 |
 | 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 / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / August 2005Someone tested Canon's kit lens
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1855_3556/index.htm Verdict "In lens land there's no such thing as a free lunch and the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II is an example for that. Under controlled condition - medium aperture settings that is - the lens can provide very decent results, certainly more than enough for casual users (who are the target group anyway). However, large aperture settings should be generally avoided due to quite pronounced vignetting (@18mm) and poor to average edge performance. Distortions are very high at the wide-end but no issue at the tele end. The construction quality is soso at best. That said in its price range there're few alternatives in Canon EOS mount and they probably aren't better either. However, serious users looking for a good quality lens should save a little more and look elsewhere." VERSUS Olympus's: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/olympus_1445_3556/index.htm Verdict Regarding its price tag the Olympus 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 is a very good deal with a good build quality combined with a very decent optical performance. The most pronounced weaknesses are very strong barrel distortions at 14mm and some chromatic aberrations at 14mm @ f/3.5 (easily correctable via tools). Remember that the depth-of-field is very high with such a lens - isolating objects by choosing a large aperture setting is quite hopeless except with close-ups. This is a point where Olympus' prosumer variant - the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 is more usable. If you just want a light-weight walk-around lens the 14-45mm lens should be more than good enough. It's quite strange that this lens sells for the price of a few Coke bottles at eBay - it certainly deserves better! > http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1855_3556/index.htm > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > than good enough. It's quite strange that this lens sells for the > price of a few Coke bottles at eBay - it certainly deserves better! Big Sigh. Huge Sigh. When are these Canon-bashers going to shut up? Let's take a quick look at these 'reviews'. Canon: "(at) medium aperture settings that is - the lens can provide very decent results, certainly more than enough for casual users (who are the target group anyway)." Olympus: "a very decent optical performance." Question: What's different? Canon: "pronounced vignetting (@18mm) and poor to average edge performance. Distortions are very high at the wide-end but no issue at the tele end." Olympus: "very strong barrel distortions at 14mm and some chromatic aberrations at 14mm @ f/3.5 (easily correctable via tools)." Question: So they both have problems at the wide end. Oly is easily correctable with tools. No such let-out for Canon, though. Hot news: the Canon lens is just as correctable 'with tools' as the Oly. Olympus: "It's quite strange that this lens sells for the price of a few Coke bottles at eBay" Yeah, Right!! There is currently *one* selling on Ebay, for $135.00 buy it now. That's TWICE the price of the Canon lens. Where the hell are you coming from here??? You Canon bashers are full of BULLSHIT. Missed that word, did you? here it is again: BULLSHIT. Take Brian's advice and shut your f*****g yaps. Colin D. > Yeah, Right!! There is currently *one* selling on Ebay, for $135.00 buy > it now. That's TWICE the price of the Canon lens. Where the hell are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Colin D. ROTFLMAO Bro, you shouldn't hold your /true/ feelings in so much... you could hurt yourself ;-P -- Slack > > Yeah, Right!! There is currently *one* selling on Ebay, for $135.00 buy > > it now. That's TWICE the price of the Canon lens. Where the hell are [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > -- > Slack Yeah, man, let us know how you feel!!!  SignatureLarry Lynch Mystic, Ct. > > > Yeah, Right!! There is currently *one* selling on Ebay, for $135.00 buy > > > it now. That's TWICE the price of the Canon lens. Where the hell are [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Larry Lynch > Mystic, Ct. Since you ask ... nah, better not, I might upset those sensitive posters, Stacey and RichA, couldn't have them offended now, could we? {:-) Colin D. I started photography in the 70s earning a crust here and there doing this and that for a variety of customers but also a fair bit for myself. I do not regard myself a professional. I'm new to the digital world and only after being badgered into trying it by a couple of co-workers. The Canon 350D, with that notorious kit lens, was chosen because I did not want to commit myself to investing too much in a branch of photography which I might decide was not for me. But I also wanted a bit of kit which would perform to a high and reliable standard and would still have a place in my bag if I decided to go down that road with more expensive "professional cameras". The only problem I had was the size. I had difficulty in gripping it and using the controls, solved by the addition of a Battery Grip! I gave it a good run out the week I got it. I tried out all of the combinations which I would normally use on a job.I ended up with blisters on my fingers but also some fine 'photos. I took the camera out with me on a 5 day "pot boiler" doing factory and landscapes. The lens performed just as I expected. Very well. All of the shots were usable. As for "noise", according to the two who pushed me down this road, even at 400 negligible to non existent at 100. I was quite impressed. This is a very good entry level camera. There is a place for this one. I can take dozens of exposures and check practically there and then. This was money well spent. Of course, this is only the opinion of someone who earns an extra crust using a camera. Unfortunately, I'm not an armchair theoretician who has the time to sit back and consider this that and the next thing. I don't care if the kit is a perfect reflection of some platonic artifact in heaven. If a bit of kit cuts the mustard its in if not its out. I suspect that most critics of this model and the kit lens have either none or little practical experience of either. What they may be giving out is a rehash of magazine articles and bar chat stripped of nearly all positive