rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* A newbie request help selecting digital camera - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4222610fecc12359?hl=en
* Olympus launches micro 4/3 camera - Web site warning - 14 messages, 5
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/106fab96d8be9fe1?hl=en
* Lenses for canon rebel T1i - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/da6462c3a347e236?hl=en
* AT&T Usenet Netnews Service Shutting Down - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2e3799354b816db1?hl=en
* Panasonic now Locking in Batteries - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/22d6b50a72798623?hl=en
* GodDamnStupidF------ Olympus! - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/5d61a010f7604821?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: A newbie request help selecting digital camera
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4222610fecc12359?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 4:03 pm
From: "J. Clarke"
tony cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:42:17 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <eehi35dsad9nfbfi43k42e23sk1q3hvnir@4ax.com>, John Navas
>> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> you don't see a problem with a store that says it's from maine
>>>>>> that isn't actually in maine?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. No deep dark secret, and Abe did start in Maine.
>>>>> See About Us <http://www.abesofmaine.com/aboutUs.do>
>>>>
>>>> they did, and they *had* to leave maine because of shady business
>>>> practices, according to someone i've known for 20+ years who owns a
>>>> camera store in the new england area.
>>>
>>> Abe's actually has a good reputation:
>>> <http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Abe_s_of_Maine>
>>
>> not as good as b&h:
>>
>> <http://www.resellerratings.com/store/B_H_Photo_Video_Pro_Audio>
>>
>> and i was referring to why they left maine 20 years ago, not what's
>> going on now.
>
> I think that B&H has as good a reputation as any online seller, but
> buying decisions are based on reputation *and* price. At any given
> time, one of the better vendors has a better deal on some item than
> the other vendors do. If you are in the market for that item,
> shopping that group of vendors can pay off.
>
> If I'm in the market for a big-ticket item, I'm going to compare
> prices offered by a relatively small group of vendors. I'd include
> both B&H and Abe's in that group.
If it's a big ticket item I'm probably going to walk into B&H, give it a
functional check before I pay for it, and walk out with it in my bag.
> There's no advantage, in online purchases, to giving any one vendor
> your business. You might get treated better in a brick & mortar store
> if they know you, but that's not the case with the big camera online
> vendors.
That's the thing, B&H _is_ a brick & mortar store. If you've never been in
it, it's worth seeing.
> My point in bringing up these vendors in my earlier post is that a
> newbie buyer like Kris should be told that not all online vendors are
> reputable, and that he should not fall for some of the "too good to be
> true" prices offered by some vendors. Until you learn the ropes,
> Google-searching can be dangerous.
>
> If nospam wants to form his own list of preferred vendors, and exclude
> Abe's, that's his decision. Personally, I'm not influenced by some
> story about what happened 20 years ago as reported by a competitor.
>
> At one of the meetings of the camera club I belong to (over 100
> members), individuals commented on their personal results with
> vendors. There were favorable comments about several vendors, but
> most of the favorable comments were about Abe's, Adorama, B&H, Cameta,
> and Hunt's. (alpha order) Hunt's is one of the sponsors of the club,
> so several members have dealt with Hunt's. (B&H is also a sponsor,
> but Abe's is not)
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 4:50 pm
From: tony cooper
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:03:47 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:42:17 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <eehi35dsad9nfbfi43k42e23sk1q3hvnir@4ax.com>, John Navas
>>> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> you don't see a problem with a store that says it's from maine
>>>>>>> that isn't actually in maine?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope. No deep dark secret, and Abe did start in Maine.
>>>>>> See About Us <http://www.abesofmaine.com/aboutUs.do>
>>>>>
>>>>> they did, and they *had* to leave maine because of shady business
>>>>> practices, according to someone i've known for 20+ years who owns a
>>>>> camera store in the new england area.
>>>>
>>>> Abe's actually has a good reputation:
>>>> <http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Abe_s_of_Maine>
>>>
>>> not as good as b&h:
>>>
>>> <http://www.resellerratings.com/store/B_H_Photo_Video_Pro_Audio>
>>>
>>> and i was referring to why they left maine 20 years ago, not what's
>>> going on now.
