«

John Sheehy <> wrote:
> (Ray Fischer) wrote in
>> John Sheehy <> wrote:

>>>The D3 can take better shots than all but one Canon; the 1Dsmk3, as
>>>far as IQ goes, and all but the 1Dsmk2 and mk3 cameras, as far as
>>>resolution goes.
>
>> Idiot.
>
>Ever stop to think that maybe some of this negative energy really has
>nothing to do with digital cameras?

Ever stop to think that ANY camera can take crap pictures and bragging
about how your camera is SO much better than all the rest is really
just covering up for a well-deserved inferiority complex?

--
Ray Fischer

"Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
news:47ce2586$0$36360$...
> John Sheehy <> wrote:
>> (Ray Fischer) wrote in
>>> John Sheehy <> wrote:
>
>>>>The D3 can take better shots than all but one Canon; the 1Dsmk3, as
>>>>far as IQ goes, and all but the 1Dsmk2 and mk3 cameras, as far as
>>>>resolution goes.
>>
>>> Idiot.
>>
>>Ever stop to think that maybe some of this negative energy really has
>>nothing to do with digital cameras?
>
> Ever stop to think that ANY camera can take crap pictures and bragging
> about how your camera is SO much better than all the rest is really
> just covering up for a well-deserved inferiority complex?
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
>
>

Actually, as I've said in other threads, I like both brands almost equally,
and you can throw in Fuji and Pentax as well.

But, it is interesting seeing who loses their cool and who doesn't...

Smile,
Dudley

(Ray Fischer) wrote in news:47ce2586$0$36360
$:

> John Sheehy <> wrote:
>> (Ray Fischer) wrote in

>>> Idiot.

>>Ever stop to think that maybe some of this negative energy really has
>>nothing to do with digital cameras?

> Ever stop to think that ANY camera can take crap pictures and bragging
> about how your camera is SO much better than all the rest is really
> just covering up for a well-deserved inferiority complex?

Yes, I have thought about that, but guess what? I don't have a 1Dsmk3!,
or any camera as noise-free as the D3!

Nice try, though.

And I didn't say that the 1Dsmk3 was "SO" much better than the D3. In
fact, my statements were of the objective variety.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

On Mar 5, 5:25*pm, John Sheehy <J...@no.komm> wrote:
>
> Yes, I have thought about that, but guess what? *I don't have a 1Dsmk3!,
> or any camera as noise-free as the D3!
>
> Nice try, though.
>
> And I didn't say that the 1Dsmk3 was "SO" much better than the D3. *In
> fact, my statements were of the objective variety.

You mentioned earlier about how the D3 gets most of its low-noise
performance via software in the camera. Nikons are known for stomping
all over the shadow detail in an effort to improve perceived contrast,
but I don't want to go into that now.

What if Canon came out with a 48MP body that was really just a 16MP
body that had its files up-rezzed to 48MP? You know, kinda like Sigma
does with its silly ads where they multiply the true res by 3.
Imagine what the pundits would say. People would crucify Canon in the
press, claiming that it was just a marketing gimmick meant to up the
ante in the MP race.

But when Nikon does the same thing with its aggressive NR, nobody says
a peep. They get all giddy because now they can shoot stuff in the
dark at 15000 ISO or something. But we all know it's just trickery.

"Annika1980" <> wrote in message
news:d0d23e5a-1692-4121-9161-...
On Mar 5, 5:25 pm, John Sheehy <J...@no.komm> wrote:
>
> Yes, I have thought about that, but guess what? I don't have a 1Dsmk3!,
> or any camera as noise-free as the D3!
>
> Nice try, though.
>
> And I didn't say that the 1Dsmk3 was "SO" much better than the D3. In
> fact, my statements were of the objective variety.

You mentioned earlier about how the D3 gets most of its low-noise
performance via software in the camera. Nikons are known for stomping
all over the shadow detail in an effort to improve perceived contrast,
but I don't want to go into that now.


If you can provide a website that explains what you are talking about I sure
would appreciate it. It's not the first itme I have heard that.


What if Canon came out with a 48MP body that was really just a 16MP
body that had its files up-rezzed to 48MP? You know, kinda like Sigma
does with its silly ads where they multiply the true res by 3.
Imagine what the pundits would say. People would crucify Canon in the
press, claiming that it was just a marketing gimmick meant to up the
ante in the MP race.

But when Nikon does the same thing with its aggressive NR, nobody says
a peep. They get all giddy because now they can shoot stuff in the
dark at 15000 ISO or something. But we all know it's just trickery.

