From: John Navas on
On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:38:40 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote in
<0eadneznStAx5mHWnZ2dnVY3goWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>:

>"John Navas" <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:s5uov5l528v2pqnnlnhv0smba57v4bq3d5(a)4ax.com...

>> Not true, as I've already explained.
>
>Explanations are nice, but actual performance is what counts.

Of course, but explanations assist the understanding .

>> Photography is about photographs, not equipment.
>
>A good photographer uses his equipment to the best of its abilities, so it's
>only incompetent photographers who aren't limited by their tools.

No offense intended, but that's complete and total nonsense.
--
Best regards,
John

Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: nospam on
In article <f76dnQoW4diV5mHWnZ2dnVY3go-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, David J.
Littleboy <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote:

> > that depends on the lens. for some, a stabilized version is not much
> > more than a non-stabilized version. the canon 70-200 is $100 more than
> > the sony 70-200 and the sony used to be more money, as i recall.
>
> Well, comparing to Sony isn't all that meaningful, since they're such a
> small player prices are rather random.

the comparison is:
canon slr + canon 70-200mm f/2.8 stabilized, versus
sony slr (with stabilization) + sony 70-200mm f/2.8 non-stabilized.

at the end of the day, you have a camera with a stabilized 70-200mm
lens and the price isn't that much of a difference. other factors
matter more, like canon (or nikon) making much better cameras than
sony.

> For Canon users, the premium for IS is quite steep. They sweeten it up a bit
> by giving you slightly better optics. (Well, usually: IMHO, the 24-105/4.0
> IS isn't sharp enough to justify the price and weight. Sigh.)

it depends on the lens. look at nikon's 70-200 f/2.8 vr ii, it's a
*lot* more expensive than the previous model.

on the other hand, nikon's 55-200mm vr is something like 60-70 dollars
more than the non-stabilized version and it's also a much better lens,
optically (busting the myth that in-lens stabilization compromises
optical quality).
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on
On Tue, 25 May 2010 15:39:48 -0700 (PDT), Vance <vance.lear(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

>On May 25, 9:46´┐Żam, Outing Trolls is FUN! <o...(a)trollouters.org>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 May 2010 09:29:49 -0700, SMS <scharf.ste...(a)geemail.com> wrote:
>> >On 24/05/10 7:55 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>
>> >> But the IS in the Canon 70-200/4.0 IS is seriously amazing. Sharp images at
>> >> 1/15th (with a lot of care and elbows supported or locked) at 200mm,
>> >> reliably sharp images at 1/30 and 200mm. I doubt in-camera IS will be
>> >> competing, ever. And, of course, in-camera IS doesn't stabilize the
>> >> viewfinder image.
>>
>> >Yes, that's an incredible lens.
>>
>> >In-camera IS on D-SLRs (and other interchangeable lens cameras) is more
>> >cost effective, but has serious performance disadvantages, as all the
>> >experts agree.
>>
>> Point us to "all these experts" that agree to this.
>>
>> Oh that's right. You can't. They only exist in your imagination. Just like
>> that computer-controlled geyser that you helped to install in Yellowstone
>> Nat. Park on one of your imaginary trips.
>>
>> You really should quit. We all already know you're a delusional
>> pretend-photographer troll. You prove it with every post you ever make.
>
>Speaking of pretend photographers, I may have done you a disservice
>with the orange juice shot. You have never pretended that you knew a
>damn thing about lighting, being an all natural goodness nature type
>photographer of vast experience who can take any camera and produce
>tremendously attractive images - but only in available light. That
>makes sense. So, with that ability to judge the existing light and
>get the shot when it is appropriate and your fine sense of
>composition, let's see a good avialable light image out of you.
>
>Since this is rec.photo.digital, I've posted some of my 'happy snaps'
>for you Nothing special, just personal, recreational shots and only
>one not natural light. I like B&W, so I included a few for the hell
>of it. The bicyclist was shot with the popup flash and the guy in the
>Civil War uniform was a grab shot. What you got, Sparky? Lieing's
>not allowed. You do it so much better than me that it wouldn't be
>fair.
>
>http://picasaweb.google.com/Vance.Lear/ForTrolls#slideshow/5475330339350251298
>
>Vance

Between your typical tourist's snapshots and mmyvusenet's cretinous
downs-syndrome-afflicted church, sick-animal, and tomato snapshots; I'll
give you a very slight advantage. But only very slight. I can think of no
other snapshooters that are on a comparable level with you.





From: Bruce on
On Tue, 25 May 2010 19:46:01 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote:

>On 5/25/2010 7:05 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article<4bfc55ae$0$1601$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS
>> <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And as it turns out, they would have been better looking for other games
>>> to play. Konica-Minolta, Olympus, and Pentax have been spectacularly
>>> unsuccessful in digital SLRs.
>>
>> actually they've done ok. not terrific, but not as bad as contax,
>> kodak, fuji and everyone's favourite poster-child of failure, sigma.
>> it's amazing how much sigma is pouring into that sinkhole.
>
>Olympus and Pentax may be doing OK, but Konica-Minolta doesn't exist as
>a camera company anymore--their product lines will continue to exist as
>long as Sony thinks that there's a hope of making a profit in that
>market and not a moment longer.


That depends critically on whether NEX succeeds or not.

If NEX succeeds, and makes money, the slow-selling (and hugely
loss-making) Alpha range of DSLRs will be dead.

From: John Navas on
On Wed, 26 May 2010 11:24:27 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote
in <1ktpv5pf4of9h9aaq5ube0bmmg927rdd8b(a)4ax.com>:

>On Tue, 25 May 2010 19:46:01 -0400, "J. Clarke"
><jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote:

>>Olympus and Pentax may be doing OK, but Konica-Minolta doesn't exist as
>>a camera company anymore--their product lines will continue to exist as
>>long as Sony thinks that there's a hope of making a profit in that
>>market and not a moment longer.
>
>That depends critically on whether NEX succeeds or not.
>
>If NEX succeeds, and makes money, the slow-selling (and hugely
>loss-making) Alpha range of DSLRs will be dead.

I think that's a bad bet, but only time will tell.
--
Best regards,
John

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford