in Jacksonville, and I took notice of the
shooters. White lenses as far as the eye could see. Yes, there were a few
Nikons in the mix, but at all three events, Canons appeared to be the more
popular choice, by far.
Yes, I know, three events isn't a scientific sample, but tickets are pretty
expensive...
Annika1980
>using Canon cameras were the various press agency people, like AFP,
>Reuters, local papers, etc. There were a few freelancers using Canon
>20D's and I saw a 5D or two, but on the whole the majority of accredited
>photographers shooting the event were using...Nikon cameras. Cold fact.
No Leicas? BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!
All your anecdote proves is that those who need the best (and can
afford it) shoot Canon. FWIW, our local paper still uses Nikons
because when they switched to digital the Nikon was the only choice.
They figure it would be too costly for them to switch at this point,
and judging by the lack of talent shown by their staff, I don't think
it would make much of a difference anyway.
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
The pros make chump change...dentists drive the Mercedes and Porsches,
not pro photogs..
Ask what the DENTISTS use!
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
It's too expensive. Their papers own it. So, who gives a fuck what the
pros use? They make chump-change and have to go out in all kinds of
weather....
Mike wrote:
> At the PGA Championship in 2004, I counted more of the black telephotos
> than the white ones. If that means anything...
>
> One guy had 5 (Canon) lenses around his neck with a film body attached to
> each lens. They all looked like hell. His huge white tele had duct tape
> all over it. Each Canon body was all beat up. The photographer
> had big knee pads on and looked like hell as well!
Chris Loffredo
> DD wrote:
>
>>Of course we have all heard the claims of how Canon dominates the
>>sports market and how anyone not using those cameras at sports events
>>is wasting their time and money.
>>
>>Well, at this past weekend's A1GP I must report that the only people
>>using Canon cameras were the various press agency people, like AFP,
>>Reuters, local papers, etc. There were a few freelancers using Canon
>>20D's and I saw a 5D or two, but on the whole the majority of
>>accredited photographers shooting the event were using...Nikon
>>cameras. Cold fact.
>>
>>So much for that theory.
>
>
> Canon officially has 59% of the DSLR market as a whole.
> That leaves Nikon, Pentax, Konica-Minolta (oh, and Stigma) to split the
> remaining 41%.
>
IIRC, well over 59% of professional drivers drive trucks...
Chris Loffredo
> DD wrote:
>
>>Of course we have all heard the claims of how Canon dominates the
>>sports market and how anyone not using those cameras at sports events
>>is wasting their time and money.
>>
>>Well, at this past weekend's A1GP I must report that the only people
>>using Canon cameras were the various press agency people, like AFP,
>>Reuters, local papers, etc. There were a few freelancers using Canon
>>20D's and I saw a 5D or two, but on the whole the majority of
>>accredited photographers shooting the event were using...Nikon
>>cameras. Cold fact.
>>
>>So much for that theory.
>
>
> Canon officially has 59% of the DSLR market as a whole.
> That leaves Nikon, Pentax, Konica-Minolta (oh, and Stigma) to split the
> remaining 41%.
>
IIRC, well over 59% of professional drivers drive trucks...
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Mike wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:13:34 -0800, uraniumcommittee wrote:
>
> > Who gives a fuck what the pros use? Their papers own the damned lenses.
> > The pros make chump change...dentists drive the Mercedes and Porsches,
> > not pro photogs..
> >
> > Ask what the DENTISTS use!
> >
> >
>
The stupid preoccupation with 'what the pros use' is sickening. Leica
has the upscale naturalist market, the doctors, denitists, and lawyers
who can fly anywhere (often in their own planes) and buy anything they
want. They look through Trinovids and own big-ass Telyts..
When I was in retail, I once knew a dentist. He came in and asked me
what the best camera system was (this was about 1975). He flew to the
Carribean and bought a whole Leicaflex system, and gave me a 560 f/6.8
Telyt to use for as long as I wanted! I bought my own a couple of years
later.
Pros? HA! Fuck 'em!
>
> :-)
Annika1980
That would be about as helpful as knowing which toothbrush pro
photographers use to brush their teeth.
When I wanna know what is the best camera equipment, I'll ask the pro
photographers who make their living using the best stuff. When I wanna
know about plaque, I'll ask a dentist.
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Look, dumbass, they don't make their living with it! It's PAID FOR BY
SOMEONE ELSE! These 'pros' are nothing but fat slobs who got a job with
AP or their local paper. When people choose the best for QUALITY, and
they have to pay for it themselves, they choose Leica above all!
You're so fucking dense...most dentists are better photographers,
anyway, than the 'pros', because they can take their time.
Annika1980
>> photographers who make their living using the best stuff. When I wanna
>> know about plaque, I'll ask a dentist.
>Look, dumbass, they don't make their living with it! It's PAID FOR BY
>SOMEONE ELSE!
Of course they make their living with it, dipshit. And the fact that
their employers have huge budgets and yet still choose Canon should
tell you where the true quality is. Even Dallas, the Leica lackey,
wouldn't claim that any pros shoot Leicas.
>You're so fucking dense...most dentists are better photographers,
>anyway, than the 'pros', because they can take their time.
Yeah, uh-huh, right.
Ask Dallas how many Leicas he saw at the F1 race? Watch the Super Bowl
next week and try to find a Leica in the sea of white lenses. Lotsa
luck! I've been at many pro golf tournaments and you know how many
Leicas I've seen?
One! And that was the M3 that I was carrying. I found that the
results I got with it and the Summicron 50mm f/2 were comparable to
what I was getting with my $80 Canon 50mm f/1.8, with about 100x the
trouble.
Leicas are so 1965.
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Annika1980 wrote:
> >> When I wanna know what is the best camera equipment, I'll ask the pro
> >> photographers who make their living using the best stuff. When I wanna
> >> know about plaque, I'll ask a dentist.
>
> >Look, dumbass, they don't make their living with it! It's PAID FOR BY
> >SOMEONE ELSE!
>
> Of course they make their living with it, dipshit. And the fact that
> their employers have huge budgets and yet still choose Canon should
> tell you where the true quality is. Even Dallas, the Leica lackey,
> wouldn't claim that any pros shoot Leicas.
Why the fuck would they? They don't need the quality that Leica offers.
Dumbass!
>
> >You're so fucking dense...most dentists are better photographers,
> >anyway, than the 'pros', because they can take their time.
>
> Yeah, uh-huh, right.
I have sold more fine equipment to dentists, physicians, and lawyers
than to scumbag pros. Pros don't need quality.
>
> Ask Dallas how many Leicas he saw at the F1 race?
Who gives a fuck?
> Watch the Super Bowl
> next week and try to find a Leica in the sea of white lenses.
Who gives a fuck?
> Lotsa
> luck!
Who gives a fuck?
> I've been at many pro golf tournaments and you know how many
> Leicas I've seen?
Who gives a fuck?
> One! And that was the M3 that I was carrying. I found that the
> results I got with it and the Summicron 50mm f/2 were comparable to
> what I was getting with my $80 Canon 50mm f/1.8, with about 100x the
> trouble.
Shows that you can't see for shit....
>
> Leicas are so 1965.
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Annika1980 wrote:
> >> When I wanna know what is the best camera equipment, I'll ask the pro
> >> photographers who make their living using the best stuff. When I wanna
> >> know about plaque, I'll ask a dentist.
>
> >Look, dumbass, they don't make their living with it! It's PAID FOR BY
> >SOMEONE ELSE!
>
> Of course they make their living with it, dipshit. And the fact that
> their employers have huge budgets and yet still choose Canon should
> tell you where the true quality is. Even Dallas, the Leica lackey,
> wouldn't claim that any pros shoot Leicas.
No, the Leica owners are sitting in the box seats, looking through
$1400 Trinovid binoculars. They don't NEED to take photos
professionally. They have money....
Nicholas O. Lindan
> > Ask what the DENTISTS use!
RHI, the Hasselblad rep confided that most of his customers
were dentists, not photographers.
> Good point. Leica, and even Nikon, have WAY more snob appeal than Canon!
Yeah, like Canon is what those _newspaper_ reporters use. How
low-life can one get. [Ob Smiley]
TTTT, the best color work I have seen has been by newspaper
reporters. Certainly not by dentists.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
The pros are so afraid of using anything that their mopron pro friends
use that it's sickening. When I was photographing OSU football games
with my the 560 Telyt, I pissed all the 'pros' off, because they could
not put it on their stupid Nikon F's! I got better shots than they did,
and you know it! Archie Griffen at mid-field on Kodachrome 25. YEAH!
You can the see the hairs in his moustache! You can read the writing on
the ball!
Chris Loffredo
In some cases it really doesn't make a difference: Whenever I see your
pictures, I just think "Annika"...
; )
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
> "Mike" <mi...@example.com> wrote
> > > Ask what the DENTISTS use!
>
> RHI, the Hasselblad rep confided that most of his customers
> were dentists, not photographers.
>
> > Good point. Leica, and even Nikon, have WAY more snob appeal than Canon!
> Yeah, like Canon is what those _newspaper_ reporters use. How
> low-life can one get. [Ob Smiley]
>
> TTTT, the best color work I have seen has been by newspaper
> reporters. Certainly not by dentists.
You don't know the best dentist photographers, then.
Simon Stanmore
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138655192....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Why the fuck would they? They don't need the quality that Leica offers.
> Dumbass!
So much 'quality' that Nat Geo tog's out on assignment have demanded prompt
delivery of Canon or Nikon systems because their Leica's have failed time
and time again on their 3-6 week shoots. Sometimes 3 bodies going to pot in
as almost as many weeks. The quality is all the collectors (not
photographers) bank accounts.
--
Simon
http://www.pbase.com/stanmore
Sarah Brown
This has to be in the running for the, "Surreal Comment of the Day Award".
BTW, When I bought a Canon macro ring-lite flash, the shop keeper asked if I
was a dentist. I gather they sell a lot of them to practitioners of that
trade.
Gordon Moat
Annika1980
>You can the see the hairs in his moustache! You can read the writing on
>the ball!
If you were using Ektar 25 you must've shot him standing still during
the National Anthem.
And given the excellent archival qualities of the old Kodachromes, I'm
sure you still have some of those pics you can share with us.
You know the difference between Archie Griffin and Kodachrome 25?
Archie won two Heismans and he's still alive.
Annika1980
>Who gives a fuck?
>Who gives a fuck?
>Who gives a fuck?
You, obviously.
You know, Leica might still be alive if it had a better PR campaign.
"Leica, the choice of 8 out of 10 dentists!"
Annika1980
> Leicas I've seen?
> results I got with it and the Summicron 50mm f/2 were comparable to
> what I was getting with my $80 Canon 50mm f/1.8, with about 100x the
> trouble.
>Shows that you can't see for shit....
People buy Leicas for the same reasons that people buy Jaguars.
It isn't for the performance (other cars offer much better for less
money). They buy Jaguars because they think they are cool.
Annika1980
>anyway, than the 'pros', because they can take their time.
That's gotta be the funniest thing I've read here in a long time.
I suppose if those same dentists buy a Ferrari
they turn into Jackie-fuckin-Stewart.
Alienjones
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1138671701.1...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: >Archie Griffen at mid-field on Kodachrome 25. YEAH!
What's a Heisman?
Kodachrome understand. ASA 25 I understand. Slow but hey, sooner or later
one of the players has to stop and that's when they get nailed. This I
understand too. I have such a picture. After 2 years of shooting ASA 25 KC,
I finally nailed a flying Pelican. Of course by then, I'd also gotten
married too!
Mark˛
Saying it twice doesn't help it make any more sense...
Mark˛
> Of course we have all heard the claims of how Canon dominates the
> sports market and how anyone not using those cameras at sports events
> is wasting their time and money.
>
> Well, at this past weekend's A1GP I must report that the only people
> using Canon cameras were the various press agency people, like AFP,
> Reuters, local papers, etc. There were a few freelancers using Canon
> 20D's and I saw a 5D or two, but on the whole the majority of
> accredited photographers shooting the event were using...Nikon
> cameras. Cold fact.
>
> So much for that theory.
On the other hand, Dallas, YOU were there shooting...just like them...after
having just announced that you have little interest in photography, and that
you plan to sell all but a few film cameras.
So...perhaps you're drawing conclusions based on a rather questionable lot??
:)
Skip M
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
DD
annik...@aol.com says...
