If you buy Canon

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by measekite, Mar 22, 2008.

  1. measekite

    measekite Guest

    Those who bought various Canon cameras recently (past couple of years) talk about their cameras and the features they have.  Some say how good the results are.  It is OK to do that.

    However, very few mention what lenses they are using and how the various lenses they own compare against each other and what they have owned previously.

    In a few years the camera they have may be upgrades but the lenses may be the same.  So how do the Canon lenses stack up.


    More specifically how to the comparable models (Nikon and Canon specifically) stack up against each other.  And I do not mean the stupid resolution tests but the real world comparison of the actual images of different types.  And that includes sharpness, color, vignetting, and other characteristics that make for a nice acceptable image.

    And not just that one is better than another since some of that can be preference but what are the actual differences.

    So the answer is more than just saying the results from XYZ is better or I liked the color better or was more accurate but how does one actually describe the difference.
    measekite, Mar 22, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. measekite

    ray Guest

    On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 17:44:24 +0000, measekite wrote:

    > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html>
    > <head>
    > </head>
    > <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> <font face="sans-serif">Those
    > who bought various Canon cameras recently (past couple of years) talk
    > about their cameras and the features they have.&nbsp; Some say how good
    > the results are.&nbsp; It is OK to do that.<br> <br>
    > However, very few mention what lenses they are using and how the various
    > lenses they own compare against each other and what they have owned
    > previously.<br>
    > <br>
    > In a few years the camera they have may be upgrades but the lenses may
    > be the same.&nbsp; So how do the Canon lenses stack up.<br> <br>
    > <br>
    > More specifically how to the comparable models (Nikon and Canon
    > specifically) stack up against each other.&nbsp; And I do not mean the
    > stupid resolution tests but the real world comparison of the actual
    > images of different types.&nbsp; And that includes sharpness, color,
    > vignetting, and other characteristics that make for a nice acceptable
    > image.<br>
    > <br>
    > And not just that one is better than another since some of that can be
    > preference but what are the actual differences.<br> <br>
    > So the answer is more than just saying the results from XYZ is better or
    > I liked the color better or was more accurate but how does one actually
    > describe the difference.<br> </font>
    > </body>
    > </html>


    Did you ever do a web search? BTW - you might also learn, someday, that
    questions end with '?', not '.'.
    ray, Mar 22, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. measekite

    Focus Guest

    "ray" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 17:44:24 +0000, measekite wrote:
    >
    >> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html>
    >> <head>
    >> </head>
    >> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> <font face="sans-serif">Those
    >> who bought various Canon cameras recently (past couple of years) talk
    >> about their cameras and the features they have.&nbsp; Some say how good
    >> the results are.&nbsp; It is OK to do that.<br> <br>
    >> However, very few mention what lenses they are using and how the various
    >> lenses they own compare against each other and what they have owned
    >> previously.<br>
    >> <br>
    >> In a few years the camera they have may be upgrades but the lenses may
    >> be the same.&nbsp; So how do the Canon lenses stack up.<br> <br>
    >> <br>
    >> More specifically how to the comparable models (Nikon and Canon
    >> specifically) stack up against each other.&nbsp; And I do not mean the
    >> stupid resolution tests but the real world comparison of the actual
    >> images of different types.&nbsp; And that includes sharpness, color,
    >> vignetting, and other characteristics that make for a nice acceptable
    >> image.<br>
    >> <br>
    >> And not just that one is better than another since some of that can be
    >> preference but what are the actual differences.<br> <br>
    >> So the answer is more than just saying the results from XYZ is better or
    >> I liked the color better or was more accurate but how does one actually
    >> describe the difference.<br> </font>
    >> </body>
    >> </html>

    >
    > Did you ever do a web search? BTW - you might also learn, someday, that
    > questions end with '?', not '.'.


