New D70 kills Canons 10D and D300 for 999

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Hugo Drax, Jan 28, 2004.

  1. Hugo Drax

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    What did you say about you not calling me names?

    LIAR (again.)

    Still waiting for you to provide a quote where I allegedly
    claim the Nikon SYSTEM is better than Canon's.
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Feb 4, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Hugo Drax

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    So, you're NOT really interested in knowing what lens is actually
    better but rather in slandering someone who doesn't follow
    your camera religion and your right-wing bigotry.
    You make claims about me having said something and when I
    ask you the proof, you just try to weasel out.

    Interesting double standard...
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Feb 4, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Hugo Drax

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    Not CAN'T, but rather DO NOT WANT.
    Why bother with a hatemonger like you? You would definitely
    accuse me of having rigged the test.
    You have no proof of that. But if BELIEVING that makes you
    more comfortable, by all means, go ahead. It won't change my
    life.
    Yes, you are. At least be honest and admit it.
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Feb 4, 2004
  4. Hugo Drax

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    Hmmm, interesting, considering it comes from
    someone who claimed he never called me names...

    But we all know that Bo Stevens is a proven LIAR.
    I'm still waiting for the PROOF that I have ever said
    the Nikon SYSTEM is better than Canon's.
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Feb 4, 2004
  5. Hugo Drax

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    In your mind...
    You see, if I were you, I would accuse you of being an illiterate idiot,
    because what goes on on the internet is called by lawyers "slander"
    rather than "libel", as a conversation through a chat room or usenet
    is much more akin to spoken language. Go on, check it out. I'm sure
    if you find you are (once again) wrong, you will not have the balls
    to admit it. You will just try to weasel out once again...
    You're right, you are so IRRELEVANT, it doesn't really matter.
    Still, your blatant lies are slanderous by any standard.
    Actually there is plenty. But from someone who has accused me
    of being mentally challenged while at the same time claiming he
    has never called me names it's actually more hilarious than anything.

    Nothing is worse than a right-wing brand zealot...
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Feb 4, 2004
  6. Hugo Drax

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    Hmmm, let's see, this is the guy who accuses me of not
    understanding English... Is that maybe because his English
    is really sub-standard and plain incomprehensible? ;-)
    It's "audacious" ONLY if you believe that a Nikon product
    can NEVER be better than Canon's.
    Since you are a hate-monger, a liar and a slanderer and you
    will NEVER believe someone who doesn't use your brand
    and doesn't subscribe to your ultra right-wing ideals, all I
    suggested is that you do the test YOURSELF. What's the
    matter, are you afraid you might be forced to tell yourself
    you are a liar? ;-)
    Yeah right, so you will start accusing me of having rigged the test...
    BTW, you have said many times I have allegedly claimed the
    Nikon SYSTEM is better than Canon's. I would be VERY interested
    to actually SEE such claim (a Google link will suffice...), so that
    I don't have to come to the conclusion that you are just another
    LIAR.
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Feb 4, 2004
  7. Hugo Drax

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    Either post a link to my alleged claim that the Nikon system is better
    than Canon's or have some dignity and APOLOGIZE for lying so
    blatantly.
    That would be "too" (for the second time...)
    And thanks for yet another confirmation of
    your claim that you never call me names...
    Actually someone else (Gavin Cato) made the very same claim.
    Go ahead and start insulting and slandering him. Obviously he
    MUST be a liar...

    "The Nikon 70-200/2.8 handles better than the Canon. It is significantly
    sharper at wide apertures. They are about the same from f/8. It has far
    better bokeh. In Canon's defense, they had their 70-200 IS out about 4
    years before Nikon."

    Go ahead, check it, right here:

    http://tinyurl.com/ytrha

    Unlike you, I DO provide links to my claims. Maybe because, unlike
    you, I do not LIE.

    Maybe, just MAYBE, what I say is true...
    Naaaaah, that's yet another "audacious" claim... LOL
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Feb 4, 2004
  8. Hugo Drax

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    I'm not lying, period. Whether you believe or not, it makes
    no difference. If you don't believe me, chances are that if
    I post the pics, you will accuse me of having rigged the
    test. You know, like those freaks who say the moon landing
    was staged. No amount of proof will suffice to them...
    http://tinyurl.com/ytrha

    Another LIAR?
    Go on, insult him. He has also DARED not to post any "proof"
    of what he's claiming...
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Feb 4, 2004
  9. Hugo Drax

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    No language barrier at all, it's yet another
    vile and unfounded accusation.
    http://tinyurl.com/ytrha

    Go on, take your best shot. Insult him, slander him.
    He has dared to make the very same claim.
    He MUST be a liar...