comment. We have this in the UK. There is a guy on TV a bit of celebrity,( in other words well known), who reviews motor vehicles. He rips it out of all makes except Ford. But he is thought to be a bit of a tube. The vast majority of folk don't listens to him those who do take the piss. I suspect it is much the same in this group. Angus. --------------------- Remember Glencoe. Visit: http://members.aol.com/Skyelander/glencoe.html --------------------- > Big Sigh. Huge Sigh. When are these Canon-bashers going to shut up? Never. They are insanely jealous of Canon, and they are insecure about their own choices. That is the reason for the endless bashing. > Let's take a quick look at these 'reviews'. The bottom line is that the both have decent optical quality, with the Olympus better in build quality. The big difference is that with Canon you have a very wide selection of very good lenses, with Olympus you don't. >> Big Sigh. Huge Sigh. When are these Canon-bashers going to shut up? > > Never. They are insanely jealous of Canon, and they are insecure about > their own choices. That is the reason for the endless bashing. And your reason for constantly bashing other brands is? >> Let's take a quick look at these 'reviews'. > > The bottom line is that the both have decent optical quality, No, they say the canon stopped down to MEDIUM FSTOPS has decent optical quality. The ZD works OK wide open. >The big difference is that with Canon > you have a very wide selection of very good lenses, with Olympus you > don't. Actually with Canon the selection of "very good lenses" isn't much deeper than what olympus has, they just make a bunch more cheap consumer zooms. SignatureStacey >>The big difference is that with Canon >> you have a very wide selection of very good lenses, with Olympus you >> don't. > > Actually with Canon the selection of "very good lenses" isn't much deeper > than what olympus has, they just make a bunch more cheap consumer zooms. Does Oly have a 28-135 IS, 16-35 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 IS, 400 f2.8 IS, 500 f4 IS, 600 f4 IS, 50mm f1.4, ANY tilt and shift or perspective control lens, 85mm f1.2, 85mm f1.8, 24mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, not to mention a bunch of consumer lenses that are quite good, like the 100 f2, 28-105 f3.5-4.5, and many others. And then there's the aftermarket mfrs, who support Canon a lot more than they do Oly. Yes, Oly makes a 50-200 f2.8-3.5 which matches up favorably to the Canon 100-400 IS, and they make a nice 50mm f2 macro, but not much else. B&H lists 6 pages of Canon lenses, 1 page of Oly lenses. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com <<Does Oly have a 28-135 IS, 16-35 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 IS, 400 f2.8 IS, 500 f4 IS, 600 f4 IS, 50mm f1.4, ANY tilt and shift or perspective control lens, 85mm f1.2, 85mm f1.8, 24mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, not to mention a bunch of consumer lenses that are quite good, like the 100 f2, 28-105 f3.5-4.5, and many others. >> Olympus USED TO sell to the professional market, then they shut down the OM line and went for the snapshooter market largely. In a book published before the Om-4T and OM-4Ti came into existence, they listed 43 different lenses, from 8mm f/2.8 to 1000mm f/11, and offered some of the fastest and lightest and most compact lenses in the industry, fantastic perspective control lensesincluding 24mm PC, and of course the requisite zoom, and then they continued to introduce more lenses even into the late 90's. So do not condemn Olympus simply because they no longer cater to the professional market, where Canon dominates and where Nikon continues to hang on by their fingernails! --wilt (who owns both an Olympus OM film system and a Canon 20D digital system) > 43 different lenses, from 8mm f/2.8 That sounds like a fun lens. I take it was a full fisheye? Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >>43 different lenses, from 8mm f/2.8 > > That sounds like a fun lens. I take it was a full fisheye? yep! http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuik o/htmls/fish8mm.htm > >>43 different lenses, from 8mm f/2.8 > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuik o/htmls/fish8mm.htm Very cool. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > <<Does Oly have a 28-135 IS, 16-35 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 IS, 400 f2.8 IS, > 500 f4 [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > --wilt (who owns both an Olympus OM film system and a Canon 20D digital > system) Oh, you get me wrong, I'm not condemning them at all. Stacey has a habit of mis-stating things when it comes to Canon equipment. She claims that Oly's lens selection, when you get past the Canon low level consumer stuff, is just as deep, and I wanted her to tell me what lenses were the equivalents of the Canon lenses. That's all. The E-1 was being marketed as a pro level camera, but, especially at the time of introduction, there wasn't the depth of lens line to support pro pretentions. There, now, is just barely. Like you said, Oly used to have some remarkable lenses, and they do still have remarkable optics, by reputation, among the best going, if not the best. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Oh, you get me wrong, I'm not condemning them at all. Stacey has a habit of > mis-stating things when it comes to Canon equipment. She claims that Oly's [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > have remarkable optics, by reputation, among the best going, if not the > best. How many Professional Photographers actually own the whole "L" series range of lenses, Skip? SignatureDouglas, Zero care factor for negative responses from anonymous posters. > How many Professional Photographers actually own the whole "L" series > range of lenses, Skip? How is this valid in the least? Damn you've turned into a crackpot, Doug. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >>How many Professional Photographers actually own the whole "L" series >>range of lenses, Skip? > > How is this valid in the least? > > Damn you've turned into a crackpot, Doug. I've always been a crackpot, Brian. Skip was rambling on about the huge lineup of Canon lenses compared to very useful but smaller lineup of Olympus lenses. The thought occurred to me that not a lot of people would own all of the canon range... What's so odd about that? SignatureDouglas, You never really make it on the 'net until you get your own personal Troll. Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites! >>>How many Professional Photographers actually own the whole "L" series >>>range of lenses, Skip? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > me that not a lot of people would own all of the canon range... What's so > odd about that? I wasn't exactly rambling on, I was asking Stacey what lenses were available in Oly's line that matched up with those lenses, since she made the statement that, "Actually with Canon the selection of "very good lenses" isn't much deeper than what Olympus has, they just make a bunch more cheap consumer zooms." There about 4 lenses that Oly makes that Canon doesn't have an equivalent for on a 1.6x camera. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> Oh, you get me wrong, I'm not condemning them at all. Stacey has a habit >> of mis-stating things when it comes to Canon equipment. She claims that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > How many Professional Photographers actually own the whole "L" series > range of lenses, Skip? Doesn't matter, those lenses are available to those who need them. And I can rent pretty much any "L" lens, if I need to. An Oly shooter doesn't have as many options. But that wasn't the point, the point was Stacey's continuing misinformation campaign about Canon, saying that once you get past the cheap consumer lenses, the two lens lines are similar. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > How many Professional Photographers actually own the whole "L" series > range of lenses, Skip? What a dopey question. Probably none of them own every L lens. But they own some, and if necessary they can rent the ones that they need only occasionally. >> <<Does Oly have a 28-135 IS, 16-35 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 IS, 400 f2.8 IS, >> 500 f4 [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >have remarkable optics, by reputation, among the best going, if not the >best. Olympus's intentions were there. They wanted to produce digitals with lenses especially made for them. They didn't want less than suitable (as Canon and Nikon and the others offer) SLR lenses used on the digitals. It's now apparent that this was the right decision, since Canon and Nikon are finally following suit, but Olympus probably should have kept their OM line as they introduced more and more pure digital lenses, then phased them out on equal terms. However, in a sop to the hurt feelings of OM users, they did issue an adapter that allows the old OM lenses to be used on the digital SLRs. They even gave it away for free in beginning. I can't blame Olympus for wanting to do things correctly, but their implementation was poor. -Rich > I can't blame Olympus for wanting > to do things correctly, but their implementation was poor. Doing what correctly? The 4/3rds idea is so flawed I can't even begin to describe how unneeded it was. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> I can't blame Olympus for wanting >> to do things correctly, but their implementation was poor. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The 4/3rds idea is so flawed I can't even begin to describe how unneeded >it was. Well, if 4/3rds has locked them into a situation where they simply can't make sensors that can compete on certain levels with others, that is true. I was referring to them implementing digital only lenses. -Rich >>Oh, you get me wrong, I'm not condemning them at all. Stacey has a habit >>of [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > to do things correctly, but their implementation was poor. > -Rich Repeat after me: "The road to hell is paved with---" <G> But "less than suitable" is not a good phrase for that. The main thing with the EF-S lenses seems to be ease of manufacturing, the 24-70, for instance, works as well, or better, on digital bodies as it ever did on film bodies. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > The E-1 was being marketed as a pro > level camera, but, especially at the time of introduction, there wasn't > the depth > of lens line to support pro pretentions. So when the EOS line was introduced, how deep was the lens line? SignatureStacey >> The E-1 was being marketed as a pro >> level camera, but, especially at the time of introduction, there wasn't >> the depth >> of lens line to support pro pretentions. > > So when the EOS line was introduced, how deep was the lens line? As far as I can tell, in '87, there were about 10 lenses available, and some of them were less than stellar. So, I guess the answer is not very, but how long has the E-1 been out? And I'm referring to what is, as you were, not what may, or will, be. The other part of that equation is that there were darn few AF cameras available with pro pretensions, there is a plethora of digital SLRs out there with pro marketing, if not specs. So, Oly had a harder row to hoe when marketing the E-1 as a pro camera than Canon did in '87. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > As far as I can tell, in '87, there were about 10 lenses available, and >some of them were less than stellar. So, I guess the answer is not very, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Oly had a harder row to hoe when marketing the E-1 as a pro camera than >Canon did in '87. In 1987, EOS was a consumer system, pure and simple. Canon didn't pretend EOS had any pro pretensions until the EOS 1 appeared. It took a good many years for pro shooters to accept AF, and the EOS 1 was probably the first camera that encouraged pros to take AF seriously. >> As far as I can tell, in '87, there were about 10 lenses available, and >>some of them were less than stellar. So, I guess the answer is not very, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > a good many years for pro shooters to accept AF, and the EOS 1 was > probably the first camera that encouraged pros to take AF seriously. You are right, the EOS630 was pretty much the equivalent of the later Elan line of cameras. So, by '89, there was a pretty extensive line of lenses, including several "L" lenses. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > You are right, the EOS630 was pretty much the equivalent of the later Elan > line of cameras. So, by '89, there was a pretty extensive line of lenses, > including several "L" lenses. About the same number of years the E1 has been out.... SignatureStacey >> You are right, the EOS630 was pretty much the equivalent of the later >> Elan >> line of cameras. So, by '89, there was a pretty extensive line of lenses, >> including several "L" lenses. > > About the same number of years the E1 has been out.... Thank you for getting my point, that the Canon had a more extensive lens line than the E-1 at the same point in its lifetime. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>The E-1 was being marketed as a pro >>level camera, but, especially at the time of introduction, there wasn't >>the depth >>of lens line to support pro pretentions. > > So when the EOS line was introduced, how deep was the lens line? Around 25 lenses, from 17mm to 600mm. These were the Canon lenses. There were Sigma lenses soon after the EOS system was introduced. And of course you could still use the many of the the FD mount lenses with the professional adapter. It's safe to say that Canon did not rush the EOS system to market without a full complement of lenses. To do so would have been catastrophic (i.e. see Olympus E-1). > Yes, Oly makes a 50-200 f2.8-3.5 which matches up favorably to the Canon > 100-400 IS, and they make a nice 50mm f2 macro, but not much else. Yea the 7-14 and the 11-22 are pretty useless as is the 150 f2. The usefulness of the lenses you posted depend on the camera body you plan to use them on. You seem to be really obcessed with IS, maybe you should just lay off the coffee? :-) Who cares if there are 6 pages of canon mount lenses if many are of low optical quality? Like I said, when you throw out all the poor performing consumer zooms, there aren't many left. SignatureStacey >> Yes, Oly makes a 50-200 f2.8-3.5 which matches up favorably to the Canon >> 100-400 IS, and they make a nice 50mm f2 macro, but not much else. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > optical quality? Like I said, when you throw out all the poor performing > consumer zooms, there aren't many left. Throw out the bottom feeders, and there are still more than twice as many lenses available from Canon than there are from Oly. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>Yes, Oly makes a 50-200 f2.8-3.5 which matches up favorably to the Canon >>>100-400 IS, and they make a nice 50mm f2 macro, but not much else. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Throw out the bottom feeders, and there are still more than twice as many > lenses available from Canon than there are from Oly. Actually more than eight times as many. > "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message > Throw out the bottom feeders, and there are still more than twice as many > lenses available from Canon than there are from Oly. Well there are more lenses for an exakta than for a canon so maybe you should go buy an exakta mount camera body? SignatureStacey >> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well there are more lenses for an exakta than for a canon so maybe you > should go buy an exakta mount camera body? ROTFLMAO!!! I have 3 Exactas, a VX and two VXIIs... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>Yes, Oly makes a 50-200 f2.8-3.5 which matches up favorably to the Canon >>100-400 IS, and they make a nice 50mm f2 macro, but not much else. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > optical quality? Like I said, when you throw out all the poor performing > consumer zooms, there aren't many left. Jeezus Stacey, If you did that with Oly, you'd only have 3 lenses left. SignatureDouglas, You never really make it on the 'net until you get your own personal Troll. Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites! > Big Sigh. Huge Sigh. When are these Canon-bashers going to shut up? LOL, someone quotes a review explaining the difference in these two kit lenses that add the same price over a body only and it's "Canon bashing". I suppose anything that isn't "Damn Canon's RULE!!" is considered Canon bashing here.. SignatureStacey >> Big Sigh. Huge Sigh. When are these Canon-bashers going to shut up? >LOL, someone quotes a review explaining the difference in these two kit >lenses that add the same price over a body only and it's "Canon bashing". What I find amusing is that the review basically agrees with everything that the so-called "Canon zealots" have been arguing i.e. that it's an average lens at a knock-down price which however "can provide very decent results, certainly more than enough for casual users". Al Signature[This space intentionally left blank] >>> Big Sigh. Huge Sigh. When are these Canon-bashers going to shut up? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > provide very decent results, certainly more than enough for casual > users". Yet because someone else said it, it's Canon bashing! SignatureStacey >> What I find amusing is that the review basically agrees with >> everything that the so-called "Canon zealots" have been arguing i.e. >> that it's an average lens at a knock-down price which however "can >> provide very decent results, certainly more than enough for casual >> users". >Yet because someone else said it, it's Canon bashing! No, "Canon bashing" is calling it a "POS" or "trash". Al Signature[This space intentionally left blank] RichA once again proves he is a shithead: > [Canon EFS 18-55/3.5-5.6] isn't as good as the [Olympus 14-45/3.5-5.6] And www.bhphotovideo.com says ... Canon = $140 Olympus = $250 So Mr. Anderson has proven the forehead smacking revelation that more money == better quality. Who would have thought? >RichA once again proves he is a shithead: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >So Mr. Anderson has proven the forehead smacking revelation that more >money == better quality. Who would have thought? Sigma $119 and IT beats the Canon. Next. http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3286&navigator=6 -Rich > Sigma $119 and IT beats the Canon. > Next. Why don't you take your Canon-bashing along with your cheap-o Sigma and put 'em where the sun don't shine? > > Sigma $119 and IT beats the Canon. > > Next. > > Why don't you take your Canon-bashing along with your cheap-o Sigma and > put 'em where the sun don't shine? Can't do that - he won't be able to talk clearly. Colin D. > > Why don't you take your Canon-bashing along with your cheap-o Sigma and > > put 'em where the sun don't shine? > > Can't do that - he won't be able to talk clearly. It's all we hear from the guy is his Canon-bashing. Even though I own a Canon, I think Nikon and others make perfectly good equipment. Sigma is not high on my list, but I'm certainly not a Canon suck-up. Even though I don't use them any more, I'm a die-hard Hasselblad freak. > > > Why don't you take your Canon-bashing along with your cheap-o Sigma and > > > put 'em where the sun don't shine? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > not high on my list, but I'm certainly not a Canon suck-up. Even though > I don't use them any more, I'm a die-hard Hasselblad freak. Ok, Randall. I do use a 300D, since I retired. Had 5x4 monorails, Mamiya 6x7, etc. but now just the Canon. I can't see the point behind these camera-bashers, unless it's a form of unrecognised Canon-envy. Most of the current offerings of reasonably expensive cameras are pretty good, even their 4/3rds Olys. I don't know what's in it for them to adopt the stance they have. Colin D > > > > Why don't you take your Canon-bashing along with your cheap-o Sigma and > > > > put 'em where the sun don't shine? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Colin D Whats in it from them is the approval they dont get on other fronts. Historically, people who feel no need for approval also dont need to crow about thier accomplishments (or justify thier purchases). SignatureLarry Lynch Mystic, Ct. > > > > > Why don't you take your Canon-bashing along with your cheap-o Sigma and > > > > > put 'em where the sun don't shine? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Whats in it from them is the approval they dont get on other fronts. I wouldn't have called what they're getting 'approval'. They gotta be really hard up if they crave the sort of attention they're getting ... hey, maybe that's it!! It's the ONLY attention they're getting!! > Historically, people who feel no need for approval also dont need to crow > about thier accomplishments (or justify thier purchases). Whether the feel the need for approval or not, whether they like or dislike whatever camera or lens, their apparent need to broadcast their diatribes continually bespeaks their need for psychological treatment. Normal people just don't do that. If I don't like your camera, your car, whatever, there's no way I would broadcast it. What's the point? Colin D. > > > > > > Why don't you take your Canon-bashing along with your cheap-o Sigma and > > > > > > put 'em where the sun don't shine? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Colin D. Its more of a "character trait" than a psychological problem, but it ISNT endearing... It usually traces back to a lack of parental approval in the past. OTOH, there are a great many nutballs out there in the world (note the use of technical medical jargon). I spend many, many hours a week taking photographs, and a few hours a week reading the newsgroups. Sometimes both can be productive, sometimes not. I've been taking photos for a VERY long time and when someone asks me what camera they should buy, I usually offer to let them try mine, then compare it to whatever the camera store is stocking. I wouldn't begin to know what might be comfortable in the hands of someone else. SignatureLarry Lynch Mystic, Ct. >> > Why don't you take your Canon-bashing along with your cheap-o Sigma and >> > put 'em where the sun don't shine? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >not high on my list, but I'm certainly not a Canon suck-up. Even though >I don't use them any more, I'm a die-hard Hasselblad freak. The only Canon's I've bashed are the kit lens for it's performance and the Rebel XT for it's BUILD quality. 2 variables out of thousands when it comes to Canon equipment. It's time for you to learn some basic statistics, I'd say. > >> > Why don't you take your Canon-bashing along with your cheap-o Sigma and > >> > put 'em where the sun don't shine? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > when it comes to Canon equipment. It's time for you to learn some > basic statistics, I'd say. Damn, I wonder why my XT hasn't yet exploded into a million tiny plastic pieces. It sounds like it's a disaster waiting to happen. Greg >> >> > Why don't you take your Canon-bashing along with your cheap-o Sigma >and [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Greg Notice the 20D and top end camera aren't plastic? -Rich > >> >> > Why don't you take your Canon-bashing along with your cheap-o Sigma > >and [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Notice the 20D and top end camera aren't plastic? Notice there are many top end electronics that are plastic? Notice the materials people professing how strong the plastic in a Rebel is? Notice that plastic is just another strong material to build things out of? Again, I've landed on my Rebel XT inside a lightly padded backpack during a mtn bike crash and it didn't explode. And it seems to be working fine. Greg > Notice there are many top end electronics that are plastic? Notice the > materials people professing how strong the plastic in a Rebel is? Notice > that plastic is just another strong material to build things out of? > > Again, I've landed on my Rebel XT inside a lightly padded backpack during a > mtn bike crash and it didn't explode. And it seems to be working fine. The plastics used in the manufacture of these cameras is far different from the plastic used to make the cheap toys you buy at Wally World. > > Notice there are many top end electronics that are plastic? Notice the > > materials people professing how strong the plastic in a Rebel is? Notice [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The plastics used in the manufacture of these cameras is far different > from the plastic used to make the cheap toys you buy at Wally World. Well, if you know anything about polycarbonate, it is a super durable material and certainly more impact resistant than magnesium alloys. Rigid, it ain't - but that's part of the reason it's so durable. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> >> >> > Why don't you take your Canon-bashing along with your cheap-o >Sigma [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Notice there are many top end electronics that are plastic? Like? Please don't say X-Box. Plastic is used in some consumer electronics to keep weight down, and cost. No high end audio gear is plastic that I know of. All TVs are because of the prohibitive cost of shipping them from the Far East. Notice the >materials people professing how strong the plastic in a Rebel is? Notice >that plastic is just another strong material to build things out of? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Greg That's good. Maybe the aversion to plastic is unwarranted. But what is your mountain bike made off? My guess, aluminum or chromoly steel, maybe titanium. -Rich > >> >> >> > Why don't you take your Canon-bashing along with your cheap-o > >Sigma [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > is your mountain bike made off? My guess, aluminum or chromoly steel, > maybe titanium. I owned a plastic bicycle, a GT STS, but it was stolen. And generally the only part that broke on that model was the aluminum trunion mount for the rear shock. Greg >> >> >> >> > Why don't you take your Canon-bashing along with your cheap-o >> >Sigma [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > >Greg The fittings on that frame are metal, maybe they should have made them of plastic? :) -Rich > The fittings on that frame are metal, maybe they should have made them > of plastic? :) > -Rich Might not have been a bad idea, matching the flex of the frame better. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >Maybe the aversion to plastic is unwarranted. But what is your mountain >bike made off? My guess, aluminum or chromoly steel,maybe titanium. That's because nothing, outside of ridiculously expensive composite materials, does the job as well. A frame material is required to be strong, rigid (for mechanical efficiency), sufficiently elasticity to absorb potentially damaging vibration, and light of weight. It also has to take a good paint job and make a musical 'ding' when tapped with an admiring finger. :-) Al Signature[This space intentionally left blank] >> Maybe the aversion to plastic is unwarranted. But what is your >> mountain bike made off? My guess, aluminum or chromoly steel,maybe [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > has to take a good paint job and make a musical 'ding' when tapped > with an admiring finger. :-) Goed ear, Al. I reckon another engineering and sensual aspect is heat transfer: when you have your hands on a cool metal implement, you know it is serious business. I suppose an ancillary benefit is that there is some advantage in actual physical cooling; presumably a bigger, faster gun requires more surface and greater heat conductivity to rid itself of the potentially damaging calories generated in battle. I know from experience that my little Minolta Dimmidge Xt used to get hot well beyond comfort when shooting a long series of model (car) photos at the rate of one every three or four seconds. SignatureFrank ess >> It also has to take a good paint job and make a musical 'ding' when >> tapped with an admiring finger. :-) >Goed ear, Al. There *is* something sensual about the ring of a quality steel tubeset. I've been party to heated arguments long into the night as to the musical qualities of Tange Prestige compared to Columbus MAX. :-) Al Signature[This space intentionally left blank] >>> It also has to take a good paint job and make a musical 'ding' >>> when [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Al My early (Before Driving Age) experience was going through parking lots, flicking chrome tips at the end of dual exhausts. Very satisfying to find the occasional "ding" among the "clunks", and more than a little derision directed at the latter. SignatureFrank ess >> There *is* something sensual about the ring of a quality steel >> tubeset. >My early (Before Driving Age) experience was going through parking >lots, flicking chrome tips at the end of dual exhausts. Very >satisfying to find the occasional "ding" among the "clunks", and more >than a little derision directed at the latter. I still do it to bikes, as it's difficult in these days of oversixed everything to tell cro-mo from alu. Is there a name for this particular obsession of ours, do you think? <g> Al Signature[This space intentionally left blank] >>>There *is* something sensual about the ring of a quality steel >>>tubeset. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I still do it to bikes, as it's difficult in these days of oversixed > everything to tell cro-mo from alu. If it is cro-mo then the manufacturer will almost certainly indicate this somewhere on the frame. I had a hard time finding a cro-mo mountain bike. Unless I was willing to spend really big bucks, almost everything was AL. I was lucky to find a closeout at REI on a Marin Bear Valley. Thankfully it did not have the oversized tubing, though the tubing wasn't round either. I'm amused by all the new names for aluminum that the bicycle manufacturers come up with, in order to hide the fact that the frame is aluminum. Nothing beats Specialized, who decided to name the tubing on one of their road bicycles the same as a famous old-time steel tubing, even though the new tubing was aluminum. >> I still do it to bikes, as it's difficult in these days of oversixed >> everything to tell cro-mo from alu. >If it is cro-mo then the manufacturer will almost certainly indicate >this somewhere on the frame. Reading a sticker is so much less fun, though. :-) >I had a hard time finding a cro-mo mountain bike. Unless I was willing >to spend really big bucks, almost everything was AL. That's the sad truth, isn't it? >I'm amused by all the new names for aluminum that the bicycle >manufacturers come up with, in order to hide the fact that the frame is >aluminum. I don't see any stigma attached to it, so why bother? Not so long ago using alu was a major selling point, and it certainly didn't damage Canondale's reputation. Al Signature[This space intentionally left blank] >>> It also has to take a good paint job and make a musical 'ding' when >>> tapped with an admiring finger. :-) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Al If you can't afford titanium, steel is the choice. If you're too stupid to pick either, then aluminum is the material for you. -Rich > If you can't afford titanium, steel is the choice. If you're too > stupid to pick either, then aluminum is the material for you. > -Rich I hate it when RichA is right about something. > > If you can't afford titanium, steel is the choice. If you're too > > stupid to pick either, then aluminum is the material for you. > > -Rich > > I hate it when RichA is right about something. Hardly. His views on frame materials are just as biased as his views on cameras. For light, stiff frames: carbon fiber, aluminum, titanium, steel. Greg >If you can't afford titanium, steel is the choice. I don't know *anyone* who can afford a ti frame. Heck, you could buy a decent dSLR for