    My idea. What an arrogant idiot.. (no question mark)


    --
    Focus
    Focus, Mar 22, 2008
    #3
  4. measekite

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <YzbFj.27767$>,
    measekite <> wrote:

    > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
    > <html>
    > <head>
    > </head>
    > <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
    > <font face="sans-serif">Those who bought various Canon cameras recently
    > (past couple of years) talk about their cameras and the features they
    > have.&nbsp; Some say how good the results are.&nbsp; It is OK to do that.<br>


    <HTML shit snipped>

    Are you ever going to get a fucking clue and stop posting in HTML?
    Mr. Strat, Mar 22, 2008
    #4
  5. measekite

    Guest

    On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:00:25 -0700, in rec.photo.digital "Mr. Strat"
    <> wrote:

    >In article <YzbFj.27767$>,
    >measekite <> wrote:
    >
    >> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
    >> <html>
    >> <head>
    >> </head>
    >> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
    >> <font face="sans-serif">Those who bought various Canon cameras recently
    >> (past couple of years) talk about their cameras and the features they
    >> have.&nbsp; Some say how good the results are.&nbsp; It is OK to do that.<br>

    >
    ><HTML shit snipped>
    >
    >Are you ever going to get a fucking clue and stop posting in HTML?


    If you had ever been to comp.periphs.printers, you'd know the true story.
    , Mar 22, 2008
    #5
  6. measekite

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <>, <>
    wrote:

    > >Are you ever going to get a fucking clue and stop posting in HTML?

    >
    > If you had ever been to comp.periphs.printers, you'd know the true story.


    The guy's retarded. I should know better than to click on one of his
    messages.
    Mr. Strat, Mar 22, 2008
    #6
  7. measekite

    measekite Guest

    ray wrote:

    On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 17:44:24 +0000, measekite wrote:



    &lt;!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"&gt; &lt;html&gt; &lt;head&gt; &lt;/head&gt; &lt;body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"&gt; &lt;font face="sans-serif"&gt;Those who bought various Canon cameras recently (past couple of years) talk about their cameras and the features they have.&amp;nbsp; Some say how good the results are.&amp;nbsp; It is OK to do that.&lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt; However, very few mention what lenses they are using and how the various lenses they own compare against each other and what they have owned previously.&lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt; In a few years the camera they have may be upgrades but the lenses may be the same.&amp;nbsp; So how do the Canon lenses stack up.&lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt; More specifically how to the comparable models (Nikon and Canon specifically) stack up against each other.&amp;nbsp; And I do not mean the stupid resolution tests but the real world comparison of the actual images of different types.&amp;nbsp; And that includes sharpness, color, vignetting, and other characteristics that make for a nice acceptable image.&lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt; And not just that one is better than another since some of that can be preference but what are the actual differences.&lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt; So the answer is more than just saying the results from XYZ is better or I liked the color better or was more accurate but how does one actually describe the difference.&lt;br&gt; &lt;/font&gt; &lt;/body&gt; &lt;/html&gt;



    Did you ever do a web search? BTW - you might also learn, someday, that questions end with '?', not '.'.

    I do not need an engleeeesh leson.
    measekite, Mar 22, 2008
    #7
  8. measekite

    measekite Guest

    Mr. Strat wrote:

    In article &lt;&gt;, &lt;&gt; wrote:



    Are you ever going to get a fucking clue and stop posting in HTML?



    If you had ever been to comp.periphs.printers, you'd know the true story.



    The guy's retarded. I should know better than to click on one of his messages.

    Since you do click what does that make you?????
    measekite, Mar 22, 2008
    #8
  9. measekite

    Cynicor Guest

    measekite wrote:
    >
    >
    > Mr. Strat wrote:
    >> In article <YzbFj.27767$>,
    >> measekite <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
    >>> <html>
    >>> <head>
    >>> </head>
    >>> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
    >>> <font face="sans-serif">Those who bought various Canon cameras recently
    >>> (past couple of years) talk about their cameras and the features they
    >>> have.&nbsp; Some say how good the results are.&nbsp; It is OK to do that.<br>
    >>>

    >>
    >> <HTML shit snipped>
    >>
    >> Are you ever going to get a fucking clue and stop posting in HTML?
    >>

    > Glad you assked that question.
    >
    > *NO*


    Don't post in HTML. This isn't WebTV/AOL/Prodigy.
    Cynicor, Mar 22, 2008
    #9
  10. Mr. Strat wrote:

    >
    > Are you ever going to get a fucking clue and stop posting in HTML?


    Are you ever going to get a decent newsreader?
    Closed University, Mar 22, 2008
    #10
  11. measekite

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <>, Cynicor
    <> wrote:

    > Don't post in HTML. This isn't WebTV/AOL/Prodigy.


