Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon
condo...@yahoo.com
I've always used Nikon, and have a number of FE and FM
cameras, and whole bunch of fixed focal length lenses.
I took my equipment to the store the other day, and
noticed a few issues.
The focusing screen in that D70 was just a matte/Fresnel.
There was no split in the middle where you can focus
by lining up two lines together. And it's hard to tell
in the small viewfinder if the picture is in focus.
The other thing I noticed is that the viewfinder screen
is smaller. I'm older now, and it seems I need my glasses
to focus through there. And, in the catalog, there is
no diopter (?) correction for the D70. They have some
for other Nikons, but not the D70.
So, this brings up the question, if there is any
real advantage to buying a Nikon digital so that I can
use my old fixed manual focus sharp lenses, if I can't
focus them.
I could buy used Nikon autofocus lenses if I bought
the Nikon. But then I could just buy used Canon
lenses too if I bought a Canon.
I understand that Canon has brought out a newer
camera lately. Does anyone know how it compares
on these issues? Does it have a diopter? Does it
have different screens?
How does the Canon compare in any other area that
you think is significant? Advantages? Disadvantages?
Thanks a lot
GTO
> cameras, and whole bunch of fixed focal length lenses.
>
I still use my FM from 1979. Even the MD-12 still works. A great manual
camera.
> The focusing screen in that D70 was just a matte/Fresnel.
> There was no split in the middle where you can focus
> by lining up two lines together. And it's hard to tell
> in the small viewfinder if the picture is in focus.
Manual focusing with my D70 sucks. I wish it had a decent view-finder with
exchangeable focusing screens. I can manually focus with my D70 but I had to
practice a lot.
> The other thing I noticed is that the viewfinder screen
> is smaller. I'm older now, and it seems I need my glasses
> to focus through there. And, in the catalog, there is
> no diopter (?) correction for the D70. They have some
> for other Nikons, but not the D70.
Hmm, my D70 has a diopter adjustment.
> So, this brings up the question, if there is any
> real advantage to buying a Nikon digital so that I can
> use my old fixed manual focus sharp lenses, if I can't
> focus them.
Not yet. But we are all praying that Nikon will soon notice our pleading.
But if you are in a hurry, you can always default to the slightly more
expensive D2X ;-)
> I understand that Canon has brought out a newer
> camera lately. Does anyone know how it compares
> on these issues? Does it have a diopter? Does it
> have different screens?
Get the 5D if you can part yourself from your Nikon gears. Get it and run!
>
> How does the Canon compare in any other area that
> you think is significant? Advantages? Disadvantages?
>
Regarding glass: no difference
Regarding DSLR camera body: one year ahead. No?
Gregor
Mark˛
The Canon with similarly small sensors have similar issues with manual
focus...
But...
The latest from Canon is the full-frame 5D, which will have a large, bright
viewfinder, more in keeping with what you're used to. It also accepts
different screens, and has diopter adjustment.
$3K gets you 12.8 megapixels, and the above.
Richard H.
> The focusing screen in that D70 was just a matte/Fresnel.
> There was no split in the middle where you can focus
> by lining up two lines together. And it's hard to tell
> in the small viewfinder if the picture is in focus.
Bingo. Not just because it's digital - because it's auto-focus. You'll
find this with film AF cameras too. It's nearly impossible to manually
focus sharply with the current SLR focus screens.
They seem to have cut a corner here since "nobody would want to focus
manually with an AF camera". Sadly, there's not an after-market option
to add a split prism or other style of focusing screen. (If somebody
knows of one for the N80 or D70, please tell!)
This may help - it's a viewfinder magnifier for Nikons. It looks a
little goofy, but it's on my to-buy list anyway...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=37321&is=GREY
and it needs this:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=37445&is=REG
> The other thing I noticed is that the viewfinder screen
> is smaller. I'm older now, and it seems I need my glasses
> to focus through there. And, in the catalog, there is
> no diopter (?) correction for the D70. They have some
> for other Nikons, but not the D70.
Interesting point. I hadn't noticed.
I would speculate that if the viewfinder screen is smaller, it's because
the image being cast onto the sensor / viewfinder is smaller. (Though
I'd think that should be correctable in the viewfinder regardless. Hmmm.)
If you search on "nikon diopter d70" at http://www.bhphotovideo.com, you
will see there is a full range of them. There is also a minor
adjustment built into the body. If you're fortunate not to have an
astigmatism, they will work OK; otherwise, you'll need to keep your
glasses on when shooting.
> I could buy used Nikon autofocus lenses if I bought
> the Nikon. But then I could just buy used Canon
> lenses too if I bought a Canon.
Very true.
Ironically, some of Nikon's very good lenses are manual-focus only, such
as their 50mm f/1.2.
> How does the Canon compare in any other area that
> you think is significant? Advantages? Disadvantages?
Let the religious battles begin. :-)
After much debate, it's usually apparent that both are excellent
systems. Canon seems to lead in some areas, and Nikon in others.
Aside from the obvious things like lens selection available, look at
subtler things too like compression tech (number of images per MB),
battery life, continuous rate buffer sizes, etc.
Cheers,
Richard
Mike Warren
> Dear experts,
Not me, but I'll answer anyway. :-)
> The focusing screen in that D70 was just a matte/Fresnel.
> There was no split in the middle where you can focus
> by lining up two lines together. And it's hard to tell
> in the small viewfinder if the picture is in focus.
Yes, Manual focus is more difficult on most dSLRs. The
full frame ones would be better since the focus screen is
bigger.
There are after-market focus screens available for some
dSLRs. I don't have any personal experience though.
> And, in the catalog, there is no diopter (?) correction
> for the D70. They have some for other Nikons, but
> not the D70.
The D70/D70s and D50 all have viewfinder diopter adjustment.
It's under the left side of the eye cup.
--
Mike Warren
My web gallery: http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/mike
Wayne
condo...@yahoo.com says...
>And, in the catalog, there is
>no diopter (?) correction for the D70. They have some
>for other Nikons, but not the D70.
The D70 has a small slider on the right side of its eyepiece, allowing
small adjustment from -1.6 to +0.5 diopter.
There are also optional stronger replacement eyepieces listed in the
Accessories section of the D70 web page at www.nikonusa.com. The
builtin slider still works to modify those lens by -1.6 to +0.5.
Richard H.
> The latest from Canon is the full-frame 5D, which will have a large, bright
> viewfinder, more in keeping with what you're used to. It also accepts
> different screens, and has diopter adjustment.
> $3K gets you 12.8 megapixels, and the above.
A friend and I were debating the longevity of "digital"-specific lenses.
He made an interesting observation about the prospect of full-frame
CCD sensors becoming the new trend...
* With the smaller sensors, we're "beyond" the resolution of the mass
market needs, even at 6 or 8MP. (i.e., it's good enough for most 35mm
purposes, and while consumers may ask for higher resolution, there
aren't enough willing to pay for it.)
* The pros need higher-res imaging, but they can just as easily switch
to a medium-format body with a digital back and bear the cost of a
really expensive sensor. (i.e., there's already a solution for this
market segment)
* At a manufacturing level, full-frame sensors will always be more
expensive to make because they have a higher probability of defects and
fewer of them fit on a manufacturing wafer (more scrap material, lower #
units per batch, & higher defect rate).
* "Digital" format lenses are cheaper to produce (and sell), and can be
smaller and lighter because they require less glass for the same result.
Looking at the above if I were a camera manufacturer, I'd be focusing on
increasing resolution by improving density of the smaller sensors at the
same / less cost, not on physically increasing the size of the sensor.
It'll be very interesting to see if Canon's 5D is setting a new trend,
or a short-lived idea.
Cheers,
Richard
Nikon User
"Mike Warren" <miwa-not...@or-this-cairnscarsound.com.au> wrote:
> Yes, Manual focus is more difficult on most dSLRs. The full frame
> ones would be better since the focus screen is bigger.
It's the same thing with 35MM autofocus cameras. The N8008s doesn't
have a split image device either.
Mark˛
At this point, the 5D isn't for the masses. A quickie indicator of this is
its lack of built-in flash. This is for people who wouldn't likely neither
want/need nor be satisfied with the pop-gun sized built-in flash. It is for
serious photographers who want their wide angle lenses to work...and who
want the high res of 12.8MP without sacrificing quality to noise. They have
also indicated a plan to keep both the 1.6 crop-factor sensor range, and the
full frame sizes in the future.
The other side of the business coin you describe above is this:
Canon makes most of their money from the sale of lenses. As sensors grow
both in size and pixel density, we are quickly reaching a point where lens
quality is paramount. Sensors are now capable of revealing lens' optical
flaws. From a marketing standpoint, this could be good for Canon, since it
would then "justify" the purchase of their highest quality (and, by far,
their highest priced) lenses. It is already happening. More and more
advanced amateurs seem to be gravitating toward larger, faster, more
expesnive glass. This is where Canon will make a mint. If they were to
limit themselves to small sensors (which also lead to lower threshholds for
noise), they'd only be inviting lesser lens manufacturers to nab their cash
cow (lenses), since everyone could churn out small-sensor-optimized lenses.
I think Canon is not only on the right track business-wise, but they are
also in a position of command in terms of utilizing the larger sensor's
capacity for high-res/low-noise imaging.
-Mark
DD
even number here)@cox..net> says...