>>
>> I think that B&H has as good a reputation as any online seller, but
>> buying decisions are based on reputation *and* price. At any given
>> time, one of the better vendors has a better deal on some item than
>> the other vendors do. If you are in the market for that item,
>> shopping that group of vendors can pay off.
>>
>> If I'm in the market for a big-ticket item, I'm going to compare
>> prices offered by a relatively small group of vendors. I'd include
>> both B&H and Abe's in that group.
>
>If it's a big ticket item I'm probably going to walk into B&H, give it a
>functional check before I pay for it, and walk out with it in my bag.
>
>> There's no advantage, in online purchases, to giving any one vendor
>> your business. You might get treated better in a brick & mortar store
>> if they know you, but that's not the case with the big camera online
>> vendors.
>
>That's the thing, B&H _is_ a brick & mortar store. If you've never been in
>it, it's worth seeing.
I've been there. However, I live in Florida. There's not much that
I'm interested in buying that would justify the airfare in order to go
in to buy.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 5:53 pm
From: nospam
In article <h1bji7$cgn$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Pete Stavrakoglou
<ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> >> As I said, it is the only P&S that can give DSLR quality photos. Your
> >> >> statement is irrelevant to what I said.
> >> >
> >> > not anymore it isn't.
> >> >
> >> > sigma had a year or so being the only large sensored compact, but no
> >> > longer. and i expect nikon/canon to join the fun soon.
> >>
> >> So what other non-interchangable lens P&S has a large sensor?
> >
> > why does it need to be non-interchangeable?
>
> Because my statement was referring to P&S compact cameras that have a fixed
> lens.
you did not specifically say fixed lens. the olympus e-p1 is exactly
in the same category as the dp1/2, with the *added* bonus of the lens
coming off if the user wants to remove it. they don't have to, and can
leave it attached forever as if it was not interchangeable.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Olympus launches micro 4/3 camera - Web site warning
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/106fab96d8be9fe1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 4:30 pm
From: John McWilliams
John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:51:00 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
> wrote in <h1b3ef$9m8$1@news.eternal-september.org>:
>>
>> I believe standing up for good and thoughtful web design by leaving
>> immediately and commenting to the author is an upstanding act.
>
> Also pointless and self-destrictive.
This really could use some 'splainin'. In other words, it isn't
pointless, as there's a chance that Mon. Molon will change his dastardly
web design.
How could my not going to his web site be destructive to yours truly?
(or self-destrictive, for that matter.)
--
John McWilliams
== 2 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 4:33 pm
From: John Navas
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:30:45 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
wrote in <h1bucl$j2t$1@news.eternal-september.org>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:51:00 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
>> wrote in <h1b3ef$9m8$1@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
>>>
>>> I believe standing up for good and thoughtful web design by leaving
>>> immediately and commenting to the author is an upstanding act.
>>
>> Also pointless and self-destrictive.
>
>This really could use some 'splainin'. In other words, it isn't
>pointless, as there's a chance that Mon. Molon will change his dastardly
>web design.
0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 %
>How could my not going to his web site be destructive to yours truly?
>(or self-destrictive, for that matter.)
Cutting off your nose to spite your face.
--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
== 3 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 4:35 pm
From: John McWilliams
J. Clarke wrote:
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <h1av1i$7h4$1@news.eternal-september.org>, John McWilliams
>> says...
>>
>>> Me three. It's not difficult to code the page with a) a control to
>>> stop the sound, or control its volume, and b), have its default
>>> position to Off when the page is first opened.
>> But would you buy this camera? If not, you are not in the target group
>> and the camera website might appeal to the right people.
>
> So you're saying that there is some kind of psychological correlation
> between tolerating gratuitious noise from a web site and buying a micro 4/3
> camera?
>
Gersnorfle! Good'un, JC.
--
john mcwilliams
== 4 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 4:43 pm
From: John Navas
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:35:03 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
wrote in <h1bukm$j2t$2@news.eternal-september.org>:
>J. Clarke wrote:
>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> In article <h1av1i$7h4$1@news.eternal-september.org>, John McWilliams
>>> says...
>>>
>>>> Me three. It's not difficult to code the page with a) a control to
>>>> stop the sound, or control its volume, and b), have its default
>>>> position to Off when the page is first opened.
>>> But would you buy this camera? If not, you are not in the target group
>>> and the camera website might appeal to the right people.
>>
>> So you're saying that there is some kind of psychological correlation
>> between tolerating gratuitious noise from a web site and buying a micro 4/3
>> camera?
>>
>Gersnorfle! Good'un, JC.
So you're saying that a straw man fallacy is a good'un?
--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
== 5 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 4:57 pm
From: John McWilliams
John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:30:45 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
> wrote in <h1bucl$j2t$1@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:51:00 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
>>> wrote in <h1b3ef$9m8$1@news.eternal-september.org>:
>>>> I believe standing up for good and thoughtful web design by leaving
>>>> immediately and commenting to the author is an upstanding act.
>>> Also pointless and self-destrictive.
>> This really could use some 'splainin'. In other words, it isn't
>> pointless, as there's a chance that Mon. Molon will change his dastardly
>> web design.
>
> 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 %
C;mon, Alfie, show us the money! :-)
>
>> How could my not going to his web site be destructive to yours truly?
>> (or self-destrictive, for that matter.)
>
> Cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I'm well aware of clichés that describe self destructive behavior, but -
whoa!- my nose is fully in tact, and I am not spiting anyone. Just not
going to a place that is unpleasant for me.
--
john mcwilliams
== 6 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 5:03 pm
From: John McWilliams
John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:35:03 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
> wrote in <h1bukm$j2t$2@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
>>>> But would you buy this camera? If not, you are not in the target group
>>>> and the camera website might appeal to the right people.
>>> So you're saying that there is some kind of psychological correlation
>>> between tolerating gratuitious noise from a web site and buying a micro 4/3
>>> camera?
>> Gersnorfle! Good'un, JC.
>
> So you're saying that a straw man fallacy is a good'un?
No. I am saying I enjoyed his turn of phrase. Did not opine as to
fallacies nor straw men, and my mentioning them in response to your
reply neither confirms nor denies that I agree his statement contains
either.
Clear? :-)
--
john mcwilliams
== 7 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 5:08 pm
From: SamSez
Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.24a1b2587777eb498c028@news.supernews.com:
> http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/pen.htm?olycmp=912222#intro
Thanks to all the responders who don't know how to control their audio for
turning this useful heads-up into yet another example of how usenet has
been ruined by idiots.
== 8 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 5:11 pm
From: John Navas
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:03:13 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
wrote in <h1c09h$o1m$1@news.eternal-september.org>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:35:03 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
>> wrote in <h1bukm$j2t$2@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
>>
>>>>> But would you buy this camera? If not, you are not in the target group
>>>>> and the camera website might appeal to the right people.
>
>>>> So you're saying that there is some kind of psychological correlation
>>>> between tolerating gratuitious noise from a web site and buying a micro 4/3
>>>> camera?
>
>>> Gersnorfle! Good'un, JC.
>>
>> So you're saying that a straw man fallacy is a good'un?
>
>No. I am saying I enjoyed his turn of phrase. Did not opine as to
>fallacies nor straw men, and my mentioning them in response to your
>reply neither confirms nor denies that I agree his statement contains
>either.
>
>Clear? :-)
Usenet at it's best. ;)
--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
== 9 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 5:12 pm
From: John Navas
On 18 Jun 2009 00:08:50 GMT, SamSez <samtheman@verizon.net> wrote in
<Xns9C2DCD1C824F1samthemanverizonnet@198.186.190.132>:
>Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:MPG.24a1b2587777eb498c028@news.supernews.com:
>
>> http://www.olympus-europa.com/consumer/pen.htm?olycmp=912222#intro
>
>Thanks to all the responders who don't know how to control their audio for
>turning this useful heads-up into yet another example of how usenet has
>been ruined by idiots.
Amen!