    He's definitely got that mentality.
    Mr. Strat, Mar 22, 2008
    #11
  12. measekite

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <SleFj.64844$>, Closed
    University <> wrote:

    > Are you ever going to get a decent newsreader?


    It doesn't get any better than Thoth. Funny...nobody else in the real
    world posts in HTML but this retarded asshole.
    Mr. Strat, Mar 22, 2008
    #12
  13. measekite

    Ali Guest

    For me, I personally prefer the Canon lens range, but that is just a
    personal choice for me. Not right or wrong, just my choice. My Canon
    lenses work very well for me.

    For bodies, at the moment, the D3 has a lot of good features, but I won't be
    switching my body at the moment for either a new Canon or a new Nikon, but I
    must admit, looking at the paper spec of the D3, the Nikon product planning
    department have come out with an interesting body.

    As a closing comment, you are actually maybe a bit wrong when you said that
    very few people mention what lenses thay are using. You will find many
    references to lenses.




    "measekite" <> wrote in message
    news:YzbFj.27767$...
    Those who bought various Canon cameras recently (past couple of years) talk
    about their cameras and the features they have. Some say how good the
    results are. It is OK to do that.

    However, very few mention what lenses they are using and how the various
    lenses they own compare against each other and what they have owned
    previously.

    In a few years the camera they have may be upgrades but the lenses may be
    the same. So how do the Canon lenses stack up.


    More specifically how to the comparable models (Nikon and Canon
    specifically) stack up against each other. And I do not mean the stupid
    resolution tests but the real world comparison of the actual images of
    different types. And that includes sharpness, color, vignetting, and other
    characteristics that make for a nice acceptable image.

    And not just that one is better than another since some of that can be
    preference but what are the actual differences.

    So the answer is more than just saying the results from XYZ is better or I
    liked the color better or was more accurate but how does one actually
    describe the difference.
    Ali, Mar 22, 2008
    #13
  14. measekite

    Ali Guest

    Chill out. It's not important. 15 years ago, maybe.


    "Mr. Strat" <> wrote in message
    news:220320081417423392%...

    > It doesn't get any better than Thoth. Funny...nobody else in the real
    > world posts in HTML but this retarded asshole.
    Ali, Mar 22, 2008
    #14
  15. measekite

    Cynicor Guest

    Closed University wrote:
    > Mr. Strat wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Are you ever going to get a fucking clue and stop posting in HTML?

    >
    > Are you ever going to get a decent newsreader?


    I thought Thunderbird was decent, but evidently it doesn't strip HTML
    crap from messages.

    "But I NEEEEEEED the blink tag!"
    Cynicor, Mar 22, 2008
    #15
  16. measekite

    Allen Guest

    measekite wrote:
    <snip>
    >> Are you ever going to get a fucking clue and stop posting in HTML?
    >>

    > Glad you assked that question.
    >
    > *NO*

    After waaaay too long a time, finally PLONK. I don't care whether you
    post in HTML, but your attitude is like that of a spoiled three-year-old.
    Allen
    Allen, Mar 22, 2008
    #16
  17. measekite

    N Guest

    "measekite" <> wrote in message
    news:IdeFj.8007$...
    >
    >
    > ray wrote:
    > On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 17:44:24 +0000, measekite wrote:
    >
    > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html>
    > <head>
    > </head>
    > <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> <font face="sans-serif">Those
    > who bought various Canon cameras recently (past couple of years) talk
    > about their cameras and the features they have.&nbsp; Some say how good
    > the results are.&nbsp; It is OK to do that.<br> <br>
    > However, very few mention what lenses they are using and how the various
    > lenses they own compare against each other and what they have owned
    > previously.<br>
    > <br>
    > In a few years the camera they have may be upgrades but the lenses may
    > be the same.&nbsp; So how do the Canon lenses stack up.<br> <br>
    > <br>
    > More specifically how to the comparable models (Nikon and Canon
    > specifically) stack up against each other.&nbsp; And I do not mean the
    > stupid resolution tests but the real world comparison of the actual
    > images of different types.&nbsp; And that includes sharpness, color,
    > vignetting, and other characteristics that make for a nice acceptable
    > image.<br>
    > <br>
    > And not just that one is better than another since some of that can be
    > preference but what are the actual differences.<br> <br>
    > So the answer is more than just saying the results from XYZ is better or
    > I liked the color better or was more accurate but how does one actually
    > describe the difference.<br> </font>
    > </body>
    > </html>
    >
    > Did you ever do a web search? BTW - you might also learn, someday, that
    > questions end with '?', not '.'.
    > I do not need an engleeeesh leson.
    >