> >Well, at this past weekend's A1GP I must report that the only people
> >using Canon cameras were the various press agency people, like AFP,
> >Reuters, local papers, etc. There were a few freelancers using Canon
> >20D's and I saw a 5D or two, but on the whole the majority of accredited
> >photographers shooting the event were using...Nikon cameras. Cold fact.
>
I shot some Leica material over the first two days. Even had a few
people compliment me on my choice of camera.
> All your anecdote proves is that those who need the best (and can
> afford it) shoot Canon. FWIW, our local paper still uses Nikons
> because when they switched to digital the Nikon was the only choice.
> They figure it would be too costly for them to switch at this point,
> and judging by the lack of talent shown by their staff, I don't think
> it would make much of a difference anyway.
I'm wondering if lack of talent is endemic to your neck of the woods? Do
you live near a nuclear power station?
--
DD
www.dallasdahms.com
Tell your tits to stop staring at my eyes.
DD
annik...@aol.com says...
> >Look, dumbass, they don't make their living with it! It's PAID FOR BY
> >SOMEONE ELSE!
>
> Of course they make their living with it, dipshit. And the fact that
> their employers have huge budgets and yet still choose Canon should
> tell you where the true quality is. Even Dallas, the Leica lackey,
> wouldn't claim that any pros shoot Leicas.
Bret, don't you get it? The "pro's" you speak of have NO SAY in the
matter regarding what equipment they get to use on the field. They are
given standard issue Canon equipment because that's the company their
bosses got sponsored by.
> >You're so fucking dense...most dentists are better photographers,
> >anyway, than the 'pros', because they can take their time.
>
> Yeah, uh-huh, right.
>
> Ask Dallas how many Leicas he saw at the F1 race? Watch the Super Bowl
> next week and try to find a Leica in the sea of white lenses. Lotsa
> luck! I've been at many pro golf tournaments and you know how many
> Leicas I've seen?
> One! And that was the M3 that I was carrying. I found that the
> results I got with it and the Summicron 50mm f/2 were comparable to
> what I was getting with my $80 Canon 50mm f/1.8, with about 100x the
> trouble.
Just because you're holding a Leica doesn't mean you are HCB, mate. That
takes an eye and some rudimentary expertise in the field of exposure -
something you seem quite happy to let Canon decide for you.
> Leicas are so 1965.
I thought they were 1925.
Tony
know the difference between fact and opinion, but is the kind of pathetic
ahole who keeps changing his email so he doesn't stay in killfiles with the
rest of the crap.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"DD" <na...@dallasdahms.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e47d405e...@news.mweb.co.za...
> Of course we have all heard the claims of how Canon dominates the sports
> market and how anyone not using those cameras at sports events is
> wasting their time and money.
>
> Well, at this past weekend's A1GP I must report that the only people
> using Canon cameras were the various press agency people, like AFP,
> Reuters, local papers, etc. There were a few freelancers using Canon
> 20D's and I saw a 5D or two, but on the whole the majority of accredited
> photographers shooting the event were using...Nikon cameras. Cold fact.
>
> So much for that theory.
DD
even number here)@cox..net> says...
Again, Mark Morgan to the scene, full of advice and quick to dredge up
his version of things to ward off all the imbeciles.
Show me where I said I had little interest in photography? Go on, I know
you're dying to play District Attorney again.
BTW, the sales are still on. I have sold the 17-35mm f/2.8, the Nikon
F4s, F100 and I am negotiating a price for the 70-200mm VR. Also looking
for someone to help me eBay the $1400 Angenieux 28-70mm f/2.6.
Why? Don't need 'em. I am not a professional photographer and I never
intend to be one again. I am quite happy with my F2, FM2n and my two
Leica M's.
Besides, if I get to shoot the A1GP again next year I have already been
offered whatever Canon equipment I want by more than one agency.
DD
tspa...@nc.rr.com says...
> Another straight forward fabrication from Dallas, a man who not only doesn't
> know the difference between fact and opinion, but is the kind of pathetic
> ahole who keeps changing his email so he doesn't stay in killfiles with the
> rest of the crap.
Spudrocket, when you learn to use a computer properly come back and see
us again. Don't forget to tell us about how you couldn't figure out how
to use an F2, or a Nikon scanner. We're all dying to hear those stories
again.
BTW, did you hear that Nikon cameras outnumbered Canon at the World Cup
Of Motorsport? Shocking news to fuckwits like you, I'm sure, but don't
let it keep you awake at night - I'm sure your 1991 Rebel will keep on
working for another 15 years.
DD
This is what we use Leicas for:
http://www.dallasdahms.com/Photos/ABSA-girls.jpg
The ladies love a Leica.
Alienjones
: >>
: >>
: >> Canon officially has 59% of the DSLR market as a whole.
: >> That leaves Nikon, Pentax, Konica-Minolta (oh, and Stigma) to split
: >> the remaining 41%.
: >>
: >
: > IIRC, well over 59% of professional drivers drive trucks...
:
: Saying it twice doesn't help it make any more sense...
:
What are we talking about here?
Canon entice sports Photographers to buy hugely expensive cameras they term
"Professional" as in the D1 series with the promise of renting them $30,000
lenses for a few hundred bucks which should (all things being equal- which
they are not) allow them to sell more pictures or get pictures worth more
than those who actually have to buy these monster lenses.
All it actually does is sabotage their customer base. In painting the things
white, it makes them so conspicuous, they are easy to count. Try counting
black lenses at night and pretty soon you realize the white ones are easier
to see so they are what get counted!
Nikon have never needed any enticement past durability, quality and plain
old fashioned usability for Professional Photographers to buy their cameras.
Having owned both Canon and Nikon and been told by Canon that what is in the
USA a professional camera, is in Australia just an amateur camera, I think
Canon are past masters at marketing and deception. Definitely not the sort
of company you would want to give any loyalty to. At least Nikon have an
International model numbering convention to separate country specific
cameras.
Through all the Canon bullshit and new models, Nikon have stood fast with a
rock solid range of cameras that until recently didn't need a replacement
every few months and didn't need new firmware every few weeks/months to fix
problems they had in their design.
The day Canon become master camera makers is a long way off ...more
precisely the day they become master lens makers, will be the day the rest
of the industry give up their treasured Nikon gear for the questionable
quality and reliability of Canon. There is a reason past the name why Nikon
optics are all over the medical profession and Canon are in every bulk store
of the world... And it isn't about market share. If Canon had to compete on
quality alone, they couldn't.