the price of the average titanium frame over here! :-) > If you're too stupid to pick either, then aluminum is the material for you. That's a bit harsh. I know several competitive cyclists, both road and MTB, who made considered moves from steel to alu frames. Al Signature[This space intentionally left blank] >>If you can't afford titanium, steel is the choice. > > I don't know *anyone* who can afford a ti frame. Heck, you could buy a > decent dSLR for the price of the average titanium frame over here! :-) http://www.habcycles.com/ $795. Yes, you can buy a decent dSLR for that price, but just barely, Nikon D50, or Canon EOS-350D. > If you can't afford titanium, steel is the choice. If you're too > stupid to pick either, then aluminum is the material for you. Interesting coment given that most bike racers are either on aluminum or carbon. I've had a steel, carbon(sold it) and aluminum bikes and the aluminum is the one I ride the most. SignatureStacey > That's good. Maybe the aversion to plastic is unwarranted. But what > is your mountain bike made off? My guess, aluminum or chromoly steel, > maybe titanium. Another dopey analogy. The structure of a bicycle is much different than that of a camera. Bicycle manufacturers moved to aluminum alloys from Chro-Moly steel because of cost. It is much more cost effective to build a lightweight aluminum bicycle than a lightweight steel bicycle. However aluminum has some undesirable characteristics. It is weaker, and more brittle than steel, so to compensate, aluminum tubes need to be of a larger diameter and have thicker walls. As a result of the larger diameter tubes, aluminum bicycles are stiffer than steel bicycles. Aluminum fatigues after less stress cycles than does steel; this is not an issue for the casual rider, but it is an issue for the enthusiast that expects to keep the same bicycle for a decade or more > It is weaker, and more brittle than > steel, so to compensate, aluminum tubes need to be of a larger diameter > and have thicker walls. As a result of the larger diameter tubes, > aluminum bicycles are stiffer than steel bicycles. Ah so you're one of the people who believe steel bikes have a smoother ride? SignatureStacey > > It is weaker, and more brittle than > > steel, so to compensate, aluminum tubes need to be of a larger diameter > > and have thicker walls. As a result of the larger diameter tubes, > > aluminum bicycles are stiffer than steel bicycles. > > Ah so you're one of the people who believe steel bikes have a smoother ride? Where did he say that? Greg > > Ah so you're one of the people who believe steel bikes have a smoother > ride? > > Where did he say that? > > Greg This is typical Stacey bullshit. Take something someone says out of context, make a ridiculous statement that requires a corrective response, change subject again, cry foul. Wash, rinse, repeat. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > > > Ah so you're one of the people who believe steel bikes have a smoother > > ride? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > This is typical Stacey bullshit. Yep, always looking to start a fight. Greg >> > > Ah so you're one of the people who believe steel bikes have a smoother >> > ride? >> > Where did he say that? >> > Greg >> This is typical Stacey bullshit. >Yep, always looking to start a fight. Stacey's MO is to enrage people by making outrageous statements, so that he/she can then write those people off, and he/she holds them to standards he/she doesn't hold himself/herself to. Can I just call Stacey "It"? That would save a lot of typing. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > Can I just call Stacey "It"? That would save a lot of typing. Can we get a definitive answer to the mystery of Stacey's gender, so that we can use the correct pronouns? I've been assuming female, but the only reason is because the only Staceys I've ever known were female ones, and that's not a very good reason. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>Can I just call Stacey "It"? That would save a lot of typing. > > Can we get a definitive answer to the mystery of Stacey's gender, so that > we can use the correct pronouns? I've been assuming female, but the only > reason is because the only Staceys I've ever known were female ones, and > that's not a very good reason. Doubt it, not from her. It'd take away whatever "mystique" is left. Let's go with the female version, unless he tells us differently. SignatureJohn McWilliams >>Can I just call Stacey "It"? That would save a lot of typing. > > Can we get a definitive answer to the mystery of Stacey's gender, so that > we can use the correct pronouns? I've been assuming female, but the only > reason is because the only Staceys I've ever known were female ones, and > that's not a very good reason. _It's_ a chick trapped in a dudes body... thought that was obvious. ---- Slack > >>Can I just call Stacey "It"? That would save a lot of typing. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > _It's_ a chick trapped in a dudes body... thought that was obvious. I thought it was the other way around. Greg >>_It's_ a chick trapped in a dudes body... thought that was obvious. > > I thought it was the other way around. > > Greg Only on the weekends ;-P Slack > > Can I just call Stacey "It"? That would save a lot of typing. > > Can we get a definitive answer to the mystery of Stacey's gender, so that > we can use the correct pronouns? I've been assuming female, but the only > reason is because the only Staceys I've ever known were female ones, and > that's not a very good reason. The probability of It being male is almost 100%, no matter what It prefers to call Itself (the Bayesian Prior: technical USENET fora are dominated by males, and many of the 'females' are pretenders). But in "Stacey"'s case, male or female, I second JPS's "It" recommendation -- one isn't concerned much with gender, but with intellectual capability... >> Can I just call Stacey "It"? That would save a lot of typing. > > Can we get a definitive answer to the mystery of Stacey's gender, She. SignatureStacey > >> Can I just call Stacey "It"? That would save a lot of typing. > > > > Can we get a definitive answer to the mystery of Stacey's gender, > > She. Here's hoping you're sterile. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > Here's hoping you're sterile. Dude. If you can call "bullshit", I can call "totally over the top and uncalled for"... SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > > Here's hoping you're sterile. > > Dude. If you can call "bullshit", I can call "totally over the top and > uncalled for"... Like a freaking internet post isn't going to do anything... Sheesh. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >>It is weaker, and more brittle than >>steel, so to compensate, aluminum tubes need to be of a larger diameter >>and have thicker walls. As a result of the larger diameter tubes, >>aluminum bicycles are stiffer than steel bicycles. > > Ah so you're one of the people who believe steel bikes have a smoother ride? Huh, where did I ever say that? You're losing your mind. >>>It is weaker, and more brittle than >>>steel, so to compensate, aluminum tubes need to be of a larger diameter [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Huh, where did I ever say that? You're claiming they are "stiffer"? SignatureStacey > >>>It is weaker, and more brittle than > >>>steel, so to compensate, aluminum tubes need to be of a larger diameter [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You're claiming they are "stiffer"? There are other ways for tubesets to be stiffer. Greg >>>>It is weaker, and more brittle than >>>>steel, so to compensate, aluminum tubes need to be of a larger diameter [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You're claiming they are "stiffer"? A Corvette has a stiffer chassis than a Cadillac, that doesn't mean it rides more smoothly SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message > A Corvette has a stiffer chassis than a Cadillac, that doesn't mean it > rides more smoothly And that has what to do with a bicycle? People THINK the material used to construct a bike affects the ride but when you look at the way the frame is constructed, they are saying that this affects how well a tube will compress in length, which doesn't happen no matter what material the bike is made from. SignatureStacey >> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > this affects how well a tube will compress in length, which doesn't happen > no matter what material the bike is made from. It is a direct analogy. The material used in the chassis of the Corvette, and it's design, make it stiffer than the chassis in, say, a Cadillac CTS. But that, in its self, does not affect the ride quality. Just as a stiffer frame (chassis) in a bike will make it ride better. The design of the suspension, wheelbase length, factors of that sort affect ride quality. A stiffer chassis with the same suspension and wheelbase will result in a coarser ride. A flexible frame or chassis, with the same variables, will result in a perceived softer ride, at the expense of handling and steering response. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > stiffer > frame (chassis) in a bike will make it ride better. ??? A bike has NO suspension.. > The design of the > suspension, Which a bike doesn't have. > wheelbase length, factors of that sort affect ride quality. A > stiffer chassis with the same suspension and wheelbase will result in a > coarser ride. Wrong because on a bike there is NO flexability in the vertical direction, again the chain stays don't compress no matter what they are made of. > A flexible frame or chassis, with the same variables, will > result in a perceived softer ride, at the expense of handling and steering > response. Well maybe you can explain how a tube can be compressed in it's length by the material or design of it? SignatureStacey > ??? A bike has NO suspension.. Why is there air in the tires, then? > > The design of the > > suspension, > > Which a bike doesn't have. Mine has 5" front and rear plus another 2" in my 2.5" tires. > > wheelbase length, factors of that sort affect ride quality. A > > stiffer chassis with the same suspension and wheelbase will result in a > > coarser ride. > > Wrong because on a bike there is NO flexability in the vertical direction, > again the chain stays don't compress no matter what they are made of. You sound like you're channeling Jobst. Chainstays wouldn't compress, they would bend upwards as the seatsays bent to one side or the other, which they do in hard sprinting on old frames with small chain and seatstays. > > A flexible frame or chassis, with the same variables, will > > result in a perceived softer ride, at the expense of handling and steering > > response. > > Well maybe you can explain how a tube can be compressed in it's length by > the material or design of it? How do you know he's not talking about a car body? Greg > You sound like you're channeling Jobst. Chainstays wouldn't compress, > they would bend upwards as the seatsays bent to one side or the other, > which they do in hard sprinting on old frames with small chain and > seatstays. And that has what to do with the ride quality? A bump hit by the rear tire is trying to compress the seat stays and stretch the chain stays, which isn't going to happen. Lots of "gear heads" like to talk about how this material rides so much better than that when in fact it changes nothing. >> > A flexible frame or chassis, with the same variables, will >> > result in a perceived softer ride, at the expense of handling and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > How do you know he's not talking about a car body? If he was, what does that have to do with a bicycle? SignatureStacey >> How do you know he's not talking about a car body? > > If he was, what does that have to do with a bicycle? No, you're right, Stacey, I wasn't talking about a car body, I was talking about the chassis, which is analogous to a bike frame. Especially the Corvette, where the body contributes little to the overall stiffness of the car. A unibody (unit body and frame) or a monocoque (no true frame, the body is the chassis, a la F1 or Indy cars) is a little different. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com h > > You sound like you're channeling Jobst. Chainstays wouldn't compress, > > they would bend upwards as the seatsays bent to one side or the other, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > isn't going to happen. Lots of "gear heads" like to talk about how this > material rides so much better than that when in fact it changes nothing. First of all, I don't believe one can detect changes in ride quality. But why are all you techno-freaks stuck on the idea that the seat stays would compress. Tubes bend. The chain stays bend upwared, an |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message