    You do. You also need a lesson in posting to usenet.
    N, Mar 22, 2008
    #17
  18. measekite

    Guest

    OT
    On Mar 23, 3:44 am, measekite <> wrote:
    (a pretty silly post)

    Funny, if I had received:
    - only one attempt at a genuine response*
    - a large number of responses suggesting I stop using html (as he
    always does)

    .... I would probably get the hint. But then I have a brain, I listen,
    and I learn stuff.

    And when I stop learning and listening, I know I will have served out
    my usefulness.


    * - I note the 'genuine' response was top-posted, didn't properly
    quote the message, and basically contained the sort of stuff that the
    OP said he didn't want.. But, as they say.. "Chill out. It's not
    important." (O:
    , Mar 22, 2008
    #18
  19. >"measekite" <> wrote in message
    >news:hfeFj.8009$...
    >
    >
    >Mr. Strat wrote:
    >In article <YzbFj.27767$>,
    >measekite <> wrote:



    ><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
    ><html>
    ><head>
    ></head>
    ><body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
    ><font face="sans-serif">Those who bought various Canon cameras recently
    >(past couple of years) talk about their cameras and the features they
    >have.&nbsp; Some say how good the results are.&nbsp; It is OK to do
    >that.<br>
    >
    >
    ><HTML shit snipped>
    >
    >Are you ever going to get a fucking clue and stop posting in HTML?
    >
    >Glad you assked that question.
    >
    >NO
    >


    into the "fuckwit without a clue bin" you go then :)

    --
    God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?
    Atheist Chaplain, Mar 23, 2008
    #19
  20. measekite

    measekite Guest

    Ali wrote:
    > For me, I personally prefer the Canon lens range, but that is just a
    > personal choice for me. Not right or wrong, just my choice. My Canon
    > lenses work very well for me.

    Specifically, which lenses?
    >
    > For bodies, at the moment, the D3 has a lot of good features, but I
    > won't be switching my body at the moment for either a new Canon or a
    > new Nikon, but I must admit, looking at the paper spec of the D3, the
    > Nikon product planning department have come out with an interesting body.
    >
    > As a closing comment, you are actually maybe a bit wrong when you said
    > that very few people mention what lenses thay are using. You will
    > find many references to lenses.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "measekite" <> wrote in message
    > news:YzbFj.27767$...
    > Those who bought various Canon cameras recently (past couple of years)
    > talk about their cameras and the features they have. Some say how
    > good the results are. It is OK to do that.
    >
    > However, very few mention what lenses they are using and how the
    > various lenses they own compare against each other and what they have
    > owned previously.
    >
    > In a few years the camera they have may be upgrades but the lenses may
    > be the same. So how do the Canon lenses stack up.
    >
    >
    > More specifically how to the comparable models (Nikon and Canon
    > specifically) stack up against each other. And I do not mean the
    > stupid resolution tests but the real world comparison of the actual
    > images of different types. And that includes sharpness, color,
    > vignetting, and other characteristics that make for a nice acceptable
    > image.
    >
    > And not just that one is better than another since some of that can be
    > preference but what are the actual differences.
    >
    > So the answer is more than just saying the results from XYZ is better
    > or I liked the color better or was more accurate but how does one
    > actually describe the difference.
    measekite, Mar 23, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ben Nelson
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    427
    Ben Nelson
    Nov 25, 2003
  2. Morris

    Did you know you can buy land on the moon?

    Morris, Nov 28, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    996
    M Mullen
    Nov 30, 2003
  3. Steve

    Canon A60 and error 18 - to buy or not to buy

    Steve, Dec 28, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    536
    Fred Ziffel
    Dec 29, 2003
  4. Newbie

    Which camera would YOU buy if you have $300?

    Newbie, Apr 5, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    467
    Paul Rubin
    Apr 6, 2005
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    When you buy something, do you own it?

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 24, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    353
    Bruce Sinclair
    Sep 26, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page