Medical imaging is not constrained by cost or white painted microscopes, it
just demands the very best optics available. Nikon optical measuring
instruments are used to measure other makers optics. This alone must say
something about the maker's ability to make lenses that don't need to be
painted white so they are easy to count.
Alienjones
:
: > All your anecdote proves is that those who need the best (and can
: > afford it) shoot Canon. FWIW, our local paper still uses Nikons
: > because when they switched to digital the Nikon was the only choice.
: > They figure it would be too costly for them to switch at this point,
: > and judging by the lack of talent shown by their staff, I don't think
: > it would make much of a difference anyway.
:
: I'm wondering if lack of talent is endemic to your neck of the woods? Do
: you live near a nuclear power station?
:
: --
: DD
He is the PowerStation Dallas!
Chris Loffredo
>
> This is what we use Leicas for:
>
> http://www.dallasdahms.com/Photos/ABSA-girls.jpg
>
> The ladies love a Leica.
Leica takes nice bokehs and makes them better...
: )
Tony Polson
>
>What are we talking about here?
>Canon entice sports Photographers to buy hugely expensive cameras they term
>"Professional" as in the D1 series
What are you talking about here?
Why would Canon want to "entice" sports Photographers to buy hugely
obsolescent cameras made by ...
... Nikon?
Kinon O'Cann
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138641214.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Who gives a fuck what the pros use? Their papers own the damned lenses.
> The pros make chump change...dentists drive the Mercedes and Porsches,
> not pro photogs..
>
> Ask what the DENTISTS use!
They own Leica's, but probably use some Kodak digital model.
>
>
> Annika1980 wrote:
>> >Well, at this past weekend's A1GP I must report that the only people
>> >using Canon cameras were the various press agency people, like AFP,
>> >Reuters, local papers, etc. There were a few freelancers using Canon
>> >20D's and I saw a 5D or two, but on the whole the majority of accredited
>> >photographers shooting the event were using...Nikon cameras. Cold fact.
>>
>> No Leicas? BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!
Annika1980
> because when they switched to digital the Nikon was the only choice.
> They figure it would be too costly for them to switch at this point,
> and judging by the lack of talent shown by their staff, I don't think
> it would make much of a difference anyway.
>I'm wondering if lack of talent is endemic to your neck of the woods? Do
>you live near a nuclear power station?
Yes, actually.
But I think our local paper's policies have more to do with their
plethora of crappy pics published daily.
I once asked the photo editor about doing some freelance sports work
for them. I figured this could get me into the Masters with photo
credentials. Anyway, he said that they don't use freelancers, and you
have to have a PhotoJournalism degree to be on their regular staff.
And they don't even send anyone to the big sporting events because they
get their pics from the AP (Canon shooters, ya know). So most of the
photographers on staff are young people who recently graduated from
college. If they become somewhat accomplished they quit the paper and
go out on their own. And the paper makes their assignments on a
rotating schedule so nobody specializes in just one area. So a great
sports photographer like myself might be assigned to cover a women's
fashion show or a tea party. It's really stupid. I've stood on the
sidelines of football games and have had some young girl working for
the paper ask me which team has the ball and which direction will they
be going. Sometimes they'll ask me technical advice about exposure and
such, but when I tell them that their Nikon equipment is inferior to my
Canon gear they often bust out crying.
Matt Clara
news:1138641785.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Most of these guys do not own this equipment.
>
> It's too expensive. Their papers own it. So, who gives a fuck what the
> pros use? They make chump-change and have to go out in all kinds of
> weather....
>
It would be fun for a while, and the experience could be good, but I already
make twice what the average PJ makes, so there's no going back now!
--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Annika1980 wrote:
> >Archie Griffen at mid-field on Kodachrome 25. YEAH!
> >You can the see the hairs in his moustache! You can read the writing on
> >the ball!
>
> If you were using Ektar 25 you must've shot him standing still during
> the National Anthem.
Not so.1/300 sec at f/6.8. Running full speed.
> And given the excellent archival qualities of the old Kodachromes, I'm
> sure you still have some of those pics you can share with us.
> You know the difference between Archie Griffin and Kodachrome 25?
> Archie won two Heismans and he's still alive.
Kodachrome 25 was discontinued because one of the components became
unavailable. I usw PKR now.
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Simon Stanmore wrote:
> <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1138655192....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Why the fuck would they? They don't need the quality that Leica offers.
> > Dumbass!
>
> So much 'quality' that Nat Geo tog's out on assignment have demanded prompt
> delivery of Canon or Nikon systems because their Leica's have failed time
> and time again on their 3-6 week shoots.
Bullshit.
DD
annik...@aol.com says...
Pro's using Nikon equipment? Who'd have guessed?
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Annika1980 wrote:
> >FWIW, our local paper still uses Nikons
> > because when they switched to digital the Nikon was the only choice.
> > They figure it would be too costly for them to switch at this point,
> > and judging by the lack of talent shown by their staff, I don't think
> > it would make much of a difference anyway.
>
>
> >I'm wondering if lack of talent is endemic to your neck of the woods? Do
> >you live near a nuclear power station?
>
> Yes, actually.
>
> But I think our local paper's policies have more to do with their
> plethora of crappy pics published daily.
> I once asked the photo editor about doing some freelance sports work
> for them. I figured this could get me into the Masters with photo
> credentials. Anyway, he said that they don't use freelancers, and you
> have to have a PhotoJournalism degree to be on their regular staff.
Yeah, right. Now THAT'S a good investment! Join all the other homeless
photojournalists living under a bridge. Can't pay your student loan? No
problem? Here's a mattress, and here's your space (watch out for the
pigeon shit).
> And they don't even send anyone to the big sporting events because they
> get their pics from the AP (Canon shooters, ya know). So most of the
> photographers on staff are young people who recently graduated from
> college.
Like fer sure!
> If they become somewhat accomplished they quit the paper and
> go out on their own. And the paper makes their assignments on a
> rotating schedule so nobody specializes in just one area. So a great
> sports photographer like myself might be assigned to cover a women's
> fashion show or a tea party. It's really stupid.
Is it now?
> I've stood on the
> sidelines of football games and have had some young girl working for
> the paper ask me which team has the ball and which direction will they
> be going.