> At this point, the 5D isn't for the masses. A quickie indicator of this is
> its lack of built-in flash. This is for people who wouldn't likely neither
> want/need nor be satisfied with the pop-gun sized built-in flash. It is for
> serious photographers who want their wide angle lenses to work...and who
> want the high res of 12.8MP without sacrificing quality to noise. They have
> also indicated a plan to keep both the 1.6 crop-factor sensor range, and the
> full frame sizes in the future.
Well, here's something for you to chew on: on Friday last week I popped
into one of the local photographic shops and I was fiddling around with
the 5D, chatting to the manager. I asked him how much interest he had in
the camera and he said that he had taken about 10 orders for it, but
amazingly all of them were from people who were not regular
photographers. They were mostly rich folks who had bought the camera
(with one of the crappy kit lenses) because it was the newest thing and
they had to had it.
> The other side of the business coin you describe above is this:
> Canon makes most of their money from the sale of lenses.
I disagree. Most of their money comes from selling office equipment and
supplies. On the imaging side the bulk of the revenue that funds their
operation is made from P&S digital cameras.
--
DD (everything is temporary)
www.dallasdahms.com
Mark˛
> In article <Pmm3f.1415$UF4.617@fed1read02>, "Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest
> even number here)@cox..net> says...
>> At this point, the 5D isn't for the masses. A quickie indicator of
>> this is its lack of built-in flash. This is for people who wouldn't
>> likely neither want/need nor be satisfied with the pop-gun sized
>> built-in flash. It is for serious photographers who want their wide
>> angle lenses to work...and who want the high res of 12.8MP without
>> sacrificing quality to noise. They have also indicated a plan to
>> keep both the 1.6 crop-factor sensor range, and the full frame sizes
>> in the future.
>
> Well, here's something for you to chew on: on Friday last week I
> popped into one of the local photographic shops and I was fiddling
> around with the 5D, chatting to the manager. I asked him how much
> interest he had in the camera and he said that he had taken about 10
> orders for it, but amazingly all of them were from people who were
> not regular photographers. They were mostly rich folks who had bought
> the camera (with one of the crappy kit lenses) because it was the
> newest thing and they had to had it.
There will always be people like that.
I've seen people hauling around Leicas for the same reason: They think they
look cool holding one. I'm sure that happens with all sorts of
things...cars...motorcycles...guns...and cameras. Meanwhile, those who
actually know how to use a camera are using them well, regardless of how
many dorks with money there might be--posing in their mirrors holding their
new toy.
>> The other side of the business coin you describe above is this:
>> Canon makes most of their money from the sale of lenses.
>
> I disagree. Most of their money comes from selling office equipment
> and supplies. On the imaging side the bulk of the revenue that funds
> their operation is made from P&S digital cameras.
Since this is a discussion about photography equipment, I thought it would
go without saying that I was referring to SLR photo equitpment $$ coming
from sale of lenses, as opposed to bodies.
-Though actually, I suspect that with the huge successes of digital bodies,
that may be swinging a bit.
I don't know.
Philip Homburg
<condo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The focusing screen in that D70 was just a matte/Fresnel.
>There was no split in the middle where you can focus
>by lining up two lines together. And it's hard to tell
>in the small viewfinder if the picture is in focus.
>
>The other thing I noticed is that the viewfinder screen
>is smaller. I'm older now, and it seems I need my glasses
>to focus through there. And, in the catalog, there is
>no diopter (?) correction for the D70. They have some
>for other Nikons, but not the D70.
I have a D1 (for fun and experiments, my 'real' photos are still on film).
In my experience, the ground glass in the D1 is quite suitable for manual
focus (I only have manual focus Nikkors).
The screen in the D1 can be replaced, but I don't think that Nikon makes a
screen with focussing aids.
The resolution of the D1 is a bit low, but the D1X may be a option. Second
hand prices aren't all that high. And you get good compatibility with
your manual focus Nikkors.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
DoN. Nichols
> Dear experts,
>
> I've always used Nikon, and have a number of FE and FM
> cameras, and whole bunch of fixed focal length lenses.
>
> I took my equipment to the store the other day, and
> noticed a few issues.
>
> The focusing screen in that D70 was just a matte/Fresnel.
> There was no split in the middle where you can focus
> by lining up two lines together. And it's hard to tell
> in the small viewfinder if the picture is in focus.
That can be a problem, as the viewfinder screen (permanent one,
not changeable like the Nikon F was) is optimized for working with the
autofocus mechanism.
> The other thing I noticed is that the viewfinder screen
> is smaller. I'm older now, and it seems I need my glasses
> to focus through there. And, in the catalog, there is
> no diopter (?) correction for the D70. They have some
> for other Nikons, but not the D70.
There is none in the catalog because it is built into the
camera. There is a ribbed sliding object just to the right of the
eyepiece which can be used to adjust the diopter of the viewfinder
eyepiece. To set that correctly, turn on the grid and the zone-of-focus
indicators to give your eye something to judge the focus by. (These
also help when focusing a lens, once the eyepiece is tuned, because they
can help to anchor the focus of the eye, which can otherwise be pulled
by an out-of-focus image -- as could an eye using the clear spot version
of the Nikon F viewfinder, which is why there was a fine black '+' in
the center of the spot.
> So, this brings up the question, if there is any
> real advantage to buying a Nikon digital so that I can
> use my old fixed manual focus sharp lenses, if I can't
> focus them.
You can focus them -- but if they have no built-in electrical
contacts, you cannot use the camera's metering system with them. The
metering system for the D70 *must* see a chip in the lens. Some of the
more expensive Nikon cameras will still work with any lens with the AI
aperture ring (a couple of tabs on it to talk to sensors on the camera.)
> I could buy used Nikon autofocus lenses if I bought
> the Nikon. But then I could just buy used Canon
> lenses too if I bought a Canon.
If your lenses have the chip, you can use them with the D70
metering once you tune the viewfinder to your eyeglass prescription.
> I understand that Canon has brought out a newer
> camera lately. Does anyone know how it compares
> on these issues? Does it have a diopter? Does it
> have different screens?
I presume that it, also, has a built-in diopter adjustment like
the Nikon D70. I don't know whether it has interchangeable screens, and
this may be a function of *which* Cannon you are talking about. There
are several, just as there are several Nikon DSLRs. The D70 is the one
which I happen to have, so I can answer your implied question about the
diopter correction.
> How does the Canon compare in any other area that
> you think is significant? Advantages? Disadvantages?
Again -- *which* Cannon, compared against which of the Nikon
cameras?
If I had the money, I would be very tempted to change to the
D2x, which would allow me to meter with some of my older lenses which
can't be "chipped". (I had a nice 180mm f2.8 manual lens "chipped" so
it will work nicely with the metering in the D70, though it still has no
autofocus.
You can also get used lenses *with* the autofocus. One of mine
(a 50mm f1.4) was obtained used, and I expect to get others as time goes
on. (I also expect to perform some modifications on some really old
ones to allow me to actually mount them on the D70. Those too old to
have the AI aperture ring won't mount, as the solid aperture ring
interferes with the sensor that assures the D70 that a lens has been
stopped down all the way.
Good luck,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnic...@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
DD
condo...@yahoo.com says...
> Dear experts,
>
> I've always used Nikon, and have a number of FE and FM
> cameras, and whole bunch of fixed focal length lenses.
>
> I took my equipment to the store the other day, and
> noticed a few issues.
>
> The focusing screen in that D70 was just a matte/Fresnel.
> There was no split in the middle where you can focus
> by lining up two lines together. And it's hard to tell
> in the small viewfinder if the picture is in focus.
The modern Nikon cameras use an electronic rangefinder device of some
sorts to indicate when you are in focus. A little green dot in the
viewfinder lights up when the lens has achieved focus and arrows either
side of it tell the user which way to turn the focussing ring to achieve
focus.
> The other thing I noticed is that the viewfinder screen
> is smaller. I'm older now, and it seems I need my glasses
> to focus through there. And, in the catalog, there is
> no diopter (?) correction for the D70. They have some
> for other Nikons, but not the D70.
Definitely has that feature.
> So, this brings up the question, if there is any
> real advantage to buying a Nikon digital so that I can
> use my old fixed manual focus sharp lenses, if I can't
> focus them.
You won't be able to use the cameras metering with a non-CPU lens. You
would have to meter using a handheld or accessory shoe meter.
> I could buy used Nikon autofocus lenses if I bought
> the Nikon. But then I could just buy used Canon
> lenses too if I bought a Canon.
Ooohh! OOOOOHHHHHHH!
Don't go there! Canon is an EVIL company that makes evil products. If
you buy one you will surely be on the fast track to hell.
> I understand that Canon has brought out a newer
> camera lately. Does anyone know how it compares
> on these issues? Does it have a diopter? Does it
> have different screens?
>
> How does the Canon compare in any other area that
> you think is significant? Advantages? Disadvantages?
Canon cameras change so often that should anything go wrong with your
current model in a couple of years time, the chances of getting spares
to do feasible repairs is unlikely. In my opinion unless you are buying
at the top end of the Canon offering you are playing a hit and miss
game.
DD
even number here)@cox..net> says...
> > Well, here's something for you to chew on: on Friday last week I
> > popped into one of the local photographic shops and I was fiddling
> > around with the 5D, chatting to the manager. I asked him how much
> > interest he had in the camera and he said that he had taken about 10
> > orders for it, but amazingly all of them were from people who were
> > not regular photographers. They were mostly rich folks who had bought
> > the camera (with one of the crappy kit lenses) because it was the
> > newest thing and they had to had it.