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman
== 10 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 5:14 pm
From: ray
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:58:33 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
> ray wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:00:44 -0700, John Navas wrote:
>>
>>> On 17 Jun 2009 15:31:16 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote in
>>> <79sgi4F1rhqjqU30@mid.individual.net>:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:46:28 -0700, John Navas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 17 Jun 2009 00:43:53 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote in
>>>>> <79qsi9F1rhqjqU28@mid.individual.net>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:42:01 -0700, John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Loaded in less than 30 seconds for me over 3G cellular.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm seldom patient enough to wait 30 seconds for a page to load. I
>>>>>> must KNOW that it has some information I REALLY want. Otherwise, I
>>>>>> generally give about 10 seconds and I'm gone. Don't know why folks
>>>>>> would intentionally limit their audience like that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess they assume people with normal patience will wait 30
>>>>> seconds. ;)
>>>>
>>>> I expect that if you could actually check on the 'normal patience'
>>>> level, you'd find it to be under 15.
>>>
>>> A sad commentary on those people. Regardless, this isn't a general
>>> website like Google, and the marketing people may simply not be
>>> interested in those who will click away after only 15 seconds,
>>> focusing instead on those who want the full experience. It's called
>>> "focusing on the target market" and "qualifying the prospect".
>>
>> It's also called "limiting your prospective client list".
>
> When I'm shopping for a camera I want to know about the camera, not
> listen to music that someone else has selected.
Amen. Content is, or should be, king. Glitz means very little when one is
seeking information.
== 11 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 5:17 pm
From: John Navas
On 18 Jun 2009 00:14:21 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote in
<79tf6sF1rhqjqU32@mid.individual.net>:
>On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:58:33 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>> When I'm shopping for a camera I want to know about the camera, not
>> listen to music that someone else has selected.
>
>Amen. Content is, or should be, king. Glitz means very little when one is
>seeking information.
Marketing data says otherwise -- packaging is extremely important.
--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
== 12 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 5:32 pm
From: John McWilliams
John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:03:13 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
> wrote in <h1c09h$o1m$1@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:35:03 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
>>> wrote in <h1bukm$j2t$2@news.eternal-september.org>:
>>>>>> But would you buy this camera? If not, you are not in the target group
>>>>>> and the camera website might appeal to the right people.
>>>>> So you're saying that there is some kind of psychological correlation
>>>>> between tolerating gratuitious noise from a web site and buying a micro 4/3
>>>>> camera?
>>>> Gersnorfle! Good'un, JC.
>>> So you're saying that a straw man fallacy is a good'un?
>> No. I am saying I enjoyed his turn of phrase. Did not opine as to
>> fallacies nor straw men, and my mentioning them in response to your
>> reply neither confirms nor denies that I agree his statement contains
>> either.
>>
>> Clear? :-)
>
> Usenet at it's best. ;)
Usenet at *its* best!
--
john mcwilliams
This space intentionally left blank, except for these words.
== 13 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 5:50 pm
From: JustaTroll
John McWilliams wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:03:13 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
> > wrote in <h1c09h$o1m$1@news.eternal-september.org>:
> >
> >> John Navas wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:35:03 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
> >>> wrote in <h1bukm$j2t$2@news.eternal-september.org>:
> >>>>>> But would you buy this camera? If not, you are not in the target group
> >>>>>> and the camera website might appeal to the right people.
> >>>>> So you're saying that there is some kind of psychological correlation
> >>>>> between tolerating gratuitious noise from a web site and buying a micro
> >>>>> 4/3
> >>>>> camera?
> >>>> Gersnorfle! Good'un, JC.
> >>> So you're saying that a straw man fallacy is a good'un?
> >> No. I am saying I enjoyed his turn of phrase. Did not opine as to
> >> fallacies nor straw men, and my mentioning them in response to your
> >> reply neither confirms nor denies that I agree his statement contains
> >> either.
> >>
> >> Clear? :-)
> >
> > Usenet at it's best. ;)
>
> Usenet at *its* best!
>
Yes it is!
- JT
the space between these words and the sig is available for rent
--
"The pendulum of the mind oscillates between sense and nonsense,
not between right and wrong." - Carl Jung
== 14 of 14 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 7:48 pm
From: ray
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:17:29 -0700, John Navas wrote:
> On 18 Jun 2009 00:14:21 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote in
> <79tf6sF1rhqjqU32@mid.individual.net>:
>
>>On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:58:33 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>>> When I'm shopping for a camera I want to know about the camera, not
>>> listen to music that someone else has selected.