    LOL
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Feb 4, 2004
  10. Hugo Drax

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    If I were a coward and a slanderer like you, I would probably
    accuse you of not understanding English. Look up "anonymous",
    it doesn't mean you have a valid email.
    http://tinyurl.com/ytrha

    Go ahead, accuse him of having lied.
    You don't want to use a double standard, do you?
    He hasn't provided proof of what he's claiming
    (which INCIDENTALLY is pretty much what I
    have), so he MUST be a liar, right?
    No, I don't mind what prejudiced people say.
    Oooooooookkkk. Picture that: someone is telling you there's
    a full moon in the sky. You cover your eyes with your hands
    and you start accusing him of lying. He's just trying to tell you
    that if you put your hands down, you will see it yourself, but
    you're not going to do it because all you want is to call him
    a liar.
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Feb 4, 2004
  11. Hugo Drax

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    Interesting, from the guy who claims he never calls me name...
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Feb 4, 2004
  12. Hugo Drax

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    I have already answered that.

    Now click on this link:

    http://tinyurl.com/ytrha

    And start accusing the guy who makes a claim
    remarkably SIMILAR to mine of being a liar.
    You want to be CONSISTENT in life, don't you?
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Feb 4, 2004
  13. Hugo Drax

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    Hmm, let me see. This comes from the guy who has accuse me of
    being incapable of reading and understanding English, of being
    mentally challenged and other niceties... Can we say rampant
    HYPOCRISY here?
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Feb 4, 2004
  14. Hugo Drax

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    http://tinyurl.com/ytrha

    Same claim, different guy.
    Go ahead, accuse him of being a liar.
    You don't want to use a double standard, do you?
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Feb 4, 2004
  15. Hugo Drax

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    Try it yourself and you'll see it...
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Feb 4, 2004
  16. Hugo Drax

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    No, he did not. He's not an idiot like you, he's actually
    a PHOTOGRAPHER, not a techno junkie.
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Feb 4, 2004
  17. Hugo Drax

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    Gosh, it must really burn for a racist hate-monger like you the
    idea that someone born outside the US might better educated
    than you... That's why you keep harping on that...
    Go ahead, don't be a HYPOCRITE and a LIAR, you have actually
    said it many times over... Maybe using a different word, but that
    was the idea...
    I'm sure that's what you and Mark think...

    Comment on this:

    http://tinyurl.com/ytrha
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Feb 4, 2004
  18. Hugo Drax

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    It can happen with people using ANONIMITY...

    I see you had nothing to say about my explanation of the test.
    Maybe you don't really care about it...
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Feb 4, 2004
  19. Hugo Drax

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    OK, but you are still using MAY. You are not actually saying
    that a non-Canon product is better than one made by Canon...
    4 years, in which digital technology has advanced a lot.
    Anyway, read on, I'll explain that in detail later.
    Not exactly, you conceded that a non-Canon product MAY be
    better, but you never actually said that anything non-Canon is
    actually better... There is a difference.
    Someone else came to the same conclusions:

    http://tinyurl.com/ytrha
    You see? You just can't admit the Nikon IS better. Just MAY be
    better and you will never find enough proof to come to a definitive
    conclusion. That's why I'm suggesting you do the test yourself,
    IF you really care more about knowing the truth than insulting
    someone who has dared to say something you will never accept.
    Yeah, but now I have. Yet you still strongly doubt me.
    That's why if I really bothered SCANNING all those
    pictures (they are actual hardcopies and lots of them,
    not digital files), you will still doubt me. Why should I
    bother? I'm not exactly doing nothing in my life...
    Has that changed your viewpoint on my test?
    Of course. The test card had reference marks and I only used
    manual focus, so that any possible AF screwup would be ruled
    out.
    That's EXACTLY my point. Still, it would mean that the Nikon
    lens is better, not that the Canon is a piece of crap. If it were the
    other way round, I would have NO PROBLEM in admitting it.
    There is no doubt that I would rather have a Canon 1DII instead
    of a D2H, and I haven't even tested the two!!!
    Exactly. And this is one of the reasons why I claim that the VR system
    in the Nikkor is more "advanced" than the IS in the Canon. I have tested
    the Nikkor 80-400VR (1st generation VR) and it has huge problems with
    panning. The Canon has less problems than the 80-400VR with panning,
    and it's roughly the equal of the 24-120VR (2nd generation VR.) The
    70-200 is a 3rd generation VR and since the Canon lens performs as
    well as the 24-120VR on panning, I have concluded that it's one
    generation behind the Nikon. Does it sound like a wild assumption to you?
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Feb 4, 2004
  20. Hugo Drax

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    Would you care to post a LINK to this new allegation?
    BTW, I'm still waiting for you to PROVE that I have
    actually claimed that the Nikon SYSTEM is better than
    Canon's.

    You don't want to be proven a liar twice, do you?
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Feb 4, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.