>
> There will always be people like that.
> I've seen people hauling around Leicas for the same reason: They think they
> look cool holding one. I'm sure that happens with all sorts of
> things...cars...motorcycles...guns...and cameras. Meanwhile, those who
> actually know how to use a camera are using them well, regardless of how
> many dorks with money there might be--posing in their mirrors holding their
> new toy.
Yep, too much disposable income. I once had a chat to a guy I saw
brandishing an F5 with a crappy Sigma lens on it. I wanted to know what
he thought of the camera and he prattled on about how it took the best
photos he ever saw. Sounds like another guy we know who owns an EOS1v.
> >> The other side of the business coin you describe above is this:
> >> Canon makes most of their money from the sale of lenses.
> >
> > I disagree. Most of their money comes from selling office equipment
> > and supplies. On the imaging side the bulk of the revenue that funds
> > their operation is made from P&S digital cameras.
>
> Since this is a discussion about photography equipment, I thought it would
> go without saying that I was referring to SLR photo equitpment $$ coming
> from sale of lenses, as opposed to bodies.
>
> -Though actually, I suspect that with the huge successes of digital bodies,
> that may be swinging a bit.
> I don't know.
The big money spinner for any manufacturer is the mass market. Give them
what they want and use the profits to fund development in other areas
where technology is more cutting edge. Same thing happens in the motor
industry with Formula One and Rally Championships.
sierra
Mass market - GM, Ford, VW - losses
Porsche - profits
Skip M
"DD (Rox)" <ro...@empirerods.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1db825d69...@news.mweb.co.za...
In article <Pmm3f.1415$UF4.617@fed1read02>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
even number here)@cox..net> says...
> At this point, the 5D isn't for the masses. A quickie indicator of this
> is
> its lack of built-in flash. This is for people who wouldn't likely
> neither
> want/need nor be satisfied with the pop-gun sized built-in flash. It is
> for
> serious photographers who want their wide angle lenses to work...and who
> want the high res of 12.8MP without sacrificing quality to noise. They
> have
> also indicated a plan to keep both the 1.6 crop-factor sensor range, and
> the
> full frame sizes in the future.
>Well, here's something for you to chew on: on Friday last week I popped
>into one of the local photographic shops and I was fiddling around with
>the 5D, chatting to the manager. I asked him how much interest he had in
>the camera and he said that he had taken about 10 orders for it, but
>amazingly all of them were from people who were not regular
>photographers. They were mostly rich folks who had bought the camera
>(with one of the crappy kit lenses) because it was the newest thing and
>they had to had it.
The only "kit" I've heard of for the 5D is a European bundle with the 24-105
f4L IS, hardly a "crappy kit lens." C'mon, Dallas, at least try for a
little objectivity. I was talking to the manager of the local Calumet,
yesterday, and his comments were pretty much diametrically opposed to those
of your store manager, most of the interest is from people like me, part
time pros or full time pros who can't justify the cost of the 1Ds MkII.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Skip M
"sierra" <cfhu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129191260....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> "Money spinner" - yes "Profit spinner" - no.
>
> Mass market - GM, Ford, VW - losses
>
> Porsche - profits
>
Porsche was nearly out of business 10 years ago, the Boxter is what saved
them, a (relatively) mass market Porsche.
Chrysler-profits-|
|--DCX-losses.
Mercedes-losses-|
The mass market drives profits in a properly managed company, which, at this
point, GM and Ford are not. Toyota, Honda and Renault/Nissan are largely
mass market manufacturers, and very profitable.
Alex
wrote:
>The big money spinner for any manufacturer is the mass market. Give them
>what they want and use the profits to fund development in other areas
>where technology is more cutting edge. Same thing happens in the motor
>industry with Formula One and Rally Championships.
Not anymore as the mass market cameras are becoming commodities.
(http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05080802nikonprofit_soars.asp)
The profits are in the high end digicams and dslrs. I believe all the
manufacturers are or have realized this already.
--
Alex
atheist #2007
Alex
>Bingo. Not just because it's digital - because it's auto-focus. You'll
>find this with film AF cameras too. It's nearly impossible to manually
>focus sharply with the current SLR focus screens.
Not just that. AF lenses are optimized for quick AF speed, which means
that a small turn of the focus ring will give you more of a change in
the focus distance compared to older (MF) lenses.
--
Alex
atheist #2007
Tony Polson
>So, this brings up the question, if there is any
>real advantage to buying a Nikon digital so that I can
>use my old fixed manual focus sharp lenses, if I can't
>focus them.
You should be aware that your manual focus lenses will mount to the
D70, but the camera's metering will not work. You will either have to
use a hand held meter and set the exposure manually, or use trial and
error, informed by the histogram.
Alex
>I could buy used Nikon autofocus lenses if I bought
>the Nikon. But then I could just buy used Canon
>lenses too if I bought a Canon.
Stay with your Nikon. Canon bodies are designed for quick AF just like
Nikons. You're not going to find a body to deliver you from this
problem.
--
Alex
atheist #2007
DD
says...
> >Well, here's something for you to chew on: on Friday last week I popped
> >into one of the local photographic shops and I was fiddling around with
> >the 5D, chatting to the manager. I asked him how much interest he had in
> >the camera and he said that he had taken about 10 orders for it, but
> >amazingly all of them were from people who were not regular
> >photographers. They were mostly rich folks who had bought the camera
> >(with one of the crappy kit lenses) because it was the newest thing and
> >they had to had it.
>
> The only "kit" I've heard of for the 5D is a European bundle with the 24-105
> f4L IS, hardly a "crappy kit lens." C'mon, Dallas, at least try for a
> little objectivity. I was talking to the manager of the local Calumet,
> yesterday, and his comments were pretty much diametrically opposed to those
> of your store manager, most of the interest is from people like me, part
> time pros or full time pros who can't justify the cost of the 1Ds MkII.
I was talking about the 28-135mm and 28-105m zoom lenses. I look at
those as being nothing more than kit lenses, normally recommended by the
sales person.
There certainly is a lot of interest in the 5D from people who would
like to own one, but as I said all the orders he has taken are from
people who can *afford* one, none of whom are photographers in the true
sense.
"Objectivity"? My objectivity for Canon went down the same hole as the
thousands of dollars I wasted buying into the brand in the first place.
Thieves. That's what they are. Conniving thieves who will ever see
another cent of my hard earned dough.
Chris Down
"Alex" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:k0isk1hnp75ibnu5b...@4ax.com...
With CCD chips for cameras so much of a commodity it is expected that by
next year every new mobile phone sold will have a camera built it. Of
course most camera phones have poor lenses and take rotten pictures but they
are a threat to the point and shoot digitals. That is why the camera
companies are trying to move up market, in the next few years point and
shoot digital cameras will have almost zero profit per unit.
DSLRs will always be smaller volume sellers than camera phones and cheap
point and shoots but they will be the only source of profit for the camera
makers. It will remain so as long as good optics cost top money and pros
and keen amateurs value quality.
pch
<condo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129176367.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> to focus through there. And, in the catalog, there is
> no diopter (?) correction for the D70. They have some
> for other Nikons, but not the D70.
TheD 70 has a diopter adj.
Scott Schuckert
<ro...@empirerods.com> wrote:
> Yep, too much disposable income. I once had a chat to a guy I saw
> brandishing an F5 with a crappy Sigma lens on it. I wanted to know what
> he thought of the camera and he prattled on about how it took the best
> photos he ever saw. Sounds like another guy we know who owns an EOS1v.
Heh, heh. You know who the best retail customers are (or were)?
DENTISTS. When I had my camera stores, the dentists who came in were
incredible hardware junkies. One guy wanted to own - and nearly did -
the entire Nikon catalog. I mean, stupid stuff like Nikon-brand,
darkroom-only bulk film loaders. I know EXACTLY the people you're
talking about!
Boleslaw Ciesielski
> A friend and I were debating the longevity of "digital"-specific lenses.
> He made an interesting observation about the prospect of full-frame CCD
> sensors becoming the new trend...
> * The pros need higher-res imaging, but they can just as easily switch
> to a medium-format body with a digital back and bear the cost of a
> really expensive sensor. (i.e., there's already a solution for this
> market segment)
This is not true in many areas, for the same reasons it was not true in
the film world.
Photojournalism, sports, wildlife etc. all require speed, portability
and/or long lenses that are not practical with medium format. Digital
has not changed that.
Bolek
Duncan Chesley
>Dear experts,
>
[snip]
>
>The focusing screen in that D70 was just a matte/Fresnel.
>There was no split in the middle where you can focus
>by lining up two lines together. And it's hard to tell
>in the small viewfinder if the picture is in focus.
[snip]
I'm in your boat. I used my Nikon FE and manual lenses for 20 years, I
have bad eyes - bifocals and laser treatment. I was worried, too, by
the reports of the small, dark viewfinder. But I've had my D70 for
several months. I use it with my manual lenses frequently. Focus has
never been an issue (except that I miss DOF markings on the new
lenses). There is an LED in the viewfinder that lights up when you are
in focus using a manual lens. It is very sensitive. I also use the
viewfinder with my glasses on.
HTH
Duncan
Roy
>
> I've always used Nikon, and have a number of FE and FM
> cameras, and whole bunch of fixed focal length lenses.
>
> I took my equipment to the store the other day, and
> noticed a few issues.
>
> There was no split in the middle where you can focus
> by lining up two lines together. And it's hard to tell
> in the small viewfinder if the picture is in focus.
Because, of course, it is an Auto Focus Camera. None of them, that I know
of, have VF focussing aids. You just leave the Camera on AF, and when you
reach sharp focus with your manual lens, the In Focus indicator light comes
on.
> The other thing I noticed is that the viewfinder screen
> is smaller. I'm older now, and it seems I need my glasses
> to focus through there. And, in the catalog, there is
> no diopter (?) correction for the D70. They have some
> for other Nikons, but not the D70.
>
The VF is using much the same optics as the F80 / N80 film Camera. The
screen has just been masked down to match the Sensor size.
The D70 most certainly does have built in Dioptre Correction
> So, this brings up the question, if there is any
> real advantage to buying a Nikon digital so that I can
> use my old fixed manual focus sharp lenses, if I can't
> focus them.
>
As explained above you can focus them, but the built in TTL meter will not
work with them. If you have a hand held meter, just use manual mode and set
the Shutter and Aperture you want. You can use the Histogram on the Review
Screen to check exposure after you take the shot.
> I could buy used Nikon autofocus lenses if I bought
> the Nikon. But then I could just buy used Canon
> lenses too if I bought a Canon.
>
That is a reasonable option, but what resale value are your AI Nikons? How
many Canon AF lenses will you need, and at what cost?
You could get the D70 Body with its Kit lens, and go from there using your
AIs when you really need them, and can take time to meter by hand.
> I understand that Canon has brought out a newer
> camera lately. Does anyone know how it compares
> on these issues? Does it have a diopter? Does it
> have different screens?
>
> How does the Canon compare in any other area that
> you think is significant? Advantages? Disadvantages?
>
> Thanks a lot
>
Be aware however that there are a lot of Canon users, who can not see any
merits in any system other than Canon, and seem totally incapable of giving
unbiased advice. There are advantages and disadvantages in both systems, but
I may well get "Flamed " for not promoting the Canon route.
Roy G
Chris Down
"Boleslaw Ciesielski" <unk...@unknown.net> wrote in message
news:dilsfi$2hh5$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu...
I was listening to the radio the other night (BBC Radio4) and the discussion
was about the greats of artistic photopgraphy. One of the points that was
made was how some people who were at a level of genius with 35mm could not
perform in medium format, and that some of the medium format greats were
hopeless with 35mm.
By all accounts they are as different as painting in water colours on the
one hand and oils on the other. Sadly I missed most of the show as I was
driving and arrived at my destination (Anyone hear all of it?)
Sure pros could afford medium format, but whether they could make the
transation is another matter. I have to say that having handled, but not
used, medium format I can see it as not being practical in many situations,
no doubt that is why 35mm is so universal..
Chris
Sheldon
<condo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129176367.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Dear experts,
>
> I've always used Nikon, and have a number of FE and FM
> cameras, and whole bunch of fixed focal length lenses.
>
> I took my equipment to the store the other day, and
> noticed a few issues.
>
> The focusing screen in that D70 was just a matte/Fresnel.
> There was no split in the middle where you can focus
> by lining up two lines together. And it's hard to tell
> in the small viewfinder if the picture is in focus.
>
> is smaller. I'm older now, and it seems I need my glasses
> to focus through there. And, in the catalog, there is
> no diopter (?) correction for the D70. They have some
> for other Nikons, but not the D70.
>
> real advantage to buying a Nikon digital so that I can
> use my old fixed manual focus sharp lenses, if I can't
> focus them.
>
> the Nikon. But then I could just buy used Canon
> lenses too if I bought a Canon.
>
> camera lately. Does anyone know how it compares
> on these issues? Does it have a diopter? Does it
> have different screens?
>
> How does the Canon compare in any other area that
> you think is significant? Advantages? Disadvantages?
>
> Thanks a lot
I wouldn't go so far as to say that Canon is an evil company, but if you
have a bunch of Nikon lenses it just makes sense to go Nikon. The D70
definitely has a diopter adjustment, and you can get lenses for the
viewfinder. There is an LED that tells you when you are focused even with
manual focus, older lenses. It works. And as for the focusing screens:
Those split screen focusing aids were nice, but didn't work with all lenses.
I eventually switched all my screens to a blank screen on my old F's.
Seeing that you already have some Nikon lenses, I think you would be better
off with the Nikon.
wilt
the camera and he said that he had taken about 10 orders for it, but
amazingly all of them were from people who were not regular
photographers. They were mostly rich folks who had bought the camera
(with one of the crappy kit lenses) because it was the newest thing and
they had to had it. <<
On another newsgroup was a poll "Are you upgrading from your 20D to
5D?" about 2/3 of the responses were 'No'.
Those who are upgrading are either must be firmly convinced of
visible superiority of 5D FF images (which is not quite so dramatic a
difference as testing is showing), or they feel that the 1.6 crop is
too restricting in use of existing arsenal of lenses, particularly in
the wide angle range, and either have an employer paying for the
upgrade (so even the backup to the 1DsII is FF) or have the resources
to spend nearly incremental $2000 for FF.
eawck...@yahoo.com
> I was listening to the radio the other night (BBC Radio4) and the discussion
> was about the greats of artistic photopgraphy. One of the points that was
> made was how some people who were at a level of genius with 35mm could not
> perform in medium format, and that some of the medium format greats were
> hopeless with 35mm.
Don't believe everything you hear on the radio?
> By all accounts they are as different as painting in water colours on the
> one hand and oils on the other. Sadly I missed most of the show as I was
> driving and arrived at my destination (Anyone hear all of it?)
Find someone who is laughing themselves sick? The whole thesis makes
absolutely no sense unless one is willing to argue that there is a
class of (say) painter that can only create "good" works on a sheet of
3:2 canvas, but would be "hopeless" if the substrate was square (or
some other aspect ratio).
Chris Brown
wilt <wi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>On another newsgroup was a poll "Are you upgrading from your 20D to
>5D?" about 2/3 of the responses were 'No'.
> Those who are upgrading are either must be firmly convinced of
>visible superiority of 5D FF images (which is not quite so dramatic a
>difference as testing is showing), or they feel that the 1.6 crop is
>too restricting in use of existing arsenal of lenses,
Neither of these were my main reasons for upgrading from a 10D.
Tony Polson
>No, you put your Lecia and Zeiss lenses on your Canon 1DsMkII. The 5D
>is a big disappointment in that there are problems with it using them.
>
>http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/292899 (problems with Zeiss)
>
>http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/292634 (problems with Lecia)
No doubt Canon want to sell EF lenses to 5D users, rather than seeing
them use Leica and Carl Zeiss glass instead.
The huge interest in using Leica and Carl Zeiss lenses on Canon DSLRs
makes me wonder whether it would make good commercial sense for Leica
to manufacture lenses with the Canon EF mount.
Tony Polson
>I wouldn't go so far as to say that Canon is an evil company, but if you
>have a bunch of Nikon lenses it just makes sense to go Nikon. The D70
>definitely has a diopter adjustment, and you can get lenses for the
>viewfinder. There is an LED that tells you when you are focused even with
>manual focus, older lenses. It works. And as for the focusing screens:
>Those split screen focusing aids were nice, but didn't work with all lenses.
>I eventually switched all my screens to a blank screen on my old F's.
>
>Seeing that you already have some Nikon lenses, I think you would be better
>off with the Nikon.
That's poor advice, given that the OP's Nikon lenses are manual focus.
The D70's metering doesn't work with pre-AF Nikkors, so choosing the
D70 means you have to buy a hand held light meter too. Or, you can
shoot by trial and error using the histogram.
Alternatively, buy a Canon DSLR and use all your Nikon manual focus
lenses with an adapter. You get metered manual and aperture priority
AE (automatic exposure) working with the lenses stopped down.
Ironic but true. The best DSLR for manual focus Nikkors is a Canon!
;-)
Alternatively, the OP could buy a Nikon D2X or D2Hs, both of which
offer full metering - including Matrix - with manual focus Nikkors.
Skip M
Well, it was hard to tell that you meant the 28-135, since it is hardly
"crappy," either. It's a good lens, and a good match for the 5D, too.
Dallas, it's nice you discovered your mistake in time to tell all the world
about how bad Canon's equipment is. Now is about time to take a break,
because you are starting to sound like StevieG/George Preddy. No Canon
mention can go unremarked upon by you and your vitriol are sadly misplaced.
I've enjoyed some of the interplay with you, but your inferences about the
people who are buying the 5D are probably wide of the mark, and not
appreciated.
Skip M
news:1129224033.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
justify the price, for others, it does. Even though the resolution is a
bigger jump over the 20D than the 20D was over the 10D, it is being seen
that much of that improvement is lost in the lenses, in the real world, not
in the lab. Many others feel that the 10-22 EF-S mount lens combined with
the 17-85 IS gives enough wide angle and a good carrying around lens, so the
full frame sensor is moot. And many don't even know how a spot meter can be
an advantage (or detriment) so that doesn't affect many 20D owners. They
like the apparent reach that they get with the 1.6x sensor and feel that the
5fps is an advantage over 3fps. The 5D wasn't built with these people in
mind.
Some of us don't feel that way, though. Some of us want wide and superwide
fixed focal length lenses, not available for the 20D, some of us want WA
zooms that are faster than f3.5, others missed the spot meter from their
film cameras, or appreciate the heft of the 5D.
