So in other words you take only snapshots?

No doubt Shakespeare generated a similar response with, “Then shall he strip his sleeve and show his scars and say, these wounds I had on Crispin’s day. Old men forget yet all shall be forgot, but he’ll remember, with advantage, what feats he did that day."

It counts for what you did or where you actually were. If one claims otherwise it's called lying; Tom Mix and Brian Denehy are just two of the "fake war story" frauds. There's been a host of others and it's insulting to the people who actually saw combat.

You've got too many zeros in the focal length of the Celestron.

That only holds for a while. Canon and Nikon have been consistently at the top of the heap for decades. And until recently these two have had a product that is different; in lens image stabilization. This is still important in DSLRs, especially in telephotos where large corrections are not possible in camera.

This war won't be over as long as guys who used Nikons before the Great Digital Flood are still around.

Today 14 of the top 20 selling DSLRs on amazon.com are Canons.

Sounds like a Nikosaurus:

And since you've obviously read through this thread you must have noticed they didn't knock the Nikon brand. Check out some of the comments about Canon (the ones that aren't in jest). Standard stuff in this forum.

And if I recall it didn't generate a 13 page thread. All this because somebody insulted a 5 year old Nikon. Talk about brand loyalty. I hope somebody reported this to the local Global TV station in Edmonton and they can start up a hurt feeling fund.

Try telling that to all those guys with those long white lenses at MLB games. Be sure to give reasons why they should switch.

I would imagine a lot of Mac users what took so long to switch from Motorola to Intel. Better late than never.

You've tried to explain this from another angle. I say tried but you might as well be talking to a post. Look for another irrelevant reply. Nice try anyway.

I've never actually heard anyone claim 200=300. If you have then you were right in correcting the guy. After all the focal lengths are clearly marked on the front of the lenses. "EFL", "for all intents and purposes", "in effect" etc. do not mean identical.

If you already know this then the appropriate terms would be nit picking and hair splitting. And I'll leave it for you to explain it again to the guy from Dallas. Any time somebody says "We need somebody with a degree in photography to clarify the situation" he is including himself in the confused category. Isn't there some sort of Never leave a UHHer behind motto in this forum?

Make that some amateurs. I gave a link a couple of days ago. if you had actually read it and understood it you would be saying "I now understand." Stop using the word crop unless you're actually using a pair of scissors or doing PP.

If nothing else this link has re-enforced the correctness of my decision of long ago to abandon teaching. Keep at it. It'll eventually make sense.

This was from the link:
Using an FLM of 1.5, for example, a photographer might say that a 50 mm lens on his DSLR "acts like" its focal length has been multiplied by 1.5, by which he means that it has the same field of view as a 75 mm lens on the film camera that he is more familiar with. Of course, the actual focal length of a photographic lens is fixed by its optical construction, and does not change with the format of the sensor that is put behind it.

Which should have ended the matter. Terms such as "acts like", "for all intents and purposes", "in effect", "EFL" mean the same thing; the image size on the film is the same for both systems.

Since idiot169 obviously didn't click on the link I thought using magnification by a telescope where the magnification can be varied by changing the focal length of the eyepiece and is analogous to changing the field of view of a telephoto lens by varying the sensor size would help clarify but I was wrong. And obviously wrong to respond at all to that idiot who started this thread. I give up. Think what you want think about. Or think like Wlliam Jennings Bryan who chose not to think about things he didn't think about.