 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / January 2007Optics maker Hoya to merge with Pentax
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Optics-maker-Hoya-to-merge-with-Pentax/2006/ 12/21/1166290673791.html > http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Optics-maker-Hoya-to-merge-with-Pentax/2006/ 12/21/1166290673791.html insteresting... let's hope pentax stays on as a camera maker, their gear is real good and deserves better. >>http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Optics-maker-Hoya-to-merge-with-Pentax/2006/ 12/21/1166290673791.html > > insteresting... > let's hope pentax stays on as a camera maker, > their gear is real good and deserves better. Just have a look at the other mergers within the industry. One springs to mind Sony just to see how many are hanging off that. >>http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Optics-maker-Hoya-to-merge-with-Pentax/2006/ 12/21/1166290673791.html > > insteresting... > let's hope pentax stays on as a camera maker, > their gear is real good and deserves better. so.. hoya are taking in Pentax.... so does this mean Kennedy's are going to lose the agency and it goes to adeal (hoya)??? interesting ot watch the fallout from this one! kosh >>> http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Optics-maker-Hoya-to-merge-with-Pentax/2006/ 12/21/1166290673791.html >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > kosh The Samsung DSLR is a rebadged Pentax, (Sony make the sensors) and Adeal are the agents for Samsung Cameras. Twisted world we live in :) > so.. hoya are taking in Pentax.... so does this mean Kennedy's are going > to lose the agency and it goes to adeal (hoya)??? That would depend on several things: - a takeover may not void existing contracts, to Kennedy's contract will still run its course, - if Hoya are happy with Kennedy's performance, then no need to change, - if Hoya are happy with adeal's performance, then no need to change. Twist: what if adeal lost the Hoya agency to Kennedys! or what if both lost them and Hoya set up themselves. [shrug] interesting indeed It would be logical to keep the contracts the same but as time moves on and the market changes then a Japanese company would seem logical as they 'fix' prices in the market place so the distributing unit just makes a profit but not enough to pay too much tax in the country of sale. Thus making a saving on the overheads but keeping the irritation about low tax revenues to the government but saying we are making jobs and they are paying tax. In the mean time of course the favourable export regimes back in Japan will offset their tax liability again. Neat eh! However if the market changes and it is like to move increasingly towards mega industries it makes sense for Samsung to take the whole shooting match and add it into the fold - albeit Korean. Samsung with a Pentax K mount are better positioned IMO to take on Sony with a Minolta/Alpha mount. Duncan >> so.. hoya are taking in Pentax.... so does this mean Kennedy's are going >> to lose the agency and it goes to adeal (hoya)??? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > [shrug] interesting indeed > so.. hoya are taking in Pentax.... so does this mean Kennedy's are going > to lose the agency and it goes to adeal (hoya)??? :-) > interesting ot watch the fallout from this one! if it means we'll be able to get proper SMC Pentax lenses in Australia instead of the Smegma crap, I'm all for a change! >>so.. hoya are taking in Pentax.... so does this mean Kennedy's are going >>to lose the agency and it goes to adeal (hoya)??? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > lenses in Australia instead of the Smegma > crap, I'm all for a change! that woul be nice! blood smegma! k >>> so.. hoya are taking in Pentax.... so does this mean Kennedy's are going >>> to lose the agency and it goes to adeal (hoya)??? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > k yeah there's only one thing worse than sigma kit lenses - Canon kit lenses! In all serious, Sigma lenses aren't that bad. I took a few test shots with the K100D (Sigma 18-50 kit lens), and compared them to identical shots taken with the Sony A100 (18-70 kit lens) and the Canon 400D (18-55 kit lens). It wasn't a resolution test chart or anything just a simple view inside the store. Tripod mounted, shots taken at full open aperture, and again at F8, at 18mm and 50mm. Printed to 8x12 then handed around a few workmates to see if they could pick the best. Of course I didn't tell them which camera was which - I asked them to rank the images, then guess which camera did them. So all but one picked the pentax as best, (the odd one out picked the Sony as best) and all thought that what they picked as best was the Canon. They all picked the sony as 2nd (except the guy who thought it was first, he picked the pentax 2nd), and all thought that the 2nd best was the Sony. They all agreed that the Canon shots were worst by a long way, and all thought that it was the Pentax doing them. The looks of surprise on their faces when they found out what did what was priceless. They couldn't believe that they had all just picked a 6mp camera with a sigma lens as