>>
>>Amen. Content is, or should be, king. Glitz means very little when one
>>is seeking information.
>
> Marketing data says otherwise -- packaging is extremely important.
Please READ what I said. I did not say packaging was not important. What
I said was - WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING FOR INFORMATION, CONTENT IS KING.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Lenses for canon rebel T1i
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/da6462c3a347e236?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 5:53 pm
From: nospam
In article <4jhi35dm2tssn119jmhja008dcr8tphkke@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> Some are pretty good, but still don't measure up to the best OEM glass
> >> in my opinion, which is the only opinion that counts when it's my money
> >> being spent. ;)
> >
> >you are welcome to spend your money however you want, but some of the
> >third party lenses actually do measure up in tests.
>
> Single review samples may not be representative of volume production
> samples,
how many copies of a given lens have you evaluated?
> and don't reflect things like durability.
build quality is usually mentioned
> That said, the best
> OEM lenses almost always do better in tests.
depends on the test and on which lens.
> >> Not really. I might possibly pay a bit more, but that's worth it to me,
> >> even if not worth it to you, for quality and confidence in the purchase.
> >> If I'm (say) up at the top of Bugaboo Glacier at sunrise, I can't afford
> >> to discover that I don't have a good non-OEM lens.
> >
> >oem lenses fail too.
>
> Sure, but much less often.
depends on the lens.
> >the point is to buy good lenses, regardless of
> >who makes them.
>
> Hard if not impossible for the typical user to judge.
it's not really that hard, and the typical user is not anal about the
differences anyway.
> >canon/nikon make crappy lenses too.
>
> Usually only in the case of bargain OEM-branded third-party lenses.
> I typically buy top grade lenses, never less than middle grade.
> You tend to get what you pay for.
true
> >sometimes the
> >third parties are better, sometimes not.
>
> Almost always not in my experience.
your experience is not the only one
> >the label on the barrel is
> >not the only indicator of quality.
>
> But arguably the best one for typical users.
sometimes yes, sometimes no
> >and if you are going somewhere where you can't afford a failure, you
> >would have backup lenses and cameras.
>
> I'm often severely limited in how much gear I can carry along, and
> prefer not to have to carry a lot of extra gear just to save a little
> frontend money. But as always, YMMV.
if you are going someplace where getting a photo is vital, you had
better have a backup plan if something happens. to not do so is just
stupid.
> >> The moment is
> >> priceless, justifying the modest extra cost of the best quality,
> >> something I've learned the hard way. (I once had a photo essay rejected
> >> by a national magazine for unacceptable image quality caused by a
> >> supposedly very good non-OEM lens.)
> >
> >yea we all have stories. plenty of people use third party lenses for
> >magazines, contests, posters, etc. without any problem whatsoever.
>
> Most pros, other than the ones being paid for endorsements, don't.
which means that some pros do.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 6:15 pm
From: Bob Larter
ransley wrote:
> Are there any sites that would rate the basic lenses for Canon, I
> looked at DPs reviews ratings. Would the Canon EF 50mm 1.4 usm be
> about as sharp as you can get without spending the highest dollar,
I have that lens, & it's pretty damn good.
> and
> would it even make a notable difference.
Compared to what?
> How would a Canon EF 20mm
> f2.8 usm compare in photo quality or other brands like Tamron.
In general, Canon primes are excellent.
> I would
> like wide angle its just the 50mm has the price point-quality of
> photo, that makes it worth looking at. Whatever I get it would have to
> be compatable with a 5D, incase I win the lotto someday.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 6:42 pm
From: John Navas
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:53:38 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
in <170620091753384093%nospam@nospam.invalid>:
>In article <4jhi35dm2tssn119jmhja008dcr8tphkke@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> Single review samples may not be representative of volume production
>> samples,
>
>how many copies of a given lens have you evaluated?
Has nothing to do with reviews.
>> and don't reflect things like durability.
>
>build quality is usually mentioned
Mostly guesswork, and nothing to do with durability.
>> That said, the best
>> OEM lenses almost always do better in tests.
>
>depends on the test and on which lens.
