Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / October 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Canon 20D: Full dpreview

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
deryck  lant - 03 Nov 2004 16:07 GMT
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.

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
deryck  lant - 03 Nov 2004 20:18 GMT
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
TP - 04 Nov 2004 09:46 GMT
>Phil is becoming sloppy with many errors and omissions.

As long as the sponsorship funds keep flowing, who cares?

;-)
William Graham - 31 Oct 2005 05:24 GMT
"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?
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.