better than Sony or Canon. To my eye, the Pentax did have a bit of an aliasing problem in some high detail areas - to be expected from 6MP, but the lens sharpness was clearly better than the other 2 lenses. > To my eye, the Pentax did have a bit of an aliasing problem in some high > detail areas - to be expected from 6MP, but the lens sharpness was > clearly better than the other 2 lenses. Interesting. Ken Rockwell has been doing some testing of Canon gear and has virtually reached the same conclusions re Canon cheap lenses. His approach is anything but scientific but I tend to listen to what he says after due discount. He's happy with the expensive Canon stuff but the cheap series has problems with accurate focusing. So does some of the cheap Nikon gear, BTW. I guess it's all in the word "budget", isn't it? Given that, maybe the Sigma budget stuff does a better job of accurate AF than the others... >>>> so.. hoya are taking in Pentax.... so does this mean Kennedy's are >>>> going [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > detail areas - to be expected from 6MP, but the lens sharpness was > clearly better than the other 2 lenses. granted sigma make great lenses.... just not their kitted ones.... I once heard the cost of manufacture was less than $10. Actually, someone in the group posted som shots from the 10-20.... compared them against some results I had with the Canon 10-22..... I thought the contrast and colour balance of the sigma lens was superior. k > granted sigma make great lenses.... just not their kitted ones.... I > once heard the cost of manufacture was less than $10. Actually, someone > in the group posted som shots from the 10-20.... compared them against > some results I had with the Canon 10-22..... I thought the contrast and > colour balance of the sigma lens was superior. Doesn't surprise me - I've been very happy with the quality of their recent lenses. The lenses that kennedy's use as kit lenses with the pentax's aren't fantastic, but they do seem better than canon and sony kit lenses. The $300 RRP 70-300 blows the pants off the 75-300 that canon use as part of the twin lens kit. For someone on a strict budget who has to replace a damaged kit lens, a sigma lens wouldn't be a bad choice. It would be nice if kennedy's offered genuine pentax kit lenses as well as sigma, although some test I saw on the web indicated that the sigma 28-80 (used as the kit in MZ60s) is sharper than the budget Pentax 28-80. Yet to see a Pentax 28-80 myself to be able to compare. > k > > granted sigma make great lenses.... just not their kitted ones.... I > > once heard the cost of manufacture was less than $10. Actually, someone [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 28-80 (used as the kit in MZ60s) is sharper than the budget Pentax > 28-80. Yet to see a Pentax 28-80 myself to be able to compare. I'm amazed how you guys worry about small differences between crap lenses, instead of buying some quality primes and *really* getting an improvement. Just compare a $150 Canon 50mm f1.8 against any Canon or Pentax or Sigma or Sony or Nikon etc. kit zoom (and many of their expensive zooms for that matter, I just wish they'd upgrade it to USM though as the price difference with their other lenses is only about $50. Would really make a great $200 lens IMO). Then you can step up to any of their L series primes if you want better quality. Of course you need a 5D or 1DSII to get the most benefit in that case. If you just want convenience though, why spend time arguing about small differences? Go out and shoot some photo's instead :-) MrT. (who has never bought a kit zoom, but still thinks they serve a valid purpose for some people, especially those who only print 6*4" anyway.) >>> granted sigma make great lenses.... just not their kitted ones.... I >>> once heard the cost of manufacture was less than $10. Actually, someone [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > with their other lenses is only about $50. Would really make a great $200 > lens IMO). Gees MrT, without the zoom how would we make sure the subject filled the frame and we didn't get any pesky background in the frame? I'm quite puzzled by this. Should we also hide under a hood behind the camera and ignite some flash-powder for portraits? > If you just want convenience though, why spend time arguing about small > differences? Go out and shoot some photo's instead :-) amen :) > MrT. > (who has never bought a kit zoom, but still thinks they serve a valid > purpose for some people, especially those who only print 6*4" anyway.) I have both, and prefer primes to zooms in most situations... except where I need maximum 'flexibility on the go', in which case I forgo some crispness for that flexibility. > Gees MrT, without the zoom how would we make sure the subject filled the > frame and we didn't get any pesky background in the frame? Does your photo editing software not have a crop function? I suggest you buy one that does! Come to think of it, even photo kiosks have a crop function. (or maybe you were just being funny? Hard to tell for sure without a smiley.) > I'm quite puzzled by this. Should we also hide under a hood behind the > camera and ignite some flash-powder for portraits? More necessary with those god-awfully slow kit zooms I think. MrT. . >> Gees MrT, without the zoom how would we make sure the subject filled the >> frame and we didn't get any pesky background in the frame? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > (or maybe you were just being funny? Hard to tell for sure without a > smiley.) damn, I forgot my smiley. Humble appologies, and yes it was very tongue-in-cheek sarcastic humour being applied :) >>> Gees MrT, without the zoom how would we make sure the subject filled the >>> frame and we didn't get any pesky background in the frame? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >damn, I forgot my smiley. Humble appologies, and yes it was very >tongue-in-cheek sarcastic humour being applied :) Yeah, 'cos, Gahd knows when your hauling it down a bush track that even goats would have second thoughts about using for 6 hours while taking a mixture of long and close shots, it's MUCH better to be lugging 3 or 4 primes than one or two decent zooms. There's nothing better than to be changing lenses regularly in the dirt and the dust and the mud and having a couple of extra kilos slung over your shoulder, is there? Or even in more benign environments like a city, I know that I just lurrrrve either compromising on the settings that I want to use, or having to mix the skills of juggler and weightlifter. Smugness comes as an optional extra, of course. > Yeah, 'cos, Gahd knows when your hauling it down a bush track that > even goats would have second thoughts about using for 6 hours while [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Smugness comes as an optional extra, of course. And I see you purchased that option :) yes, if you're in situations such as you describe then zooms would be better. Buy the best you can. A lense such as the Nikon AF VR 70-200 2.8 matches my primes for crispness... but it also makes me lazy. I guess it's personal preference - the original post was about the quality of 'kit lenses', and in that I have no disagreement. They are average at best. for the record, I prefer manual transmissions in my cars, although I'm currently driving an auto :) >> Yeah, 'cos, Gahd knows when you're hauling it down a bush track that >> even goats would have second thoughts about using for 6 hours while [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >And I see you purchased that option :) No, you're just seeing my mirror. It's unfortunate that you snipped your original self-confessed "sarcastic" comment of: > "Gees MrT, without the zoom how would we make sure the subject > filled the frame and we didn't get any pesky background in the frame? > I'm quite puzzled by this. " It came off as just dripping with self-righteousness; that those who don't do things as YOU do things are just clueless and are using zooms because they're lazy and stupid, not because they may have a reason to. Whether it was MEANT to be that way or not... it's certainly how it could have been read. I have only one prime so far; a 50mm for portraiture and "people" work. I expect I'll get a couple more for specific purposes, but since most of my shots are landscapes or cityscapes far from home I'll still probably place more dependence on zooms to give me the best combination of flexibility and weight. >yes, if you're in situations such as you describe then zooms would be >better. Buy the best you can. A lense such as the Nikon AF VR 70-200 >2.8 matches my primes for crispness... but it also makes me lazy. I find that the opposite is true. There are more variables to concern yourself with, and therefore you need to think it through to a greater extent. (Or, better still be able to "intuit" the shot, though I'll readily confess that I'm a long way from that.) >I guess it's personal preference - the original post was about the >quality of 'kit lenses', and in that I have no disagreement. They are >average at best. Yes, that's probably so. This morning I was just going over some shots that I took early on with my (Canon) kit lenses (18-55 EFS and 55-200), and some later similar ones with my 24-105 F/4 L. It brought home the difference. > Yeah, 'cos, Gahd knows when your hauling it down a bush track that > even goats would have second thoughts about using for 6 hours while [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > know that I just lurrrrve either compromising on the settings that I > want to use, or having to mix the skills of juggler and weightlifter. Well everyone gets to choose how much convenience and how much quality they desire. You can either lug a view camera on a 6 day hike, or carry a micro pocket point and shoot, or anything in between, The choice is yours. But arguing whether the P&S is better than the view camera does seem a trifle pointless to me. MrT. >> Yeah, 'cos, Gahd knows when your hauling it down a bush track that >> even goats would have second thoughts about using for 6 hours while [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >arguing whether the P&S is better than the view camera does seem a trifle >pointless to me. Which it would be, if that were even remotely the subject at hand. As it was zooms vs primes, though, I'm thinking that