I stand by what I wrote.
>> >oem lenses fail too.
>>
>> Sure, but much less often.
>
>depends on the lens.
What lens?
>> >the point is to buy good lenses, regardless of
>> >who makes them.
>>
>> Hard if not impossible for the typical user to judge.
>
>it's not really that hard,
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
>and the typical user is not anal about the
>differences anyway.
The typical user all too often makes poor choices.
>> >sometimes the
>> >third parties are better, sometimes not.
>>
>> Almost always not in my experience.
>
>your experience is not the only one
True, but is yours that different?
>> >the label on the barrel is
>> >not the only indicator of quality.
>>
>> But arguably the best one for typical users.
>
>sometimes yes, sometimes no
Usually yes.
>> I'm often severely limited in how much gear I can carry along, and
>> prefer not to have to carry a lot of extra gear just to save a little
>> frontend money. But as always, YMMV.
>
>if you are going someplace where getting a photo is vital, you had
>better have a backup plan if something happens. to not do so is just
>stupid.
Whatever you say.
>> >yea we all have stories. plenty of people use third party lenses for
>> >magazines, contests, posters, etc. without any problem whatsoever.
>>
>> Most pros, other than the ones being paid for endorsements, don't.
>
>which means that some pros do.
The ones being paid for endorsements.
--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 7:33 pm
From: ASAAR
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:59:20 -0700, John Navas wrote:
>> The Panasonic/Lieca lenses are indeed excellent, however, for some people
>> the lack of a shallow depth of field on such lenses is an important
>> limiting factor on their creativity. ...
>
> The available depth of field is sufficiently shallow for my needs.
> As always, YMMV.
IOW, you don't need what you can't get. Very convenient.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: AT&T Usenet Netnews Service Shutting Down
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2e3799354b816db1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 5:53 pm
From: nospam
In article <l8ii35tchkksurrq86bk69214vnh8vji6l@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >Any ISP who wanted to filter binaries groups had the option to do so.
>
> Sure, but that would result in complaints from users.
> Might as well just do away with Usenet altogether.
doing away with usenet altogether would result in *more* complaints.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Panasonic now Locking in Batteries
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/22d6b50a72798623?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 6:18 pm
From: Woger
Are other camera makers doing this so you can use 3rd party batteries?
This to me seems illegal as you should have the choice like you do with a
car.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: GodDamnStupidF------ Olympus!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/5d61a010f7604821?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 6:26 pm
From: RichA
Why did you do, what you did? No more B.S. interviews where you talk
about "developing" EVFs. We KNOW Olympus isn't going to spend $500M
on the technology to do that, so you are going to be buying them from
someone, likely, Panasonic. Well Panasonic ALREADY has a good EVF in
the G1, so what the F---- are you waiting for? PUT IT IN A MICRO
4/3rds body and STOP pretending using an LCD is a good experience for
ANYONE. I've got a D300, with an LCD better than anything that
Olympus uses and it SUCKS and is USELESS in the sun, hence, the need
for an OPTICAL or EVF viewfinder. DO you GET IT????!
HERE is the camera you SHOULD have built!
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=32167142
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 17 2009 6:34 pm
From: Woger
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:26:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
>Why did you do, what you did? No more B.S. interviews where you talk
>about "developing" EVFs. We KNOW Olympus isn't going to spend $500M
>on the technology to do that, so you are going to be buying them from
>someone, likely, Panasonic. Well Panasonic ALREADY has a good EVF in
>the G1, so what the F---- are you waiting for? PUT IT IN A MICRO
>4/3rds body and STOP pretending using an LCD is a good experience for
>ANYONE. I've got a D300, with an LCD better than anything that
>Olympus uses and it SUCKS and is USELESS in the sun, hence, the need
>for an OPTICAL or EVF viewfinder. DO you GET IT????!
>
>HERE is the camera you SHOULD have built!
>
>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=32167142
Any Camera with out a Viewfinder is just a big waste of time, I just cant
state that a camera with just a LCD screen a good point and shoot model.
Give me a Viewfinder any time
Yes I did see the preview of the Olympus and thought that is was totally
stupid not having a view finder..
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment