 |
 | 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 2005Interesting...
Smarterstats shows me that a total of 283 visitors looked at the page I put up showing the photo of the plane crash on the 23rd. Interesting... I wonder how many people read these groups but don't participate.  SignatureSave Photography | Shoot some film today! Email: drop rods and insert surfaces > Smarterstats shows me that a total of 283 visitors looked at the page > I put up showing the photo of the plane crash on the 23rd. > > Interesting... > > I wonder how many people read these groups but don't participate. I suspect a lot of people lurk. I am usually too busy and skim all the various groups I'm subscribed to. Posting takes much longer and may mean I miss out on reading something interesting. -Mike >> Smarterstats shows me that a total of 283 visitors looked at the page >> I put up showing the photo of the plane crash on the 23rd. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -Mike Lurking is a more or less negative description of reading or looking at postings in newsroups like this one. I believe there is no obligation for participating in a newsgroup only because you read the postings. You know that your posting is public all over the world, so don't insinuate that it private to the active 'members' of the newsgroup. With all regards, Gijs > Smarterstats shows me that a total of 283 visitors looked at the page I > put up showing the photo of the plane crash on the 23rd. > > Interesting... > > I wonder how many people read these groups but don't participate. That's always the way it is. -Tons more views than comments. I often view without comment... Don't you? It's kinda fun to have a counter. -Always makes me wonder who is looking and where on the planet they're loking from. As the song goes...it's a small world, after all. :) > > Smarterstats shows me that a total of 283 visitors looked at the page I > > put up showing the photo of the plane crash on the 23rd. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > As the song goes...it's a small world, after all. > :) Yes, since I moved my hosting from a local company to M6.net I have far more interesting statistics on all my website domain names. For instance, 26% of visitors to my business website seem to view it on a Monday and 21% on a Wednesday. I also seem to get an inordinately large amount of visitors from the US. I just registered a new domain name a few hours ago. You're never going to guess what it is! All shall be revealed in a couple of weeks... SignatureSave Photography | Shoot some film today! Email: drop rods and insert surfaces Rox-off skrev: > I wonder how many people read these groups but don't participate. A conventional estimate for Usenet in general is that there is a 10:1 ratio between lurkers and participants. Jan Böhme > Smarterstats shows me that a total of 283 visitors looked at the page I > put up showing the photo of the plane crash on the 23rd. > > Interesting... > > I wonder how many people read these groups but don't participate. Any photos of mine that get posted here regularly get 300+ hits. I think there are a lot of bots scanning the newsgroups, although I'm sure some actual lurkers may look at things. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >>Smarterstats shows me that a total of 283 visitors looked at the page I >>put up showing the photo of the plane crash on the 23rd. >> >>Interesting... >> >>I wonder how many people read these groups but don't participate. Far more people than you would think, won't post to Usenet because of the sh.t the regular w.nkers here pile on anyone with an independent thought or moralistic comment to make. Hiding behind Google is no longer a really viable option now they have started including a source IP although it is still possible to forge that. The mail2news scumbags have mostly been halted too. A lot of flak has stopped in the past year although it still costs to price of a court order to discover who made the Google post if you are that way defamed and think you have deep enough pockets to find the arsehole responsible. Good luck, most are juvenile or geriatric without the cost of a decent feed, much less anything worth suing for. Of course the w.nkers reserve this treatment for anyone not claiming to be a deciple to the God of EOS. If that stopped, all the wise people of the world who avoid Canon like the plague, might discover Usenet all over again. Huh! hell will freeze over first. As it is, I suggest this group ought to be renamed to rec.photo.canon.slr-systems so anyone contemplating a post to it will know in advance what to expect if they even think they can mention a different brand and escape unscathed. 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! > Of course the w.nkers reserve this treatment for anyone not claiming to > be a deciple to the God of EOS. If that stopped, all the wise people of > the world who avoid Canon like the plague, might discover Usenet all > over again. Huh! hell will freeze over first. While the relentless, unthinking Canon-worship bothers me as much as anyone, if you really think that's why people get on your case... it's not. You'd get the same thing if you were a Canon loyalist. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > > Of course the w.nkers reserve this treatment for anyone not claiming to > > be a deciple to the God of EOS. If that stopped, all the wise people of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > anyone, if you really think that's why people get on your case... it's not. > You'd get the same thing if you were a Canon loyalist. Actually, he got most of the trouble while he was using Canon gear. He's just off his rocker. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > > > Of course the w.nkers reserve this treatment for anyone not claiming to > > > be a deciple to the God of EOS. If that stopped, all the wise people of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > He's just off his rocker. I hope you're not referring to me. FWIW, during the three years I shot with Canon equipment I did notice that I had less hassle on here than previously (except for the Polson-Dallas wars, which I now regret having subjected the group to). As soon as I went back to using Nikon things definitely heated up again! SignatureSave Photography | Shoot some film today! Email: drop rods and insert surfaces >> > > Of course the w.nkers reserve this treatment for anyone not claiming >> > > to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > previously (except for the Polson-Dallas wars, which I now regret having > subjected the group to). It wasn't *what* you shot that got hassled...it was your methods of carrying on about how crappy Canon was ad nauseum... But you and I agreed to stay clear of that (and we're both happier for it!), so I shall now shutteth my moutheth. Thounth like I'm lithping, doethn't it? :) > As soon as I went back to using Nikon things definitely heated up again! Nah... Canon criticism is fine and good when it is somewhat deserved...and they have often deserved it. You received terrible customer service from them for some reason, and you deserved to be very very irritated. I've hurled many a frustration at Canon myself over the years on this forum... -No spot meter...CRAPPY raw software for years (though I just noticed it has finally improved), and etc. Part of what is happening here is that Canon became the market leader over Nikon somewhere in there. Canon also has raging success in the point-and-shoot market, especially compared with Nikon. That doesn't mean they are better, but it means that there are far more Canon users here than Nikon. Here's one indication: I tend to notice the part of dpreview's page that ranks the percentage of "clicks" different cameras get on their site, and they are ranked 1-10 > It wasn't *what* you shot that got hassled...it was your methods of carrying > on about how crappy Canon was ad nauseum... But you and I agreed to stay > clear of that (and we're both happier for it!), so I shall now shutteth my > moutheth. Thounth like I'm lithping, doethn't it? > :) Dunno about that. I can't hear a thing coming out of the computer except the occasional hum of the processor fan. > > As soon as I went back to using Nikon things definitely heated up again! > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -No spot meter...CRAPPY raw software for years (though I just noticed it has > finally improved), and etc. Crap products a-plenty? > Part of what is happening here is that Canon became the market leader over > Nikon somewhere in there. Canon also has raging success in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I tend to notice the part of dpreview's page that ranks the percentage of > "clicks" different cameras get on their site, and they are ranked 1-10 A lot more people shop at K-Mart than The Gap too, eh? :-) SignatureSave Photography | Shoot some film today! Email: drop rods and insert surfaces > Crap products a-plenty? Wouldn't go that far. > A lot more people shop at K-Mart than The Gap too, eh? :-) Well, both of those places suck... but not as bad as Wal-Mart. But on the other hand, I went into a Wal-Mart in Kannapolis, NC that was pretty nice. It was well lit and spacious. Surprisingly, it didn't suck the soul from my body. I applaud Wal-Mart for this and hope they build more stores like that one. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >Surprisingly, it didn't suck the soul from my body. Mind if I quote you on that? Not in reference to Wal-Mart, specifically. I think it's a good quotation to use in a variety of situations ;-) SignatureMark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com > >Surprisingly, it didn't suck the soul from my body. > > Mind if I quote you on that? Not in reference to Wal-Mart, specifically. > I think it's a good quotation to use in a variety of situations ;-) Go right ahead. I get royalties, right? Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> Crap products a-plenty? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the soul from my body. I applaud Wal-Mart for this and hope they build > more stores like that one. Some of their stores are so big that some of the employees have never seen some parts of the store. I was in one in Idaho Falls, and the girl I asked said, "Well, I've never been there, but I'm told that you can find those at the back...." I asked her what the weather was like there, and if I should bring an umbrella.....:^) >"Rox-off" <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote in message > >news:MPG.1d790bb36a320aac9896b2@news.mweb.co.za... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >A lot more people shop at K-Mart than The Gap too, eh? :-) I'm not saying Canon is superior, rather I'm simply offering another explanation for why this forum seems to have so many Canon users compared with other brands. I don't think it has anything to do with anyone being "chased away" etc... It's just that there are a huge number of Canon cameras being used. It would logically follow that there will be a higher ratio of Canon posts. How many Nikon point-and-shoots are offered these days? I think it's simply a natural consequence of cameras in use. Simple, ya?? :) > >"Rox-off" <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote in message > > >news:MPG.1d790bb36a320aac9896b2@news.mweb.co.za... [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Simple, ya?? > :) I would find it very interesting to know how many of the Canon-army were using Canon right from the beginning of their photography experience. I suspect that Canon has more younger devotees than does Nikon, for instance. Most photographers I know, except for the sports shooters, are die-hard Nikon users aged 30+. Canon seems to appeal to the newbies more than photographers who have been around for a while. And before I get lambasted again, this is just my opinion. SignatureSave Photography | Shoot some film today! Email: drop rods and insert surfaces >"Rox-off" <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >And before I get lambasted again, this is just my opinion. I hope you don't think I was lambasting you... I think there's something to that, but mainly in the point-and-shoot market. If there's anything that gave Canon a wider appeal to younger, perhaps gadgetry-prone folk, I think it would have been in the days of things like eye-controlled focus, etc. Although it was helpful in some respects, I found that I didn't use that feature much. The other factor is that Canon was the first to release truly affordable DSLRs at several points in the progression. It started with the D30 (which was still expensive, but more attainable than anything else at the time). Then once they released the D60 and 10D, they were squeezing Nikon in terms of price. Nikon responded with their D70, but since that time Canon has managed to squeeze back with the dominant 20D. Canon seems to just be more ready to fire back more quickly with product (which, of course, is one of your beefs with Canon). Canon just released *nine* cameras on Monday. That indicates their huge cpacity to respond to the market. If you look at the new features on those cameras, they have continued to answer to specific trends quickly (like big screens on tiny point-and-shoots, for example). I think Nikon makes fantastic gear, but they don't seem nearly as prepared to roll out timely items which the lower end point-and-shoot market demands. Again--this points more to what I see as a superiority in marketing, and not necessarily a technical advantage in that market. But I do think it's a fair assessment that Canon has benefitted greatly from very legitimate advances like IS, high fps, MP res, and full frame. There is no questions that these features have won Canon a following in the professional realm. As long as Nikon continues the impression that they are following Canon's lead in these four key aspects, Canon will continue to gain. As I've said a million times... I want Nikon to kick butt on Canon. Without that, we all end up hurt as competition lags. >>"Rox-off" <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > As I've said a million times... I want Nikon to kick butt on Canon. Without > that, we all end up hurt as competition lags. Canon is the Linux of cameras... Devotees will want the latest and greatest Canon (even though it probably isn't), just to have it. Linux users absolutely must have the latest Beta code. Not because they have use for it but because it sounds good to in the groups to quote some obscure snippet. I can only wonder how many of the posters in support or criticism of brands of cameras, actually own them or for that matter, actually know how to use them if they do own them. Canon cameras are OK. I absolutely loved my 10D, I shouldn't have sold it but I fell for the bullshit, like so many before and after me. The 20D experience and the subsequent purchase of a camera I didn't really want - 1D Mk II (or need) should stand as a warning to others who lose sight of what they are doing. I am a photographer first and I a business man second. I know full well that in a world of ever changing technology, having the newest technology allows you to get to market early and (hopefully) get the jump on your rivals. Oddly enough, A wedding I shot last week on film, was with a 25 year old camera and produced a more profitable on-selling result than much of the work I did with Canon DSLRs. My new Nikon DSLR is (so far) absolutely flawless in both performance and image quality - Canon take a lesson on quality control here. Time will tell if it stays that way. The thing I have noticed about Photography and camera brand wars is that they are really no different than what went on with different types and brands of film a decade ago. The difference now is that the previous constant of being a Photographer, has changed to being a technologist or 'nerd' first and a Photographer second. When I posted comments that a FZ20 consumer grade camera took better low light shots than my Canon DSLRs, I got howled down for not making "technical" comparisons. What could be more correct than to see the difference in a photograph? And that's my point entirely. Photography is about photographs, not brands of cameras. I have thus far refrained form posting any Nikon verses Canon images. I might one day but for now, I'm back on my medication and seeing clearly enough to avoid the w.nkers entirely. These kill files are a wonderful thing! 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! >>>"Rox-off" <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > Canon is the Linux of cameras... Devotees will want the latest and > greatest Canon (even though it probably isn't), just to have it. SOME users sacumb to this. -But there are also plenty of excellent photogs...who happen to use Canon. Any time a manufacturer get on top of the heap, those not in their camp tend to declare them some sort of cult. I think it's just silly to make sweeping generalizations like that. >That's Linux users absolutely must have the latest Beta code. Not because >they have use for it but because it sounds good to in the groups to quote >some obscure snippet. Some Canon shooters do that. I don't, and I know of pleny of other Photogs who don't. I skipped the D60, and only jumped on the 10D because my D30 was destroyed. I also skipped the 20D, though I'm now considering the 5D--but only because I've been wishing for full-frame ever since my first move to digital in 2000. There are plenty of other shooters like me, who are in this for the photographs. -That we use Canon needn't be some sort of instant statement as to motive. > I can only wonder how many of the posters in support or criticism of > brands of cameras, actually own them or for that matter, actually know how > to use them if they do own them. I wonder that too, but I'm a little less quick to assume the negative... :) > Canon cameras are OK. I absolutely loved my 10D, I shouldn't have sold it > but I fell for the bullshit, like so many before and after me. The 20D > experience and the subsequent purchase of a camera I didn't really want - > 1D Mk II (or need) should stand as a warning to others who lose sight of > what they are doing. What did you do with the Mark II? Why did you buy it? -Sounds to me like you epitomized that which you decry! Oops. :) > I am a photographer first and I a business man second. I know full well > that in a world of ever changing technology, having the newest technology [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > flawless in both performance and image quality - Canon take a lesson on > quality control here. Time will tell if it stays that way. Canon clearly blew it with QC on the 20D. I don't blame people for retaining anger over it. A large percentage of my most prized shots came from film. That percentage is dwindling as my digital work grows, though... > The thing I have noticed about Photography and camera brand wars is that > they are really no different than what went on with different types and > brands of film a decade ago. The difference now is that the previous > constant of being a Photographer, has changed to being a technologist or > 'nerd' first and a Photographer second. Perhaps, but the difference was that with film, there was no large commitment required to move to one or the other. With camera manufacturers, it's a very big decision in that one can't simply spend $8 and "try a new film." > When I posted comments that a FZ20 consumer grade camera took better low > light shots than my Canon DSLRs, I got howled down for not making > "technical" comparisons. What could be more correct than to see the > difference in a photograph? And that's my point entirely. Photography is > about photographs, not brands of cameras. I agree with this absolutely. What you may have run into is the legitimate question of whether your claim was somehow generally true or less so in the realm of low-light needs. This can only be determined by personal needs, I guess, but there are certainly some technical aspects that help determine this. I think this NG is sometimes too concerned with technical specs, but it is understandable. This is why I like the ability to post actual shots for viewing from within discussions. It brings us all back to the reason for any of this: the photo. > I have thus far refrained form posting any Nikon verses Canon images. I > might one day but for now, I'm back on my medication and seeing clearly > enough to avoid the w.nkers entirely. These kill files are a wonderful > thing! :) I really have no interest in bashing ANY brand (well, OK...I do have an especially hardened heart when it comes to Sigma). You will never find a "bashing" comment from me about Nikon...ever. I've pointed to things I see as faults in both major competitors, but the fact that I do use Canon tends to give some people (who have no sense of balance) ammunition to simply assume I (and other legitimate users) am a Canon zombie. :) Silly, but expected these days... Oh well... >>>>"Rox-off" <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote in message >>>> [quoted text clipped - 161 lines] > expected these days... > Oh well... I still have the 1D, Mark - and the 20Ds - and an SD9 Sigma along with a very cheap (now I've begun re acquiring) collection of Pentax 645 and Mamiya 645 cameras and lenses. Maybe I am erring on the side of caution but until I am totally convinced the Nikon is the camera I am most satisfied with, I won't be parting with any of them. In any event my treasured and trustworthy SD9 will die in my possession. This camera doesn't mind if I shoot in 98% humidity. It doesn't mind if I leave it on the beach to exceed it's working environment heat wise, it still fires up and takes pictures when the Canon's squawk about Err 99. 