Yah! Wow. Look at the muscles!
Hotbird
You are a fucking shitbag, shot up
hotbird
Chris Loffredo
Let me guess...
Harvard? Oxford? Le Sorbonne?
Mojtaba
only a collector? All regulars here have seen a lot of top quality
photos taken by Annika and his fabolous Canons!
Mojtaba
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
bob
"DD" <na...@dallasdahms.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e4920da1...@news.mweb.co.za...
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Alienjones
else.
I can only presume they too got tangles up in the brand wars of the 21
century.
Personally, I like my Ziess cameras but it's so long since I've used one,
the seal on the glass case is probably cemented tight.
Annika1980
>using Canon cameras were the various press agency people, like AFP,
>Reuters, local papers, etc. There were a few freelancers using Canon
>20D's and I saw a 5D or two, but on the whole the majority of accredited
>photographers shooting the event were using...Nikon cameras. Cold fact.
Not surprising for such a backward-ass country.
Probably a few Minolta shooters trying out their new MC Rokkors as
well.
no_name
> "Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1138671701.1...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> : >Archie Griffen at mid-field on Kodachrome 25. YEAH!
> : >You can the see the hairs in his moustache! You can read the writing on
> : >the ball!
> :
> : If you were using Ektar 25 you must've shot him standing still during
> : the National Anthem.
> : And given the excellent archival qualities of the old Kodachromes, I'm
> : sure you still have some of those pics you can share with us.
> : You know the difference between Archie Griffin and Kodachrome 25?
> : Archie won two Heismans and he's still alive.
> :
>
> What's a Heisman?
>
> Kodachrome understand. ASA 25 I understand. Slow but hey, sooner or later
> one of the players has to stop and that's when they get nailed. This I
> understand too. I have such a picture. After 2 years of shooting ASA 25 KC,
> I finally nailed a flying Pelican. Of course by then, I'd also gotten
> married too!
>
>
It's a trophy for playing American College Football really well, during
a season when your school also has a really good team.
Archie Griffen won the trophy in 74 & 75, back to back wins. AFAIK, he's
the only player to ever win the award twice.
He played for an Ohio State which had 10-2 and 11-1 seasons in those
years, but also managed to lose two Rose Bowls in a row (to Southern Cal
& UCLA).
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
sun was absolutely brilliant, allowing me to use Kodachrome 25, which
had good underexposure latitude. In the shot, Griffin is just eluding
the grasp of a Minnesota defender, and the defender is blurred because
I was panning on Archie. Archie pretty sharp overall, except one of his
feet. Actually, you don't want totally sharp image of sports. You want
a bit of blur on the arms or legs to suggest motion. His upper body,
though, is perfectly sharp, mostly because I was panning with him. Even
at 1/300 sec with a 560mm lens, the ball and face are sharp!
no_name
> Can you show us your photo portfolio taken with Leicas? Or you are
> only a collector? All regulars here have seen a lot of top quality
> photos taken by Annika and his fabolous Canons!
Well, maybe a lot of photos taken with his "top quality" Canons.
Mark˛
> In article <0oBDf.54965$V.4980@fed1read04>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
> even number here)@cox..net> says...
>> DD wrote:
>>> Of course we have all heard the claims of how Canon dominates the
>>> sports market and how anyone not using those cameras at sports
>>> events is wasting their time and money.
>>>
>>> Well, at this past weekend's A1GP I must report that the only people
>>> using Canon cameras were the various press agency people, like AFP,
>>> Reuters, local papers, etc. There were a few freelancers using Canon
>>> 20D's and I saw a 5D or two, but on the whole the majority of
>>> accredited photographers shooting the event were using...Nikon
>>> cameras. Cold fact.
>>>
>>> So much for that theory.
>>
>> On the other hand, Dallas, YOU were there shooting...just like
>> them...after having just announced that you have little interest in
>> photography, and that you plan to sell all but a few film cameras.
>>
>> So...perhaps you're drawing conclusions based on a rather
>> questionable lot??
>>
>> :)
>
> Again, Mark Morgan to the scene, full of advice and quick to dredge up
> his version of things to ward off all the imbeciles.
Clearly that last part doesn't work...
:)
> Show me where I said I had little interest in photography?
I just recall you saying something about how you can't justify all the gear
if all you really want to do is shoot maybe a "roll or two of family snaps a
month," -or something like that...
-Sounded a lot like a lack of interest...but if you call it something
else...like bilong yu...
Alienjones
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138759188....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
:I got the shot I'm talking about in 1975, at the Minnesota game. The
: sun was absolutely brilliant, allowing me to use Kodachrome 25, which
: had good underexposure latitude. In the shot, Griffin is just eluding
: the grasp of a Minnesota defender, and the defender is blurred because
: I was panning on Archie. Archie pretty sharp overall, except one of his
: feet. Actually, you don't want totally sharp image of sports. You want
: a bit of blur on the arms or legs to suggest motion. His upper body,
: though, is perfectly sharp, mostly because I was panning with him. Even
: at 1/300 sec with a 560mm lens, the ball and face are sharp!
Enough talk... Where's the picture?
Alienjones
--
Having climaxed... She turned on her
mate and began to devour him.
Not a lot changes, eh Spiderwoman?
"no_name" <no_...@no.where.invalid> wrote in message
news:dyUDf.41100$iQ.1...@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
Well, maybe a lot of his photos might be more correct.
Annika1980
I'd love to see it as well, or any other pics you may still have from
that era.
Mark˛
Don't you know, Bret, that South Africa is the measuring-stick for great
trends of the world??
-That all investors and professional photogs look to S.A. to help them
decide what's "in" and what's "out"???
It's no longer California, New York, Paris, or Milan... It's Good ol' South
Africa, baby!
Sheesh.
-Thought you'd know that...
Mark˛
That's quite true, I'm sure.
I've walked into police shoot-outs (2) with my canon gear and seen hoards of
staff photogs driving up (later) in their Toyota Echo, and working their
rear off for peanuts. Their photos sucked, and their apparent pay didn't
encourage anything better. For one particular event (police shootout with a
thug...where I was the first and only photog on the scene), they bought 2
photos for $200 each...and that was just something I stumbled
(intentionally) into. I do seem to have this propensity for finding big
messes as they happen...but I'd never want to work for a paper.
I've had numerous photos published in papers here, and every time I've gone
to their main office (San Diego Union Tribune...HUGE facility), they have
been envious of even my "lowly" 10D. They are still using their original
Nikon cameras they've had since going digital in the late
90's...which...when used with the full image are OK... -But their low
resolution allows for very little cropping, which is something they need the
ability to do. I frankly felt sorry for the staff photographers, who
obviously weren't making much of a living...and were shooting with
7-year-old digital gear...unless they had their own. One did, and it wasn't
Nikon, even though that was the "house brand." :)
DD
number here)@cox..net> says...
What we do know, without a shadow of a doubt, is where most of the
world's assholes live. Keep it coming, mucho man.
Mark˛
I sure wish you had a sense of humor, Dallas.
DD
When I'm dealing with assholes like you, Mark, my sense of humour tends
to disappear. You have a knack for pushing all the wrong buttons. Who
the fuck do you think you are anyway? Do you think that just because you
are American you get to look down on the rest of the world? Well fuck
you and your attitude, mate. I can do without your constant put downs.
Alienjones
:
: I've had numerous photos published in papers here, and every time I've
: to their main office (San Diego Union Tribune...HUGE facility), they have
: been envious of even my "lowly" 10D. They are still using their original
: Nikon cameras they've had since going digital in the late
: 90's...which...when used with the full image are OK... -But their low
: resolution allows for very little cropping, which is something they need
the
: ability to do. I frankly felt sorry for the staff photographers, who
: obviously weren't making much of a living...and were shooting with
: 7-year-old digital gear...unless they had their own. One did, and it
wasn't
: Nikon, even though that was the "house brand." :)
:
Pardon me Mr freeloader - sorry, Freelancer. Doesn't it say anything to you
about the durability of a Nikon camera that 7 years on, the things are
working fine after getting abused to hell and back by Journos? I wish my
Canon 1Dn (8 years old) had not needed two shutter/mirror assemblies and a
new circuit board to nurse it into it's 5th year.
Alienjones
In article <1rWDf.55018$V.374@fed1read04>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> says...
What we do know, without a shadow of a doubt, is where most of the
world's assholes live. Keep it coming, mucho man.
--
DD
eRR, I think iT'S mAcHo mAn Dallas.
Mark˛
Put downs? That's pretty funny coming from the guy who has called me an
asshole in the last two posts, and who just threw in a few F-bombs for good
measure. Profanity never makes you look smart or right, Dallas. It just
makes you look like a crude thinker who couldn't think of something
meaningful to say.
As to your pronouncement that I am somehow brandishing some sort of USA
'tude, I would remind you of the following:
My world view is not based on the USA, but on a life lived in a VERY diverse
list of resident countries.
-I was not born in the US.
-I was born in Bogota', Colombia and lived there for years.
-I have worked in poor mountain regions and villages in Haiti.
-I have lived and worked in some of the poorest locations of Brazil.
I have lived and worked in tiny villages in Papua New Guninea--literally
residing in a hut.
-I have spent time in 23 other countries.
The US is now my home, but the US doesn't come close to defining some sort
of sole basis for my world view.
Oh...and about my examples of Paris and Milan...Perhaps you should refer to
a map, since neither location lies within...or even near...the US.
I also note that between the two of us, you are the only one who regularly
lowers himself to profanity, and other similarly "intelligent" streams of
dialogue.
Eventually I hope you'll figure out that if you and I have trouble, it has
nothing to do with where you live.
It has more to do with how you think, respond and throw objectivity out the
window.
Mark˛
It's a rather large assumption that they haven't ever repaired any of their
cameras...
-So you have a basis for this assumption?
Oops!
Mark˛
BTW-- My comment had nothing to do with whether their brand mattered.
If you read the thread, you'll note that it had more to do with the life,
earnings, and equipment newspaper photogs are often stuck with.
Alienjones
> >
> > What we do know, without a shadow of a doubt, is where most of the
> > world's assholes live. Keep it coming, mucho man.
>
> I sure wish you had a sense of humor, Dallas.
When I'm dealing with assholes like you, Mark, my sense of humour tends
to disappear. You have a knack for pushing all the wrong buttons. Who
the fuck do you think you are anyway? Do you think that just because you
are American you get to look down on the rest of the world? Well fuck
you and your attitude, mate. I can do without your constant put downs.
--
DD
Hey Dallas, If you ranked trolls from 1 to 10 with 10 being as bad as the
creep dogging me, Mr Morgan goes about 7 on the scale. Pretty tame really.
He just knows where your button is and boy, does he love to press it. From
where I sit, you dish out as much (maybe more) as you get. In all
seriousness mate, much of it, you deserve. Mark is right about SA being NOT
the centre of the universe.
Raby Bay in South east Queensland Australia is. Just ask the hundreds of
expats from SA who drove the real estate prices up by a million or so last
year and they'll tell you where paradise is. I wouldn't have 'Ryadia' my
boat, if it wasn't for those kind gentlemen who happily made me a
millionaire one sunny afternoon as I parted with the family home and bought
Ryadia to live on. Never regretted it either.
And to Mark and Bret...
Australia is officially the indicator America and Japanese High Tech
manufacturing firms get their data from to plan a product launch in America.
We get more high tech stuff before you guys, than you get before us.
You see the sneaky little bastards from down under are techno Aussies, early
adaptors of leading edge technology. Us blokes have more leading edge, high
tech gizmos per head of population than any other country in the whole wide
world. For proof just look in my cupboard! Hey, just check the bridge of my
boat.
All America is good for is pollution and weapons of mass destruction. AND if
those pricks on USS Ronald Reagan ever come back here I'm gonna dump my shit
all over their flight deck too. The cheek of the bastards to pump their
sewerage all over my beach and just sail on past!
Mark˛
> Of course we have all heard the claims of how Canon dominates the
> sports market
>and how anyone not using those cameras at sports events
> is wasting their time and money.
We have?
I have never EVER read anything saying that those who use Nikon gear at
sporting events are wasting time and money.
Never.
Once again, Dallas, you are inventing non-existent arguments to rebut.
Tip:
If you want to win a debate, your first step should be to find an opposing
view that has actually been put forth.
Tony
to have taught him anything, though. It's a shame to see my work wasted on
him, but he isn't the only half wit around here - just the biggest.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"bob" <bob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11387291...@www.vif.com...
DD
even number here)@cox..net> says...
> Put downs? That's pretty funny coming from the guy who has called me an
> asshole in the last two posts, and who just threw in a few F-bombs for good
> measure. Profanity never makes you look smart or right, Dallas. It just
> makes you look like a crude thinker who couldn't think of something
> meaningful to say.
Says you.
> As to your pronouncement that I am somehow brandishing some sort of USA
> 'tude, I would remind you of the following:
>
> My world view is not based on the USA, but on a life lived in a VERY diverse
> list of resident countries.
>
> -I was not born in the US.
> -I was born in Bogota', Colombia and lived there for years.
> -I have worked in poor mountain regions and villages in Haiti.
> -I have lived and worked in some of the poorest locations of Brazil.
> I have lived and worked in tiny villages in Papua New Guninea--literally
> residing in a hut.
> -I have spent time in 23 other countries.
> The US is now my home, but the US doesn't come close to defining some sort
> of sole basis for my world view.
Guess what, Mark...despite all your worldly experiences and time spent
in other countries, you are still the quintessential asshole. Maybe
something in your brain just doesn't work properly. Maybe living in your
version of paradise has caused you to abandon your claimed objectivity?
> Oh...and about my examples of Paris and Milan...Perhaps you should refer to
> a map, since neither location lies within...or even near...the US.
You don't say.
> I also note that between the two of us, you are the only one who regularly
> lowers himself to profanity, and other similarly "intelligent" streams of
> dialogue.
>
> Eventually I hope you'll figure out that if you and I have trouble, it has
> nothing to do with where you live.
That's not what you said or implied with your previous post.
> It has more to do with how you think, respond and throw objectivity out the
> window.
You promised a while ago that you would stop hounding me on this group.
You even wrote to me about it and called a truce. Are you incapable of
keeping your word? Just let me know where I stand.
DD
tspa...@nc.rr.com says...
> I had no idea Dallas spent so much time reading my posts.
The man with the biggest killfile in usenet history has no idea. How
very queer. I wonder why.
> They don't seem
> to have taught him anything, though. It's a shame to see my work wasted on
> him, but he isn't the only half wit around here - just the biggest.
Your work? You mean you look at your usenet insults as being "work"?
Nice...
Alienjones
"Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:OqZDf.55191$V.44862@fed1read04...
Yeah... It's true. I sell photos to the local newspaper myself and take
freelance work at more than twice the rates of their employed photographers.
Really odd that in their foyer is a six feet wide panorama I enlarged which
was taken by a photographer who never worked there. I guess there is
something in what you said.
The D1s at that paper are still working fine after 200,000 shutter
activations. They are mostly using D70 and D100 currently It's true the
Nikons will outlast Canons and there isn't much you can say about that, it's
a simple fact.
On the subject of cameras used by newspapers, I worked at a rural paper a
few years ago and they used Kodak P&S digital cameras! It's not the camera
it's the opportunity and composition which makes a good newspaper picture.
Skip M
news:geZDf.232775$V7.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
my pre digital workhorse, I used it a lot. Still going strong, I'm taking
it out this weekend, on sort of a nostalgia tour...
As far as digital goes, the size files those old Nikons that the SD
Union-Trib are using can be a bit, shall we say, limiting.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Annika1980
>you can say about that, it's a simple fact.
I'm sure you must have some data you could share to back up that claim.
Perhaps the reason there are so many old Nikons still in the field has
less to do with durability and more to do with Nikon's slow rate of
product advancement? Nikon had the lead with the D1, but when they
lost it to Canon they never caught up.
Mark˛
I'm considering the source on this one, Dallas, and for some reason, it just
doesn't hurt coming from you.
>> Oh...and about my examples of Paris and Milan...Perhaps you should
>> refer to a map, since neither location lies within...or even
>> near...the US.
>
> You don't say.
Neither did you...so one begins to wonder...
>> I also note that between the two of us, you are the only one who
>> regularly lowers himself to profanity, and other similarly
>> "intelligent" streams of dialogue.
>>
>> Eventually I hope you'll figure out that if you and I have trouble,
>> it has nothing to do with where you live.
>
> That's not what you said or implied with your previous post.
Oh brother. I noted that your location isn't exactly a trend-setter, or
reliable market indicator.
Where is that wrong?
>> It has more to do with how you think, respond and throw objectivity
>> out the window.
>
> You promised a while ago that you would stop hounding me on this
> group. You even wrote to me about it and called a truce. Are you
> incapable of keeping your word? Just let me know where I stand.
Yep. I haven't hounded you, Dallas. You utterly failed to resist your
tendency to fall back into your angry, profain ways...throwing f-bombs...and
throwing all logic and humor out the window. It's your own fault, bub.
Annika1980
>those pricks on USS Ronald Reagan ever come back here I'm gonna dump my shit
>all over their flight deck too. The cheek of the bastards to pump their
>sewerage all over my beach and just sail on past!
Australia is where the USA goes to shit and South Africa goes to eat.
Annika1980
>> I was panning with him. Even at 1/300 sec with a 560mm lens,
>> the ball and face are sharp!
>Sounds great! Why don't get a scan of that slide and let us see it!
Yeah, that'll happen.
Alienjones
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1138806224.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: >It's true the Nikons will outlast Canons and there isn't much
Oh Bret...
How can the leading Professional SLR camera maker "never catch up"? Rolls
Royce can never catch up to Fiat? Just because Fiat have faster cars, I
suppose? You're on the wrong program mate. It's the real world we're in now,
not some illusionary place where unreliable, poorly built and patched up
cameras get used by professionals who have a need of total reliability. Just
look at your Minolta Scanners, I bought Nikons after you told me of the
reliability issues you'd had. One of them feeds a printer on 2 shifts and
has done for most of last year.
Give up on the race for technology that gets abandoned as quickly as it's
sold to unsuspecting buyers. Where is "eye focus tracking" now, eh? Canon's
big one - NOT! If your 20D has escaped the myriad of faults all mine had,
you are one lucky fellow. If Skip's 5D's have (both) escaped the faults mine
was born with, he's a lucky dude too.
Absolutely NONE of my Nikon cameras have ever come with inbuilt faults or
needed immediate factory patches to function properly. EVERY Canon I've
bought except for one lonely 1D Mk II which got stolen before I could form
any attachment with it, (or find it's faults) came with it's own free pack
of factory faults. Even the pinnacle of full frame perfection (snigger here)
the 5D has firmware patches than done fix Canon's single biggest factory
fault... Back focus drift.
On a use basis, The one scanner I've run mercilessly - A NIKON - has
probably done about 40 times more work than all your Minoltas put together
and still runs like the day I bought it. I bought a couple of F5 Nikons
(used) when my EOS 1n shit itself for the second time and at least one of
them has fired more frames than the Canon but still has the original shutter
mechanism. The other has had lighter work but I expect it to keep going long
after the screech of death kills the last EOS.
Sorry Bret. You may like to think you brand of camera is "better" than
others but history shows it not to be in the area of reliability and
durability than working Professionals demand. Even F90's outlast Canon's
equivalent.
Alienjones
"Skip M" <shadow...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Ij3Ef.18508$sA3.4534@fed1read02...
: >
: What is a Canon 1Dn? Do you mean a 1n? I have one of those, too, and, as
: my pre digital workhorse, I used it a lot. Still going strong, I'm taking
: it out this weekend, on sort of a nostalgia tour...
: As far as digital goes, the size files those old Nikons that the SD
: Union-Trib are using can be a bit, shall we say, limiting.
:
: --
: Skip Middleton
: http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
:
:
You knew about my dyslexia Skip yet still make fun of it from time to time.
That's OK. giggle away.
I presume your 1n (got so used to using "D" I forgot it was the good old
days) has not had enough use to seize it's shutter yet? Give it time mate.
It'll die like they all do. Then when you find the cost of repairs more than
a new DSLR, you'll use it for "display purposes".
As for the myth of image file size...
http://www.photosbydouglas.com/canvas/pano2.htm
This picture is not a stitched image. It has lately been identified by the
previously unknown photographer as having come from a Nikon D1. Do some
math, Skip. It's six feet long! Tell me then, than that those "old Nikons"
are "limiting". What are they limiting? Certainly with my latest algorithm -
thanks to the University's computers - has reached new levels of
Interpolation which makes file size in itself less relevant to image size.
It never related to image quality.
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
I do have a large (16x20) print made from an interneg, but I have no
ide where the slide is now.
William Graham
The Aussies didn't think so back in May of 1942.....See:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/coralsea/coralsea.htm
Annika1980
>you are one lucky fellow. If Skip's 5D's have (both) escaped the faults mine
>was born with, he's a lucky dude too.
Maybe the problem with your gear is the fool standing behind it?
My Minolta scanners have quirks, no doubt, and I've read enough about
them online to know that I'm not alone. Your Canon experiences,
however, are isolated anecdotes. I don't hear of too many other folks
suffering the same problems. In fact, it would seem the opposite is
true. And of course you'll hear more problems from Canon owners than
say Leica owners because the number of Canon users probably outnumbers
the Leica users by 1000 to 1.
Scott W
>
> As for the myth of image file size...
> http://www.photosbydouglas.com/canvas/pano2.htm
> This picture is not a stitched image. It has lately been identified by the
> previously unknown photographer as having come from a Nikon D1. Do some
> math, Skip. It's six feet long! Tell me then, than that those "old Nikons"
> are "limiting". What are they limiting? Certainly with my latest algorithm -
> thanks to the University's computers - has reached new levels of
> Interpolation which makes file size in itself less relevant to image size.
> It never related to image quality.
We seem to get this from you from time to time, wanting to prove that
you interpolation algorithms do wonders and the original image size
hardly matters. The problem is that what you should us ever time is a
photo of a photo with such a small scale that it is impossible to tell
how well the print came out.
Now don't think I am trying to demand proof of you algorithm's
worth, I simply with to point out you have never once demonstrated it
to the group. You seem intent on wanting people to believe in your
system but when people has asked for a reasonable tests you have
countered that you don't need to prove anything.
The photo of the photo you link to is 385 pixels in length. From all
we can tell from your link that photo could have been taken with a cell
phone.
Scott
Annika1980
>thanks to the University's computers - has reached new levels of
>Interpolation which makes file size in itself less relevant to image size.
>It never related to image quality.
Well that's certainly great news! Now all the camera manufacturers can
end the Megapixel Race and concentrate on making inexpensive 2MP
cameras. I'm sure they'll all be clamoring to license your software
algorithm, and they can do away with that silly RAW stuff too since you
get the same results by shooting JPG, right Ryadia?
Dude, you should be shopping for a bigger boat. Your ship is about to
come in!
Btw, I got a few old shots from my 2.1MP Kodak that I'l send ya to work
on for me. I wanna put them on each side of my house so they'll need
to be at least 25' wide. Ya know what they are photos of? A bigger
house! My neighbors are gonna freak the fuck out!
Skip M
"Alienjones" <ali...@the.group> wrote in message
news:xy9Ef.233145$V7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
A) I did not know about your dyslexia. (Even if, Doug, I had recognized yet
another alias of yours, which I did not.)
B) I see no harm in asking for clarification.
C)Not sniggering, in any case.
The issue, as Mark stated is one of cropping, not enlargement. The UT
doesn't have access to your algorithms, I'm sure.
BTW, a shutter for my 1n is $100. Certainly less than the cost of replacing
it.
Skip M
>
> "Skip M" <shadow...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:Ij3Ef.18508$sA3.4534@fed1read02...
>
> : >
> : What is a Canon 1Dn? Do you mean a 1n? I have one of those, too, and,
> as
> : my pre digital workhorse, I used it a lot. Still going strong, I'm
> taking
> : it out this weekend, on sort of a nostalgia tour...
> : As far as digital goes, the size files those old Nikons that the SD
> : Union-Trib are using can be a bit, shall we say, limiting.
> :
> : --
> : Skip Middleton
> : http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
> :
> :
> You knew about my dyslexia Skip yet still make fun of it from time to
> time.
> That's OK. giggle away.
By the way, Doug, I am extremely disappointed in you. I have never made fun
of anyone's disabilities, here or anywhere else, yours or anyone else's. It
is not my nature, and for you to gratuitously accuse me of that is about as
low as you have ever gone.
Alienjones
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138830032.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
:
Hey that's good. Interneg prints are OK.
Take a picture of it and post that, hey?