Why Canon
Jan 14, 2015 18:04:07 #
graybeard wrote:
I have no social demeanor, matter of fact I am anti-social. Just consider me a Philistine and an iconoclast. Philistine means uncultured (therefore unimpressed with pretense and snobbery), and iconoclast meaning one who destroys icons, or in my case, pops bubbles of delusions of superiority in Nikon owners and in people from San Francisco who think too much.
And who am I to disagree with that sentiment?
Jan 14, 2015 18:06:47 #
Jan 14, 2015 18:19:44 #
graybeard wrote:
Sic transit Nikon tyranus.
Good response, which still puts you on the fence on the thinking thing!
Even when expressed in pseudo Latin, we already know that you want to barf all over "so called" tyrannical Nikon users in motion, or was your spelling of "tyranus" more focused on the "anus" element?
Perhaps that's more related to the other condition that seems to be affecting you currently?
Jan 14, 2015 18:24:13 #
twillsol wrote:
One thing I find interesting with this forum is that Canon users only see other Canon users and Nikon users only see other Nikon users.
Watching the Oregon / OSU game, one end zone appeared to be mostly Canon shooters and the other mostly Nikon shooters. Not sure what that tells you, but I think it says that both are excellent cameras.
Watching the Oregon / OSU game, one end zone appeared to be mostly Canon shooters and the other mostly Nikon shooters. Not sure what that tells you, but I think it says that both are excellent cameras.
What is an Un-excellent (DSLR) camera? Seriously.
Jan 14, 2015 18:27:27 #
Peterff wrote:
Good response, which still puts you on the fence on the thinking thing!
Even when expressed in pseudo Latin, we already know that you want to barf all over "so called" tyrannical Nikon users in motion, or was your spelling of "tyranus" more focused on the "anus" element?
Perhaps that's more related to the other condition that seems to be affecting you currently?
Even when expressed in pseudo Latin, we already know that you want to barf all over "so called" tyrannical Nikon users in motion, or was your spelling of "tyranus" more focused on the "anus" element?
Perhaps that's more related to the other condition that seems to be affecting you currently?
Lens in my anus? That's more for you San Francisco guys. But I am in the process of acquiring several cheap TP's. How cheap? Like $20,$6, and,best of all $0.00 !! A donation from a generous forum contributor, who is interested in my experiment. After getting all of them together (still in the mail), and the weather becomes tolerable, I will do an objective, no axe to grind, comparative test. I consider this a public service.
Jan 14, 2015 18:29:41 #
mwsilvers wrote:
True, but forgetting their quality and their classic status, how many of this 50 - 60 year old model are even out there to be sold in the secondary market? If they were as commonly owned as Canon or Nikon gear you'd probably see plenty of them for sale. Just because something is sold in the secondary market doesn't make it inferior. People sell things they own for a variety of reasons.
The Lieca M3 is Superior to any 35mm image maker. And your reply is true enough. But I was not the one who started the stupid Nikon Vs Canon crap yet again.
Jan 14, 2015 18:33:30 #
Quayne L. Sherwood wrote:
You see very few second hand Pentax cameras for sale? That is interesting. My first camera was a Pentax and I liked it very much. It was a film camera and over the years digital became the way to go, so I tried a Sony, an Olympus, a Canon, and a Nikon.
I was happy with all of them. Obviously the fine quality of lenses has become much more commonplace than it once was.
I was happy with all of them. Obviously the fine quality of lenses has become much more commonplace than it once was.
Exactly my point, again and again, what is a bad DSLR today? They are all excellent!
Jan 14, 2015 18:48:04 #
graybeard wrote:
I am in the process of acquiring several cheap TP's. How cheap? Like $20,$6, and,best of all $0.00 !! A donation from a generous forum contributor, who is interested in my experiment. After getting all of them together (still in the mail), and the weather becomes tolerable, I will do an objective, no axe to grind, comparative test. I consider this a public service.
And that, Sir, I have no issue with. We do not however need the acrimony that accompanies your communication about this project. Several of my posts have been broadly supportive of your project, and I also have been using adapted manual focus Canon FD lenses, including a 500mm Canon reflex lens. A result was posted earlier. http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-275417-5.html As said, I thought the result was OK, but it was not easily come by.
I do not see our Nikon using companions in the negative light that you appear to have chosen to portray them in. What I see and agree with is the experience and informed opinion that inexpensive or older manual focus super telephoto lenses are very challenging to use, and good results are far from easy to achieve. For most people they seldom represent a good investment, even if acquired for free. They are for the more fanatical of us.
From the style perspective, if you dialed back on the invective and engaged more on the constructive aspects of your project I suspect that a more worthwhile conversation would follow.
That ball, is in your court.
Jan 14, 2015 18:55:41 #
lamiaceae wrote:
What is an Un-excellent (DSLR) camera? Seriously.
One that needs repairs :?: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Jan 14, 2015 19:06:33 #
Jan 14, 2015 19:23:58 #
coyotecall wrote:
I donno lads, all this confab about Canon vs Nikon has me dizzy. I claim the high ground by rising above it all with my Funkymagiccodak 1 MP DSLR (Mfg in Republic of Chad) fitted (with adaptor) with a 783mm f39 Nutzogudenouff telephoto augmented with 12 4X close-up filters topped by the ever-present UV filter and I get MAGNIFICENT! photos of my Hoover Vac. (at least I THINK thats what Im getting my Smearalot printer sometimes mixes colors). You just cant find a set up like this on ebay. Its a little heavy (47 pounds without the filters) but my output (1 photo a month) is unmatched by anyone else I know. (I stay home a lot though.)
So do you shoot weddings or medical photography?
I donno lads, all this confab about Canon vs Nikon has me dizzy. I claim the high ground by rising above it all with my Funkymagiccodak 1 MP DSLR (Mfg in Republic of Chad) fitted (with adaptor) with a 783mm f39 Nutzogudenouff telephoto augmented with 12 4X close-up filters topped by the ever-present UV filter and I get MAGNIFICENT! photos of my Hoover Vac. (at least I THINK thats what Im getting my Smearalot printer sometimes mixes colors). You just cant find a set up like this on ebay. Its a little heavy (47 pounds without the filters) but my output (1 photo a month) is unmatched by anyone else I know. (I stay home a lot though.)
So do you shoot weddings or medical photography?
Jan 14, 2015 19:25:39 #
Peterff wrote:
And that, Sir, I have no issue with. We do not ho... (show quote)
No invective pal. You just have no sense of humor.
Jan 14, 2015 19:27:38 #
JoeM
Loc: Sacramento, California
Tell me about your 7D Mark 2. How long have you had it and will it be good for taking Landscape photos?
Jan 14, 2015 19:27:57 #
graybeard wrote:
No invective pal. You just have no sense of humor.
Really? How would you know?
It's possibly got something to do with that assumptions and perspective thing, maybe even an appreciation of what constitutes humor...., could even be a subjective thing....
Oops, there I go doing that thinking thing again....
Life is so hard sometimes...
Jan 14, 2015 19:35:03 #
coyotecall
Loc: New Mexico
Do I "shoot weddings or medical..."? This is a redundancy! I shoot nothing painful.
Mudshark wrote:
coyotecall wrote: br I donno lads, all this confab... (show quote)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.