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! >>>>>"Rox-off" <roxy@empirerods.com> wrote in message >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 176 lines] > the beach to exceed it's working environment heat wise, it still fires up > and takes pictures when the Canon's squawk about Err 99. Do you have pictures from the Sigma posted? I promise not to scream about yellow skin... :) I'm interested simply to see if someone can produce people shots and certain textures that don't take on an odd look which I associate with Sigma shots I've seen in the past. If you don't want wailing about it here, maybe you could e-mail a link (?). :) In all sincerity, -Mark > > Actually, he got most of the trouble while he was using Canon gear. > > > > He's just off his rocker. > > I hope you're not referring to me. FWIW, during the three years I shot Nope, just Dougy Fresh. > with Canon equipment I did notice that I had less hassle on here than > previously (except for the Polson-Dallas wars, which I now regret having > subjected the group to). Don't ever feel bad for arguing with Polson. > As soon as I went back to using Nikon things definitely heated up again! That's because you started making incendiary statements about Canon. Which isn't to say you can't have your own choices in camera gear, but typically you'll get less flak if you respect the choices of others. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> Smarterstats shows me that a total of 283 visitors looked at the page I >> put up showing the photo of the plane crash on the 23rd. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I think there are a lot of bots scanning the newsgroups, although I'm > sure some actual lurkers may look at things. I'm always looking for pictures of naked ladies, myself...... > >> Smarterstats shows me that a total of 283 visitors looked at the page I > >> put up showing the photo of the plane crash on the 23rd. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I'm always looking for pictures of naked ladies, myself...... Look to your hearts content: www.ethoseros.com SignatureSave Photography | Shoot some film today! Email: drop rods and insert surfaces >> >> Smarterstats shows me that a total of 283 visitors looked at the page >> >> I [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > www.ethoseros.com Argh! - Way too poor in quality....I'm after artistic nudes....These are definitely not my style...... > > Smarterstats shows me that a total of 283 visitors looked at the page I > > put up showing the photo of the plane crash on the 23rd. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I think there are a lot of bots scanning the newsgroups, although I'm > sure some actual lurkers may look at things. Per day? SignatureSave Photography | Shoot some film today! Email: drop rods and insert surfaces > > I think there are a lot of bots scanning the newsgroups, although I'm > > sure some actual lurkers may look at things. > > Per day? Well, in a day. Things tend to die off quickly after about a day or so. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird I neither red nor participate Mojtaba >Smarterstats shows me that a total of 283 visitors looked at the page I >put up showing the photo of the plane crash on the 23rd. > >Interesting... > >I wonder how many people read these groups but don't participate. >I neither red nor participate > > Mojtaba nor spell correctly. Do you own a Nikon? >>I neither red nor participate >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Do you own a Nikon? No, Chinon. You? Canon? Mojtaba (Neither Nikon nor Canon) > Smarterstats shows me that a total of 283 visitors looked at the page I > put up showing the photo of the plane crash on the 23rd. > > Interesting... > > I wonder how many people read these groups but don't participate. Does it show how many repeat visits? I ended up going back to it several times between other sites while looking up stuff that caught my interest while reading the group. Say 10 hits with the back button. >> Smarterstats shows me that a total of 283 visitors looked at the page I >> put up showing the photo of the plane crash on the 23rd. Interesting... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > times between other sites while looking up stuff that caught my interest > while reading the group. Say 10 hits with the back button. Hitting a "back" button doesn't register as a hit, because it doesn't require accessing the server. Most often, that page is in your computer's memory, unless you have actively disabled this. Many services are smart enough to identify your IP, and won't keep counting you (like when you participate in an on-line poll or vote, for example...they know you'vebeen there). I'm sure hitting the back button won't keep registering, but it's quite possible (likely) that return visits (other than the back button) count. > > Smarterstats shows me that a total of 283 visitors looked at the page I > > put up showing the photo of the plane crash on the 23rd. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > times between other sites while looking up stuff that caught my interest > while reading the group. Say 10 hits with the back button. I wondered that myself. The stats site has a lot of different options and reports that you can customise. I just haven't had the inclination to experiment all that much recently... SignatureSave Photography | Shoot some film today! Email: drop rods and insert surfaces |
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.