Philip Homburg
eawck...@yahoo.com <eawck...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Chris Down wrote:
>> By all accounts they are as different as painting in water colours on the
>> one hand and oils on the other. Sadly I missed most of the show as I was
>> driving and arrived at my destination (Anyone hear all of it?)
>
>Find someone who is laughing themselves sick? The whole thesis makes
>absolutely no sense unless one is willing to argue that there is a
>class of (say) painter that can only create "good" works on a sheet of
>3:2 canvas, but would be "hopeless" if the substrate was square (or
>some other aspect ratio).
It seems to me that it is more a format size issue. Medium format has less
DoF at the same aperture number as 35mm.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Philip Homburg
Roy <royp...@iona-guesthouse.co.uk> wrote:
><condo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1129176367.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> There was no split in the middle where you can focus
>> by lining up two lines together. And it's hard to tell
>> in the small viewfinder if the picture is in focus.
>
>Because, of course, it is an Auto Focus Camera. None of them, that I know
>of, have VF focussing aids. You just leave the Camera on AF, and when you
>reach sharp focus with your manual lens, the In Focus indicator light comes
>on.
Nikon typically makes screens with focusing aids for their professional
film based auto-focus cameras. For some reason, they don't offer similar
screens for their DSLRs.
dig...@mailinator.com
level finder the other day and I couldn't do anything with it, give me
my D70...
William Graham
"Skip M" <shadow...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Dor3f.1432$UF4.1026@fed1read02...
>
> "sierra" <cfhu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1129191260....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> "Money spinner" - yes "Profit spinner" - no.
>>
>> Mass market - GM, Ford, VW - losses
>>
>> Porsche - profits
>>
>
> Porsche was nearly out of business 10 years ago, the Boxter is what saved
> them, a (relatively) mass market Porsche.
>
> Chrysler-profits-|
> |--DCX-losses.
> Mercedes-losses-|
>
> The mass market drives profits in a properly managed company, which, at
> this point, GM and Ford are not. Toyota, Honda and Renault/Nissan are
> largely mass market manufacturers, and very profitable.
Porsche owns over 18% of VW now.....
Mark˛
I've often wondered why they don't.
Perhaps they figure their legions of posers wouldn't feel quite as proud
carrying around a "mixed emblem" necklace (camera). After all...one musn't
confuse one's uppity friends by sporting TWO logos around one's neck...
:)
Mark˛
Dallas and I called a truce some time back...and then enjoyed playful
banter.
But he's not entered into full Troll mode, and it's becoming tiresome.
-Nearly plonked him a couple days ago...
Mark˛
Oops!
That SHOULD have said, "He's NOW entered into full Troll Mode!!!!!"
Skip M
news:ELWdnRq3wff...@comcast.com...
Skip M
news:ckD3f.1629$UF4.821@fed1read02...
maintaining the level of objectivity that Douglas has.
Mark˛
Even Dallas says he's no longer objective.
-Go figure what he hoped to accomplish by announcing that...
?
-It does simplify the formation of opinions regarding his posts, though...
:)
Mark˛
That's what I thought, too...
Monty Bonner
"Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> condo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Dear experts,
>>
>> I've always used Nikon, and have a number of FE and FM
>> cameras, and whole bunch of fixed focal length lenses.
>>
>> I took my equipment to the store the other day, and
>> noticed a few issues.
>>
>> There was no split in the middle where you can focus
>> by lining up two lines together. And it's hard to tell
>> in the small viewfinder if the picture is in focus.
>>
>> is smaller. I'm older now, and it seems I need my glasses
>> to focus through there. And, in the catalog, there is
>> no diopter (?) correction for the D70. They have some
>> for other Nikons, but not the D70.
>>
>> So, this brings up the question, if there is any
>> real advantage to buying a Nikon digital so that I can
>> use my old fixed manual focus sharp lenses, if I can't
>> focus them.
>>
>> I could buy used Nikon autofocus lenses if I bought
>> the Nikon. But then I could just buy used Canon
>> lenses too if I bought a Canon.
>>
>> I understand that Canon has brought out a newer
>> camera lately. Does anyone know how it compares
>> on these issues? Does it have a diopter? Does it
>> have different screens?
>>
>> How does the Canon compare in any other area that
>> you think is significant? Advantages? Disadvantages?
>>
>> Thanks a lot
>
> focus...
> But...
> The latest from Canon is the full-frame 5D, which will have a large,
> bright viewfinder, more in keeping with what you're used to. It also
> accepts different screens, and has diopter adjustment.
> $3K gets you 12.8 megapixels, and the above.
>
Hello, I don't know for sure about the D70 - but the D70s has a diopter on
it's eyepiece. I know because I have it set so I don't have to take my
glasses off.
The DX lenses are "autofocus" you don't need to worry about it. You can
also manual focus it by turning it off, as well as the camera switch for
manual focus.
I checked out both cameras before I purchased my D70s, the Nikon fit my had
better than any of the cannons. An added bonus is my Girlfriend has the
film version of my camera and our lenses are switchabel. We are going to
share the costs of a good telephoto lens next year, so that is a bonus, she
can use it, and I can use it. We like nature and outdoors shots so it works
out for us.
Monty
William Graham
Well, I read that they were gradually buying VW stock, but the maximum they
can acquire will be 20%.
See:
http://us.ft.com/ftsuperpage/superpage.php?news%20id=fto092520051552010745&utm_source=Google&utm_medium=PPC&utm_campaign=NewsKW
Mark˛
> my
> Girlfriend has the film version of my camera and our lenses are
> switchabel. We are going to share the costs of a good telephoto lens
> next year, so that is a bonus, she can use it, and I can use it. We
> like nature and outdoors shots so it works out for us.
>
> Monty
Oh boy...
...I can just see the tug-o-war when you two break up--
Methinks you might want to consider a pre-pre-nuptual on the lens...
:)
DD
> In article <MPG.1db839e76...@news.mweb.co.za>, Rox
> <ro...@empirerods.com> wrote:
>
> > Yep, too much disposable income. I once had a chat to a guy I saw
> > brandishing an F5 with a crappy Sigma lens on it. I wanted to know what
> > he thought of the camera and he prattled on about how it took the best
> > photos he ever saw. Sounds like another guy we know who owns an EOS1v.
>
> Heh, heh. You know who the best retail customers are (or were)?
> DENTISTS. When I had my camera stores, the dentists who came in were
> incredible hardware junkies. One guy wanted to own - and nearly did -
> the entire Nikon catalog. I mean, stupid stuff like Nikon-brand,
> darkroom-only bulk film loaders. I know EXACTLY the people you're
> talking about!
Funny you should say that, I know two dentists who are hectically
involved in photographic equipment! Actually one's an orthodontist, but
I suppose it's the same sort of thing...
DD
even number here)@cox..net> says...
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, it was hard to tell that you meant the 28-135, since it is
> >>>> hardly "crappy," either. It's a good lens, and a good match for
> >>>> the 5D, too. Dallas, it's nice you discovered your mistake in time
> >>>> to tell all the world about how bad Canon's equipment is. Now is
> >>>> about time to take a break, because you are starting to sound like
> >>>> StevieG/George Preddy. No Canon mention can go unremarked upon by
> >>>> you and your vitriol are sadly misplaced. I've enjoyed some of the
> >>>> interplay with you, but your inferences about the people who are
> >>>> buying the 5D are probably wide of the mark, and not appreciated.
> >>>
> >>> Dallas and I called a truce some time back...and then enjoyed
> >>> playful banter.
> >>> But he's not entered into full Troll mode, and it's becoming
> >>> tiresome. -Nearly plonked him a couple days ago...
> >>
> >> Oops!
> >> That SHOULD have said, "He's NOW entered into full Troll Mode!!!!!"
> >>
> >>
> > Yeah, I made that translation/transition! ;-) And I agree, he's not
> > even maintaining the level of objectivity that Douglas has.
>
> Even Dallas says he's no longer objective.
> -Go figure what he hoped to accomplish by announcing that...
> ?
> -It does simplify the formation of opinions regarding his posts, though...
> :)
Funny how you Canon guys get upset to the point of plonking when someone
disses your precious brand.
I couldn't care if you do, but it certainly won't stop me from telling
it like it is.
BTW, Skip, that 28-135mm lens is only good for amateurs who don't know
any better. Hardly something I would recommend to someone who is serious
about photography.
And Mark, if dissing Canon is called trolling in your book, what's Bret
guilty of everytime he disses Nikon?
DD
says...
Skip.
Richard H.
>>Heh, heh. You know who the best retail customers are (or were)?
>>DENTISTS. When I had my camera stores, the dentists who came in were
>>incredible hardware junkies. One guy wanted to own - and nearly did -
>>the entire Nikon catalog. I mean, stupid stuff like Nikon-brand,
>>darkroom-only bulk film loaders. I know EXACTLY the people you're
>>talking about!
>
> Funny you should say that, I know two dentists who are hectically
> involved in photographic equipment! Actually one's an orthodontist, but
> I suppose it's the same sort of thing...
This is an odd trend; I wonder about the cause and effect with dentists
and photography. :-) Locally, there's known to be a large Internet porn
company that's owned by (you guessed it) - two dentists. No knowing if
they shoot their own pics, but I'd bet so.
Richard H.
> I had a nice 180mm f2.8 manual lens "chipped" so
> it will work nicely with the metering in the D70, though it still has no
> autofocus.
Ooooh, neat. I never heard of that, but it makes some sense. Where,
and how much?
What determines whether it can be chipped or not? Whether it has the
contacts (or can they add them)?
Richard
Mark˛
That had nothing to do with it.
I nearly plonked you when you made your ridiculous "shadow" comment.
I don't know who you are, Dallas.
You don't have to like Canon. I like Nikon. I like Pentax. I like lots of
brands. The only difference here is that you are clearly incapable of being
even remotely objective about anything any more. You seem to take some sort
of new-found pride in coming up with new ways of stating your hatred for a
*brand.* This is not only intellectually embarrassing for you, but also
indicative of someone who appears incapable of rational thought on the
subject.
I have gone to great lengths to speak with balance regarding various brands.
You, on the other hand, have taken to wearing your lack of objectivity like
a badge of honor. It's not. It merely paints you as a fool who can't rise
above his emotions, and his tiny little corner of thought.
> I couldn't care if you do, but it certainly won't stop me from telling
> it like it is.
>
> BTW, Skip, that 28-135mm lens is only good for amateurs who don't know
> any better. Hardly something I would recommend to someone who is
> serious about photography.
Please point to images that demonstrate you've somehow moved beyond the
quality of that particular lens, Dallas. I've looked at your sight, and I
can't find a basis for your opinion in this regard. What can you show in
this regard? What have you seen in your lenses that leads you to declaring
crap on anything else.
To your likely dismay...I have posted recently how my 24-70 leaves my old
28-135 behind in terms of sharpness...but I have spoken with measured,
comparative language. You, on the other hand, speak with foam frothing from
your mouth. I've lost all respect for your opinion because you've chosen a
self-declared lack of objectivity.
> And Mark, if dissing Canon is called trolling in your book, what's
> Bret guilty of everytime he disses Nikon?
Humor. He's guilty of goading, blatant...humor.
-Something you clearly don't have.
We all know Bret's schtick. You don't have a schtick, Dallas. It's just
you.
I remeber WAAAY back when Bret first started posting...I gave him crap all
the time.
-Then after a time it became clear what he was up to, and it turned into
entertainment...not to mention a number of spurts of decent photography.
You, on the other hand, are just turning into an arse.
You aren't funny, Dallas, and you don't show evidence of anything other than
your own bitterness. You merely come off as a guy who got a black eye from
the South African Canon Service Center...and as a result, has set aside
sanity to continue your mindless ravings against a brand. You have become
the poster child for why brand wars are reserved for fools.
Regarding "dissing..."
Even I have "dissed" Canon, you boob. Did you read my thread about whether
the 5D was/is over-priced for it's build quality? -About the lack of this
and that? Did you read my loudly expressed displeasure with Canon's
handling of 20D problems way back when--even though I don't own one? --When
Nikon announced specs for their new generation of topline DSLR a year or so
ago...guess who started a new thread, glowingly expressing how impressed he
was?? -That was me, Dallas. -You know...the Canon worshipper (or so you
claim).
So you see, DD...Roxy...Dallas...whoever the heck you are...
You have proven only that when it comes to discussions of equipment, you are
a closed-minded, bitter man...hell-bent on your own version of reality that
leads you to robotic responses of mindless anti-blatherings.
Other than that...You're not a bad guy.
:)
DD
even number here)@cox..net> says...
> > Funny how you Canon guys get upset to the point of plonking when
> > someone disses your precious brand.
>
> That had nothing to do with it.
> I nearly plonked you when you made your ridiculous "shadow" comment.
Ridiculous? Not really. Just obvious. Whenever I say something about
Canon, there you are, like the proverbial shadow.
> I don't know who you are, Dallas.
I don't know who any of the people on this forum are, but I can classify
them segmentally with the greatest of ease.
> You don't have to like Canon. I like Nikon. I like Pentax. I like lots of
> brands. The only difference here is that you are clearly incapable of being
> even remotely objective about anything any more. You seem to take some sort
> of new-found pride in coming up with new ways of stating your hatred for a
> *brand.* This is not only intellectually embarrassing for you, but also
> indicative of someone who appears incapable of rational thought on the
> subject.
I also like Pentax and I also like Olympus. But I will not tolerate
people saying that Canon is superior to anything else because as I have
proved over and over again, that is bullshit. There is *nothing* special
about Canon. Sadly this goes against the thought processes of yourself
and a few others around here and you get uptight about it.
> I have gone to great lengths to speak with balance regarding various brands.
> You, on the other hand, have taken to wearing your lack of objectivity like
> a badge of honor. It's not. It merely paints you as a fool who can't rise
> above his emotions, and his tiny little corner of thought.
Unlike you and the rest of the Canon worshipers I have used Nikons and
Canons extensively. In fact I was just working it out that out of the 5
years I have been sick with photograhpy disease, 3 of them were spent
using Canon equipment. So I have effectively had more experience with
Canon than I have with Nikon.
A tiny corner of thought? I don't think so, Mark. A LOT of thought has
gone into the comments I make about how crap the Canon consumer line is.
> > I couldn't care if you do, but it certainly won't stop me from telling
> > it like it is.
> >
> > BTW, Skip, that 28-135mm lens is only good for amateurs who don't know
> > any better. Hardly something I would recommend to someone who is
> > serious about photography.
>
> Please point to images that demonstrate you've somehow moved beyond the
> quality of that particular lens, Dallas. I've looked at your sight, and I
> can't find a basis for your opinion in this regard. What can you show in
> this regard? What have you seen in your lenses that leads you to declaring
> crap on anything else.
Mark...you're going to have to do better than that, m'boy. Let us begin
by you telling me what it is about my published images that leaves you
in any mind as to the notion that I don't know what I am talking about?
Are you saying the images are shit? If so, tell me how, because from
where I stand every one of them is way, way better than the snapshots
you have posted to Pbase. I say that with conviction.
I don't claim to be in the same league as someone like Simon Stanmore,
for instance, but I am a lot better than most of the people who have the
cheek to call themselves professional photographers. Of that there is no
doubt in my mind.
> To your likely dismay...I have posted recently how my 24-70 leaves my old
> 28-135 behind in terms of sharpness...but I have spoken with measured,
> comparative language. You, on the other hand, speak with foam frothing from
> your mouth. I've lost all respect for your opinion because you've chosen a
> self-declared lack of objectivity.
The 28-135mm Canon lens is a very soft lens compared to most consumer
grade Nikkors I have used with similar focal lengths (I have never used
a 24-120mm though).
But all that is besides the point, because you, like so many other
psuedo photo experts, seem to think that you can tell how good a lens is
simply by looking at a jpeg posted to the internet. FWIW, the images I
have on my site come from a variety of different sources...digital SLR's
(3 types), film SLR's (about 5 types) and rangefinders (1 type). At
least 10 different lenses too. I challenge you to tell me what equipment
took what shot.
> > And Mark, if dissing Canon is called trolling in your book, what's
> > Bret guilty of everytime he disses Nikon?
>
> Humor. He's guilty of goading, blatant...humor.
> -Something you clearly don't have.
But you just said you don't know me, so how can you make a statement
like that in the same post?
> We all know Bret's schtick. You don't have a schtick, Dallas. It's just
> you.
> I remeber WAAAY back when Bret first started posting...I gave him crap all
> the time.
> -Then after a time it became clear what he was up to, and it turned into
> entertainment...not to mention a number of spurts of decent photography.
> You, on the other hand, are just turning into an arse.
> You aren't funny, Dallas, and you don't show evidence of anything other than
> your own bitterness. You merely come off as a guy who got a black eye from
> the South African Canon Service Center...and as a result, has set aside
> sanity to continue your mindless ravings against a brand. You have become
> the poster child for why brand wars are reserved for fools.
At least I am not a nerd.
> Regarding "dissing..."
> Even I have "dissed" Canon, you boob. Did you read my thread about whether
> the 5D was/is over-priced for it's build quality? -About the lack of this
> and that? Did you read my loudly expressed displeasure with Canon's
> handling of 20D problems way back when--even though I don't own one? --When
> Nikon announced specs for their new generation of topline DSLR a year or so
> ago...guess who started a new thread, glowingly expressing how impressed he
> was?? -That was me, Dallas. -You know...the Canon worshipper (or so you
> claim).
>
> So you see, DD...Roxy...Dallas...whoever the heck you are...
> You have proven only that when it comes to discussions of equipment, you are
> a closed-minded, bitter man...hell-bent on your own version of reality that
> leads you to robotic responses of mindless anti-blatherings.
I never blather. I speak the truth. Some people can't handle the truth.
Are you among them?
> Other than that...You're not a bad guy.
> :)
Too late for that.
Douglas...
>
> So you see, DD...Roxy...Dallas...whoever the heck you are...
> You have proven only that when it comes to discussions of equipment, you are
> a closed-minded, bitter man...hell-bent on your own version of reality that
> leads you to robotic responses of mindless anti-blatherings.
>
> Other than that...You're not a bad guy.
> :)
>
>
--
Douglas...
Specifications are good to read but
When it comes to judging Digital Cameras...
I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category.
Tony Polson
>Others are already asking that question as to why both Zeiss and Leica
>don't do that.
Leica had discussions with both Canon and Nikon within the last two
years.
Alex
wrote:
>BTW, Skip, that 28-135mm lens is only good for amateurs who don't know
>any better. Hardly something I would recommend to someone who is serious
>about photography.