P&S's don't fit anywhere into that equation. And since there are SOME zooms where you're going to be hard pressed to tell the difference (for practical purposes) between shots taken with the zoom, and shots taken with an equivalent focal length prime, insisting that primes are the be all and end all would seem to verge juuuust a little on chest thumping. > Which it would be, if that were even remotely the subject at hand. As > it was zooms vs primes, though, I'm thinking that P&S's don't fit [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > equivalent focal length prime, insisting that primes are the be all > and end all would seem to verge juuuust a little on chest thumping. and having just ordered the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR lense to add to my kit, it is one such zoom that is hard to tell the difference between it and a prime. The 200-400 is next on my list. I still prefer primes, but for equine events the zooms do make more sense - and having a decent zoom with excellent optics cancels the argument. > and having just ordered the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR lense to add to my kit, > it is one such zoom that is hard to tell the difference between it and a > prime. A nice lens indeed, and not remotely in the same league as the kit zooms originally being compared though. MrT. > Which it would be, if that were even remotely the subject at hand. As > it was zooms vs primes, though, I'm thinking that P&S's don't fit > anywhere into that equation. sh.t you were the one who changed it to weight and convenience, isn't that EXACTLY where P&S camera's fit in!! MrT. >> Which it would be, if that were even remotely the subject at hand. As >> it was zooms vs primes, though, I'm thinking that P&S's don't fit >> anywhere into that equation. > >sh.t you were the one who changed it to weight and convenience, isn't that >EXACTLY where P&S camera's fit in!! sh.t, I was the one who pointed out that there were legitimate reasons for zooms AS WELL AS primes. The way you were going on it seemed like you were one step short of calling out for a ruler to measure it. > sh.t, I was the one who pointed out that there were legitimate reasons > for zooms AS WELL AS primes. Since I'd already done that in my post, it was a trifle redundant then. >The way you were going on it seemed like > you were one step short of calling out for a ruler to measure it. Shows how your mind works then I guess. MrT. >>The way you were going on it seemed like >> you were one step short of calling out for a ruler to measure it. > >Shows how your mind works then I guess. No, it shows that in many of your posts you come off as superior and abrasive, with no time for any opinions other than your own or any willingness to see more than one side of an argument. Indeed I doubt that you even realise the extent of that. The fact that you know your sh.t buys you a bunch of credit on that point, but it's not unsurprising that someone'll snap back at you occasionally. > No, it shows that in many of your posts you come off as superior and > abrasive, with no time for any opinions other than your own or any > willingness to see more than one side of an argument. Funny then that you are the one who started with the insults, and now prove you cannot read, since I already mentioned that zooms have their place in my original post to this thread. Hardly an "unwillingness to see more than one side of an argument". I also note you do not distinguish the difference between a $100 kit zoom, and a $3,000 pro zoom, something I took the trouble to point out in the first place. Mind you, dollar for dollar a prime will always beat a zoom, as any reasonable person would expect. There is always a cost to convenience. But whatever suits you is fine by me :-) >Indeed I doubt > that you even realise the extent of that. The fact that you know your > sh.t buys you a bunch of credit on that point, but it's not > unsurprising that someone'll snap back at you occasionally. I don't mind when people "snap back" *if* I deserve it. When they ignore what I have actually said and *START* the ad-hominem attacks for no reason other than they can't read, or don't like what I have said, then it only demeans them, not me. MrT. >> No, it shows that in many of your posts you come off as superior and >> abrasive, with no time for any opinions other than your own or any [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >and a $3,000 pro zoom, something I took the trouble to point out in the >first place. Actually you didn't. If you want to sharpen your OWN reading skills a little, go back and read what you originally posted. You mention primes, you mention kit zooms. You don't mention anything about zooms with quality optics which, incidentally, can be had for considerably less than $3K. >"who has never bought a *kit zoom*, but still thinks they serve a valid >purpose for some people" (Emphasis added.) >Mind you, dollar for dollar a prime will always beat a zoom, as any >reasonable person would expect. Except that as I said in an earlier post, " And since there are SOME zooms where you're going to be hard pressed to tell the difference (for practical purposes) between