The message <2004110315074170814@deryck.com>
from deryck lant <deryck@deryck.com> contains these words:
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/
> Phil is becoming sloppy with many errors and omissions.
> I couldn't find the low-light AF focus test.
> Or shot to shot time using single shot in raw after the purposely
> restricted 6 shot buffer.
> The centre focus cross type sensor does operate with aperture f5.6
> as well as f2.8. At F2.8 the sensor uses different elements giving 3
> times the accuracy.
> No mention of lens used in today's samples gallery. I didn't bother to
> explore the EXIF data.
The review has now been amended adding lens used for sample pics.
> Pity the shutter/mirror are so loud. It would have been an ideal camera
> for use in available light work during live performances in theatre.
> The response from Nikon will be fascinating. Trouble is a long time to
> hang on for. Release at the PMA show but not available until later on year.
> Nikon have promised 5 tiers of DSLR cameras. D70 entry level - just been
> reduced to ?780ish including the excellent !8-70mm lens (this lens would
> be classed as an L class lens in Canon speak as it incorporates 3 ED
> elements)
> The D100/D200.
> A New semi-pro camera.
> Then the D1/D2 series.
> Then what?
> Deryck
>Phil is becoming sloppy with many errors and omissions.
As long as the sponsorship funds keep flowing, who cares?
;-)
"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message news:...
>> No rocket science involved, it's a matter of statistical probability of
>> risk
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> many years ago, and it is what they use to justify insuring the cars. But
> .......
I was watching 60 Minutes a little while ago, and thinking about my answer
to you, and I decided to augment it with this:
Let's suppose I am 21 years old, and I buy a brand new Corvette, and I call
the insurance company. The girl tells me that she has to charge me $1000 a
year for liability insurance. I say, "Wow! - That's a lot of money, why is
it so much?" And she tells me essentially what you said above. That My car
puts me in a high risk category, and they have to charge me that much to
recover their losses due to accident liability pay offs. So, I say, OK, your
check is in the mail.
Now, a few months go by, and I am sitting in my office at work, and
looking out the window at my 'vette in the parking lot, and I think.
Gee.....that thing is sitting there in the sun all day while I am sitting
here, I should really drive something else to work, and just drive the
'vette on weekends. Effie, down in accounting has her Honda Civic for sale.
It's about 5 years old, and gets 30 miles per gallon, and the 'vette only
gets 10. Maybe I should buy it.
So, I call the insurance company and ask them how much it would cost to
add the Civic to my policy. The girl says, "Well, it would normally only
cost you $500 a year, but since it is a second vehicle, we can give you a
20% discount, so it will only add $400 a year to your premium, for a total
of $1400 a year for both cars."
"Wait a minute," I say, "I put 60% of my total yearly miles on
commuting, so I will be driving the Civic 60% of the time, and the 'vette
only 40%. That means you should charge me 40% of $1000, plus 60% of $500 or
$400 plus $300 for a total of $700 a year for both cars, but, in fact, you
want to charge me twice that, or $1400 a year!"
In fact, the insurance company would still be making money by charging
me half of what they actually do charge, but anytime I spend driving the
Civic, they are making money hand over fist, because they are still charging
me that $1000 for the Corvette while it is parked in my garage at home.
Now, do you see why I am so concerned about this?