Annika1980 <> wrote in news:d0d23e5a-1692-4121-9161-
:

> You mentioned earlier about how the D3 gets most of its low-noise
> performance via software in the camera.

Well, what I said was that it looks even better than it is to many
people, because of the NR. That doesn't mean that it isn't very good to
begin with, because it is. The D3 is superior, RAW-IQ-wise to all Canons
except the 1Dsmk3 (at all ISOs, but especially at low ISO) and the 1Dsmk3
at low ISOs in the shadows, because of their higher resolution.

> What if Canon came out with a 48MP body that was really just a 16MP
> body that had its files up-rezzed to 48MP? You know, kinda like Sigma
> does with its silly ads where they multiply the true res by 3.
> Imagine what the pundits would say. People would crucify Canon in the
> press, claiming that it was just a marketing gimmick meant to up the
> ante in the MP race.

That isn't a fitting analogy, though, because NR is not equivalent to
reducing resolution. NR can still allow a sharpened edge to register at
any pixel column or row; an upscaled image can not.

> But when Nikon does the same thing with its aggressive NR, nobody says
> a peep. They get all giddy because now they can shoot stuff in the
> dark at 15000 ISO or something. But we all know it's just trickery.

No, it's not just trickery. The D3 really has moved up into the top
range of noise performance. The NR, however, has people making strange
statements like "the D3 is a couple stops ahead of all other DSLRs".

Even many of the most famous experts on photography don't realize that
they see digital as an "artist's rendition" through RAW conversion. Film
was always RAW right through to the print; there was no layer of
deception.

Canon is going to lose a lot of customers because they are an arrogant
company that is out of touch with what people want. They need a wider
range of NR options in their camera JPEGs if they're going to compete in
a world where people obviously like cartoonish output from their cameras,
and this can be done without sacrificing the integrity of RAW or
excluding more natural looking renditions as an option.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

"XxYyZz" <> needs to fix or change his newsreader.

It is not attributing quotes properly.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

John Sheehy <> wrote:
> (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:47ce2586$0$36360
>> John Sheehy <> wrote:
>>> (Ray Fischer) wrote in

>>>> Idiot.
>
>>>Ever stop to think that maybe some of this negative energy really has
>>>nothing to do with digital cameras?
>
>> Ever stop to think that ANY camera can take crap pictures and bragging
>> about how your camera is SO much better than all the rest is really
>> just covering up for a well-deserved inferiority complex?
>
>Yes, I have thought about that, but guess what? I don't have a 1Dsmk3!,
>or any camera as noise-free as the D3!
>
>Nice try, though.

And there is the usual pathetic bragging again.

It's just a machine, sucker.

--
Ray Fischer

(Ray Fischer) wrote in news:47cf7ff2$0$36410
$:

> John Sheehy <> wrote:

>>Yes, I have thought about that, but guess what? I don't have a
>>1Dsmk3!,
>>or any camera as noise-free as the D3!

>>Nice try, though.

> And there is the usual pathetic bragging again.

What bragging is that? That I don't have any camera like the D3 or the
1Dsmk3? Do you have reading comprehension problems?

> It's just a machine, sucker.

You are hallucinating if you detected any irrational personal attachment
to a camera I don't own, nor do I plan to, unless bags of money fall from
the sky onto my terrace. I am attached to the truth, and I see a lot of
lies out there, which suggest that Nikon's sensor technology is a couple
stops ahead of Canon's.

There seem to be an awful lot of personality disorders here on usenet.
It's like an aviary, I tell you!

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

John Sheehy wrote:

>> It's just a machine, sucker.

Yep, and it should be sold after 18-months of use.

> You are hallucinating if you detected any irrational personal
> attachment to a camera I don't own, nor do I plan to, unless bags of
> money fall from the sky onto my terrace. I am attached to the truth,
> and I see a lot of lies out there, which suggest that Nikon's sensor
> technology is a couple stops ahead of Canon's.

Personally, I think both of you guys are just ****ing in the wind with open
mouths catching the overspray. The D3 is the best dSLR on the market at the
moment and will probably still top Canon's next release. Anyway, it really
doesn't matter since I have all the Canon stuff worked out of my blood and
it's Nikon forever.

> There seem to be an awful lot of personality disorders here on usenet.
> It's like an aviary, I tell you!

The fundamental flaw to your logic is you are letting the idiot stimulate
you. It is *YOU* that need to learn how to embrace the idiot and stimulate
it for maximum entertainment value.





Rita