I guess Robert Farber isn't as serious about photography as I
thought...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1858941369/qid=1129290304/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-1184760-2013546?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
--
Alex
atheist #2007
Tony Polson
>>
>Not exactly. There is a common family ownership of Porsche, Audi and VW.
William is exactly right. Porsche owns 18.4% of VW and intends to
increase that stake to 19.9%
There is no common family ownership of Porsche, Audi and VW. The
Piech and Porsche families are related, so there is a family
relationship between the respective management teams, but VAG
(VW-Audi) is majority owned by the government of the German states in
which the main VW manufacturing plants are located.
There is a possibility that more VAG shares may be offered on the
German Stock exchange. Porsche relies on VAG for many components and
the Porsche board wished to secure a significant shareholding in VAG
to ensure that the co-operative relationship between the two companies
would not be diluted by any future sell-off.
Skip M
Hmm, my dentist is into motorcycles. Owns 3 of them. Only moderately
interested in photography, not sure he's not just making small talk...
Skip M
news:qb6vk1to18h7uei1u...@4ax.com...
Skip M
"DD (Rox)" <ro...@empirerods.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1db96eaf4...@news.mweb.co.za...
It's because no one disses any other brand, except Sigma, to the extent that
Canon gets dissed. It is unreasonable to expect Canon owners to react
otherwise. The product is not deserving of such vitriol as you throw at it.
>I couldn't care if you do, but it certainly won't stop me from telling
>it like it is.
If you really told it like it was/is, then there wouldn't be a problem.
>BTW, Skip, that 28-135mm lens is only good for amateurs who don't know
>any better. Hardly something I would recommend to someone who is serious
>about photography.
That would be your opinion, now wouldn't it, Dallas? That's certainly not
mine. There's nothing in either Canon's or Nikon's line that exceeds it, or
at least there wasn't until the 24-105 f4L IS came out. I have the lens,
and, yes, it's build quality ain't all that hot, but optically, it more than
holds its own. And certainly doesn't deserve to be called a "crappy kit
lens." Nor does the 28-105 f3.5-4.5, if that was the other lens to which
you referred.
>And Mark, if dissing Canon is called trolling in your book, what's Bret
>guilty of everytime he disses Nikon?
He's doing that in an oddly lighthearted way, a manner which you seem to
have lost touch.
Paul Bielec
I went to Wolfsburg few years back and visited the Autostadt, a theme
park next to the main VW factory. It features VW group brands: VW, Audi,
Skoda, Seat, Lamborghini and possibly something else I'm forgetting.
Skip M
>> >
>> For many, the 5D doesn't offer enough of an advantage over the 20D to
>> justify the price, for others, it does. Even though the resolution is a
>> bigger jump over the 20D than the 20D was over the 10D, it is being seen
>> that much of that improvement is lost in the lenses, in the real world,
>> not
>> in the lab. Many others feel that the 10-22 EF-S mount lens combined
>> with
>> the 17-85 IS gives enough wide angle and a good carrying around lens, so
>> the
>> full frame sensor is moot. And many don't even know how a spot meter can
>> be
>> an advantage (or detriment) so that doesn't affect many 20D owners. They
>> like the apparent reach that they get with the 1.6x sensor and feel that
>> the
>> 5fps is an advantage over 3fps. The 5D wasn't built with these people in
>> mind.
>> Some of us don't feel that way, though. Some of us want wide and
>> superwide
>> fixed focal length lenses, not available for the 20D, some of us want WA
>> zooms that are faster than f3.5, others missed the spot meter from their
>> film cameras, or appreciate the heft of the 5D.
>>
>>
> "Heft"??? It isn't built well enough to qualify in the heft department,
> Skip.
>
Stuff it, Dallas, you now clearly indicate that you have absolutely no idea
of what you're talking about. You have dropped to full on idiot mode. The
5D is a very well built camera, compared to any of the modern AF bodes on
the market. The one weakness is Canon's standard CF card door. That's it.
It is a hefty camera, compared to the 20D, which is what I said.
Dallas, I'm sorry, but you are not helping your own credibility.
Scott Schuckert
wrote:
> This is an odd trend; I wonder about the cause and effect with dentists
> and photography. :-) Locally, there's known to be a large Internet porn
> company that's owned by (you guessed it) - two dentists. No knowing if
> they shoot their own pics, but I'd bet so.
I think the same aspect of the personality (fascination with mechanical
things?) that leads them to dentistry tends to make them hardware
junkies. My GP doesn't have much more than a scale and a stethoscope in
his office; my dentist has a computerized 3D X-ray machine and an NC
milling machine to make replacement teeth.
Another dentist I know collects 1958 Cadillacs; has over a dozen of
'em. So it's probably no suprise they're camera collectors; the odd
thing was that they all seemed to be into Nikon instead of Leica.
Paul Bielec
Maybe they're into Nikon because they're actually using it ;-)
Tony Polson
>"Tony Polson" <t...@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:qb6vk1to18h7uei1u...@4ax.com...
>> John A. Stovall <johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Others are already asking that question as to why both Zeiss and Leica
>>>don't do that.
>>
>>
>> Leica had discussions with both Canon and Nikon within the last two
>> years.
>>
>>
>My credit cards are cringing...
Leica obviously decided not to take this route, so your credit cards
are safe.
For now.
;-)
Tony Polson
>
>I went to Wolfsburg few years back and visited the Autostadt, a theme
>park next to the main VW factory. It features VW group brands: VW, Audi,
>Skoda, Seat, Lamborghini and possibly something else I'm forgetting.
Bentley and Bugatti.
Paul Bielec
Tony Polson
Mark˛
I have no doubt that it required significant efforts in thougth on your
part.
:)
>>> I couldn't care if you do, but it certainly won't stop me from
>>> telling it like it is.
>>>
>>> BTW, Skip, that 28-135mm lens is only good for amateurs who don't
>>> know any better. Hardly something I would recommend to someone who
>>> is serious about photography.
>>
>> Please point to images that demonstrate you've somehow moved beyond
>> the quality of that particular lens, Dallas. I've looked at your
>> sight, and I can't find a basis for your opinion in this regard.
>> What can you show in this regard? What have you seen in your lenses
>> that leads you to declaring crap on anything else.
>
> Mark...you're going to have to do better than that, m'boy. Let us
> begin by you telling me what it is about my published images that
> leaves you in any mind as to the notion that I don't know what I am
> talking about?
Didn't say that.
>Are you saying the images are shit?
Why do you keep asking me to tell you your pictures are crap?
Read what I said.
-What is there in your images that leads you to claim obvious optical
superiority? I have never made superiority claims. Never.
>If so, tell me
> how, because from where I stand every one of them is way, way better
> than the snapshots you have posted to Pbase. I say that with
> conviction.
Ah. Conviction! -Good word.
:)
> I don't claim to be in the same league as someone like Simon Stanmore,
> for instance, but I am a lot better than most of the people who have
> the cheek to call themselves professional photographers. Of that
> there is no doubt in my mind.
I've never slammed your pics. Why do you keep asking me to?
>> To your likely dismay...I have posted recently how my 24-70 leaves
>> my old 28-135 behind in terms of sharpness...but I have spoken with
>> measured, comparative language. You, on the other hand, speak with
>> foam frothing from your mouth. I've lost all respect for your
>> opinion because you've chosen a self-declared lack of objectivity.
>
> The 28-135mm Canon lens is a very soft lens compared to most consumer
> grade Nikkors I have used with similar focal lengths (I have never
> used a 24-120mm though).
>
> But all that is besides the point, because you, like so many other
> psuedo photo experts, seem to think that you can tell how good a lens
> is simply by looking at a jpeg posted to the internet.
Show me where I've done this. Quote?
>FWIW, the
> images I have on my site come from a variety of different
> sources...digital SLR's (3 types), film SLR's (about 5 types) and
> rangefinders (1 type). At least 10 different lenses too. I challenge
> you to tell me what equipment took what shot.
That's the point.
If you/I can't tell, then what is it about your shots vs. other's shots that
leads you to declare crap?
>>> And Mark, if dissing Canon is called trolling in your book, what's
>>> Bret guilty of everytime he disses Nikon?
>>
>> Humor. He's guilty of goading, blatant...humor.
>> -Something you clearly don't have.
>
> But you just said you don't know me, so how can you make a statement
> like that in the same post?
My comments pertain to your posts. I do know your posts...which is what
I've commented on.
>> We all know Bret's schtick. You don't have a schtick, Dallas. It's
>> just you.
>> I remeber WAAAY back when Bret first started posting...I gave him
>> crap all the time.
>> -Then after a time it became clear what he was up to, and it turned
>> into entertainment...not to mention a number of spurts of decent
>> photography. You, on the other hand, are just turning into an arse.
>> You aren't funny, Dallas, and you don't show evidence of anything
>> other than your own bitterness. You merely come off as a guy who
>> got a black eye from the South African Canon Service Center...and as
>> a result, has set aside sanity to continue your mindless ravings
>> against a brand. You have become the poster child for why brand
>> wars are reserved for fools.
>
> At least I am not a nerd.
There are other states of being which are also worth avoiding.
:)
>> Regarding "dissing..."
>> Even I have "dissed" Canon, you boob. Did you read my thread about
>> whether the 5D was/is over-priced for it's build quality? -About
>> the lack of this and that? Did you read my loudly expressed
>> displeasure with Canon's handling of 20D problems way back
>> when--even though I don't own one? --When Nikon announced specs for
>> their new generation of topline DSLR a year or so ago...guess who
>> started a new thread, glowingly expressing how impressed he was??
>> -That was me, Dallas. -You know...the Canon worshipper (or so you
>> claim).
>>
>> So you see, DD...Roxy...Dallas...whoever the heck you are...
>> You have proven only that when it comes to discussions of equipment,
>> you are a closed-minded, bitter man...hell-bent on your own version
>> of reality that leads you to robotic responses of mindless
>> anti-blatherings.
>
> I never blather. I speak the truth.
LOL!
>Some people can't handle the
> truth. Are you among them?
Now there's some humor! :)
Unintentional, of course, but still humorous.
:)
>> Other than that...You're not a bad guy.
>> :)
>
> Too late for that.
Aw gee... :)
Skip M
Hey, two years is but an eyeblink in R&D terms, when it comes to designing a
mount and lens system compatible with a competitors product. It could still
happen...my credit cards aren't relaxing...
no_name
> "Skip M" <shadow...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:Dor3f.1432$UF4.1026@fed1read02...
>
>>"sierra" <cfhu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1129191260....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>"Money spinner" - yes "Profit spinner" - no.
>>>
>>>Mass market - GM, Ford, VW - losses
>>>
>>>Porsche - profits
>>>
>>
>>Porsche was nearly out of business 10 years ago, the Boxter is what saved
>>them, a (relatively) mass market Porsche.
>>
>> Chrysler-profits-|
>> |--DCX-losses.
>>Mercedes-losses-|
>>
>>The mass market drives profits in a properly managed company, which, at
>>this point, GM and Ford are not. Toyota, Honda and Renault/Nissan are
>>largely mass market manufacturers, and very profitable.
>>
>>--
>>Skip Middleton
>>http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>
>
> Porsche owns over 18% of VW now.....
??? I thought it was the other way round.
William Graham
"Scott Schuckert" <n...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:141020050930494005%n...@aol.com...
> Another dentist I know collects 1958 Cadillacs; has over a dozen of
> 'em. So it's probably no suprise they're camera collectors; the odd
> thing was that they all seemed to be into Nikon instead of Leica.
Well, Nikon has marketed a lens and flash that are dedicated to dental
photography......I don't know whether Leica has done this or not.......
William Graham
"no_name" <no_...@no.where.invalid> wrote in message news:_oS3f.5357>>
>
> ??? I thought it was the other way round.
I did too, until I googled it and read otherwise.....
Mark˛
> Mark² wrote:
>>
>> So you see, DD...Roxy...Dallas...whoever the heck you are...
>> You have proven only that when it comes to discussions of equipment,
>> you are a closed-minded, bitter man...hell-bent on your own version
>> of reality that leads you to robotic responses of mindless
>> anti-blatherings. Other than that...You're not a bad guy.
>> :)
>>
>>
> Feel better now, Mark?
I'm fine.
How are you?
Mark˛
I thought Chrysler bought Lamborghini... ?
Rich
>DD (Rox) wrote:
>>>Heh, heh. You know who the best retail customers are (or were)?
>>>DENTISTS. When I had my camera stores, the dentists who came in were
>>>incredible hardware junkies. One guy wanted to own - and nearly did -
>>>the entire Nikon catalog. I mean, stupid stuff like Nikon-brand,
>>>darkroom-only bulk film loaders. I know EXACTLY the people you're
>>>talking about!
>>
>> Funny you should say that, I know two dentists who are hectically
>> involved in photographic equipment! Actually one's an orthodontist, but
>> I suppose it's the same sort of thing...
>
>This is an odd trend; I wonder about the cause and effect with dentists
>and photography. :-) Locally, there's known to be a large Internet porn
>company that's owned by (you guessed it) - two dentists. No knowing if
>they shoot their own pics, but I'd bet so.
It's not because they're dentists.
-Rich
Mark˛
>> Please point to images that demonstrate you've somehow moved beyond
>> the quality of that particular lens, Dallas. I've looked at your
>> sight, and I can't find a basis for your opinion in this regard.
>> What can you show in this regard? What have you seen in your lenses
>> that leads you to declaring crap on anything else.
>
> Mark...you're going to have to do better than that, m'boy. Let us
> begin by you telling me what it is about my published images that
> leaves you in any mind as to the notion that I don't know what I am
> talking about? Are you saying the images are shit? If so, tell me
> how, because from where I stand every one of them is way, way better
> than the snapshots you have posted to Pbase.
Actually, I agree with you. Many of the images I have posted there are
indeed nothing more than snapshots. I use Pbase for various reasons...and
not to impress or sell my photos...
Shots like these are certainly snapshots:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/38258545/original
and
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47924570/original
Others are posted merely for purposes relating to discussions...
Like:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/37018969/original
But oops! There's yet another example of me pointing out Canon flaws!
:)
Once again, I foil your accusations of Canon worship.
Then there are other shots that I think surpass your "snapshot" put-down...
Like this one:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47982648/original
And this one:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36235344/original
(you should see that one printed to 48 inches... Looks rather better than
most other shots I've seen of this famous crater--which is as close as
you'll ever hear me come to bragging).
Or perhaps this non snap-shot:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36235043/original
Here's another one I like, though I'd have to say it's a bit off-level:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/38258451/original
I like this one too...kinda different:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47616297/original
What are some of the shots you like from your site?
(And please note I've made zero claims about any great this or that...
These are just shots that I think move a bit beyond happy-snaps... ;)
-Mark
Skip M
news:LKY3f.1758$UF4.49@fed1read02...
> Paul Bielec wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> I went to Wolfsburg few years back and visited the Autostadt, a theme
>> park next to the main VW factory. It features VW group brands: VW,
>> Audi, Skoda, Seat, Lamborghini and possibly something else I'm
>> forgetting.
>
> I thought Chrysler bought Lamborghini... ?
>
Wow, you're behind the curve! Chrysler sold Lambo not long after Lee
Iacocca's departure, and severed the connection with DeTomaso and Maserati
about the same time. Some Southeast Asian consortium owned Lambo just long
enough to truly screw up the finances, then VW/Audi bought the mess, put it
under Audi aegis. The Lambo Gallardo shares engineering and an engine with
the upcoming Audi mid engined supercar, the Le Mans.
William Graham
Mark˛
I must be getting older...cuz times seems to be flying...
:)
Tony Polson
In truth, it was more of a takeover.
Chrysler were taken over by Daimler Benz of Germany. Mercedes-Benz is
the car brand. The company name is Daimler Benz. I believe Mercedes
was the name of Gottlieb Benz's daughter.
Robert C.
Hence the new name brand Daimler-Chrysler or nicknamed "DC".
Skip M
is silent..."
Mercedes was the name of the daughter of a German auto dealer/racer named
Emil Jellineck who came to the financial rescue of the auto firm founded by
Gottlieb Daimler. The merger between that company and the one founded by
Karl Benz came about in the 1920s
William Graham
"Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
William Graham
few years back. The question was, "Is the government going to loan them the
money to bail them out?" A friend of mine at work decided they were, and
spent his entire retirement savings on their stock. Today he is quite well
off because of that very rash decision. But Chrysler needed to be bought out
by someone, and Daimler Benz came along at just the right time......
Tony Polson
>
>Chrysler were taken over by Daimler Benz of Germany. Mercedes-Benz is
>the car brand. The company name is Daimler Benz. I believe Mercedes
>was the name of Gottlieb Benz's daughter.
Oops! Sorry, I got this wrong.
Mercedes was the daughter of Gottlieb **Daimler**.
Benz's first name was Karl.
Skip M
Actually, she was the daughter of a Daimler dealer named Jellineck, (see my
above post.)
William Graham
William Graham
imagine driving the new 2006 Hortence 500?
Tony Polson
Thanks Skip. I suppose things could have been worse - they might have
called the car "Jellineck" instead of "Mercedes"!
;-)
ian lincoln
yoyo knickers 500
ian lincoln
"Chris Down" <nore...@email.com> wrote in message
news:jxs3f.188$gX...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Alex" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> news:k0isk1hnp75ibnu5b...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:32:18 +0200, DD (Rox) <ro...@empirerods.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The big money spinner for any manufacturer is the mass market. Give them
>>>what they want and use the profits to fund development in other areas
>>>where technology is more cutting edge. Same thing happens in the motor
>>>industry with Formula One and Rally Championships.
>>
>> Not anymore as the mass market cameras are becoming commodities.
>> (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05080802nikonprofit_soars.asp)
>>
>> The profits are in the high end digicams and dslrs. I believe all the
>> manufacturers are or have realized this already.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alex
>> atheist #2007
>
> With CCD chips for cameras so much of a commodity it is expected that by
> next year every new mobile phone sold will have a camera built it. Of
> course most camera phones have poor lenses and take rotten pictures but
> they are a threat to the point and shoot digitals. That is why the
> camera companies are trying to move up market, in the next few years point
> and shoot digital cameras will have almost zero profit per unit.
>
> DSLRs will always be smaller volume sellers than camera phones and cheap
> point and shoots but they will be the only source of profit for the camera
> makers. It will remain so as long as good optics cost top money and
> pros and keen amateurs value quality.
The cheap digitals are an excuse to shift cases, batteries, memory cards and
extended warranties. Actual profit on a £100 camera was £5. Then of course
is the free digital printing voucher to get the customer get used to digital
printing which is where the real money is made.