shots taken with the zoom, and shots taken with an equivalent focal length prime" The FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES qualification being the important one. >There is always a cost to convenience. >But whatever suits you is fine by me :-) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >other than they can't read, or don't like what I have said, then it only >demeans them, not me. I've bitten my tongue more than once when you've started with the snarkiness for the reason that I mentioned above; you *generally* give good advice. Though in this case I didn't think it was EXCEPTIONALLY good since as noted above, you did NOT in fact propose a quality optic zoom as an alternative; you seemed to indicate that you had kit zooms, and primes, with not much in between. > Actually you didn't. If you want to sharpen your OWN reading skills a > little, go back and read what you originally posted. > > You mention primes, you mention kit zooms. You don't mention anything > about zooms with quality optics which, incidentally, can be had for > considerably less than $3K. So please name the *kit zooms* which ARE quality optics in your opinion? Maybe a definition of "quality optic" would help. {quoting me} > >"who has never bought a *kit zoom*, but still thinks they serve a valid > >purpose for some people" Exactly, quite specific, and hardly so biased as you suggest! > Except that as I said in an earlier post, > " And since there are SOME zooms where you're going to be hard pressed > to tell the difference (for practical purposes) between shots taken > with the zoom, and shots taken with an equivalent focal length prime" Except I specifically said "kit zoom" in an even earlier post, because that is what I was replying to in the first place. > I've bitten my tongue more than once when you've started with the > snarkiness for the reason that I mentioned above; you *generally* give > good advice. Though in this case I didn't think it was EXCEPTIONALLY > good since as noted above, you did NOT in fact propose a quality optic > zoom as an alternative; you seemed to indicate that you had kit zooms, > and primes, with not much in between. In fact I specifically said I *DON'T* own a kit zoom. Better check those reading skills again. You even quote it above! I do have a Canon 17-85 USM IS, which is not particularly cheap, nor is it a particularly good lens unfortunately, IMO and that of many others. As I said, convenience has it's price. You get to make your own choices. I have owned a Canon 70-200 f2.8 (non IS), but am happier with the 100mm f2 and 200mm f2.8. I still have a Zuiko 75-150 zoom which is not a bad zoom, but hardly matches their 100 or 135mm primes, of which I have both. So what exactly *IS* a quality optic is very much a matter of opinion. However lens tests can definitely show which ones are better than others. If you don't agree with my advice, that is fine. You should spell out why you choose differently for your particular needs. Simply saying it was not good advice or starting a flame war is hardly a benefit to anyone. Good luck with whatever YOU choose. MrT. >> Actually you didn't. If you want to sharpen your OWN reading skills a >> little, go back and read what you originally posted. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >So please name the *kit zooms* which ARE quality optics in your opinion? >Maybe a definition of "quality optic" would help. Pretty much anything in the Canon L series (and probably the Nikon equivalent), based on reviews on (for example) Fred Miranda. And, I'd have to say, on my own experience of the 24-105mm f4 L IS. Initially I didn't really appreciate the difference; it was only really brought home to me when I was recently reviewing some early shots with my 55-200mm kit zoom, and later ones with the 24-105. >{quoting me} >> >"who has never bought a *kit zoom*, but still thinks they serve a valid [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Except I specifically said "kit zoom" in an even earlier post, because that >is what I was replying to in the first place. You introduced the whole issue of primes, which wasn't being discussed at that point. Now there's nothing WRONG with that; it's certainly valid for threads to flow in different directions and raising other possibilities, but nonetheless talking about primes and kit zooms leaves out a huge honking great chunk of the market in the middle there; specifically the non-kit zoom. >> I've bitten my tongue more than once when you've started with the >> snarkiness for the reason that I mentioned above; you *generally* give [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >In fact I specifically said I *DON'T* own a kit zoom. Better check those >reading skills again. You even quote it above! Orrrr... perhaps your comprehension, I fear. You've doubtless heard the expression "on the one hand you have x, on the other you have y". This does not always mean that the speaker is saying that the person that he's speaking to is personally in possession of x and y; merely that x exists, and y exists as an alternative. In this case, an alternative and more literal way of saying it would have been "in the market ther are primes, and there are kit zooms...etc". 'Tain't always about you personally, my friend. 8^> >I do have a Canon 17-85 USM IS, which is not particularly cheap, nor is it a >particularly good lens unfortunately, IMO and that of many others. As I >said, convenience has it's price. You get to make your own choices. >I have owned a Canon 70-200 f2.8 (non IS), but am happier with the 100mm f2 >and 200mm f2.8. Interesting to hear you say that, since the 70-200 is one that I've been thinking about for longer range shots. But then, it's one of several. > >So please name the *kit zooms* which ARE quality optics in your opinion? > >Maybe a definition of "quality optic" would help. > > Pretty much anything in the Canon L series Strange I 've never seen a Canon "kit" with an L series zoom. You can buy one with any Canon camera of course, but I doubt the OP had that in mind when he mentioned "kit zooms" (> equivalent), based on reviews on (for example) Fred Miranda. And, I'd > have to say, on my own experience of the 24-105mm f4 L IS. Initially I > didn't really appreciate the difference; it was only really brought > home to me when I was recently reviewing some early shots with my > 55-200mm kit zoom, and later ones with the 24-105. Yes and when you compare it with non L 24mm prime, 50mm prime and 100mm prime you realise it's all relative. You see a 24-105 f2.8L (instead of f4) would be much dearer than all those primes put together, and lower quality to boot, but would have the advantage of convenience, and IS. (Now that's where the IS/VR type camera bodies really win I guess, you could buy a camera, 24mm, 50mm, 100mm and 200mm lenses for about the same as the 70-200f2.8L-IS alone :-) > >> Except that as I said in an earlier post, > >> " And since there are SOME zooms where you're going to be hard pressed [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > leaves out a huge honking great chunk of the market in the middle > there; specifically the non-kit zoom. Well sure, and there is nothing wrong with mentioning them either, but let's keep it all in perspective. One minute they are comparing $100 -$300 lenses and trying to argue one brand is better than another. My point was "who cares" about such small trivialities, then you claim pro series zooms are better, (which I already mentioned anyway when I also mentioned primes) You seem to have missed my whole purpose in posting and simply gone around in circles. > >> I've bitten my tongue more than once when you've started with the > >> snarkiness for the reason that I mentioned above; you *generally* give [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > market ther are primes, and there are kit zooms...etc". 'Tain't always > about you personally, my friend. 8^> I'm glad *you* think that is an explanation of your assertion above :-) > Interesting to hear you say that, since the 70-200 is one that I've > been thinking about for longer range shots. But then, it's one of > several. It's something I have been saying for ages, I cannot understand the current fixation on lenses like the overpriced 70-200 f2.8L IS/VR, But they aren't too bad for those who think they need them, and can afford it. I just think there is better performance to be had, and for less money. MrT. >I don't mind when people "snap back" *if* I deserve it. When they ignore >what I have actually said and *START* the ad-hominem attacks for no reason >other than they can't read, or don't like what I have said, then it only >demeans them, not me. I should also have mentioned; an ad homiem attack is, as the definition suggests, one to the person. There is a difference between that, and talking about what a person DOES. It would be an ad hominem attack if I were to say that I thought you were a jerk. It's not if I say that I think you sometimes play one on Usenet. In fact I do NOT think that you're a jerk, and indeed I admire your level of photographic knowledge considerably. However when you start posts with (for example): [Literal]: "I'm amazed how you guys worry about small differences between crap lenses," [Implied translation] "I stand flabergasted by how little you fools know", well, IMHO there's just no NEED to take that kind of approach in a post. And it ain't the first, second or third time. JMHO, anyway. > [Literal]: "I'm amazed how you guys worry about small differences > between crap lenses," > [Implied translation] "I stand flabergasted by how little you fools > know", Ah then the problem is YOUR interpretation. Maybe you should start reading what is written and not try to guess what you think I am implying. MrT. >>>>Gees MrT, without the zoom how would we make sure the subject filled the >>>>frame and we didn't get any pesky background in the frame? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Smugness comes as an optional extra, of course. SWOOSH .... ahh th esweet sound of the vacuum created by the zooming motion sucking all that dirt and dust in! k > SWOOSH .... ahh th esweet sound of the vacuum created by the zooming > motion sucking all that dirt and dust in! LOL! Too true... |
Reply to this Message |
 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
|
©2009 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.