 |
 | 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 / December 2006dpreview is providing a service for all mankind...
...at least according to the horse's mouth. When I wondered why a mediocre P&S with modest upgrades deserved a full test I got... "Tested because it was a Canon ? - well ------ yes is the obvious answer ! An awful lot of people buy Canon cameras & it makes some sense to review them. This & other review forums are here on the Internet to provide a service which will benefit the majority of potential users ,not to advertise & promote the manufacturers of rare or strange exotica or the second rate models which need publicity in order to survive. Keith-C" When Eddy Albert as Oliver Wendell Douglas on "Green Acres" pontificated on the greatness of the U.S. farmer, fife music started playing. I thought I heard some playing as I read the dpreview response. >...at least according to the horse's mouth. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >playing. I thought I heard some playing as I read the dpreview >response. You could set up your own site and run it as you see fit. >>...at least according to the horse's mouth. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >You could set up your own site and run it as you see fit. Or he could just continue to sit around pontificating about the perceived shortcomings of someone else. Less effort, no brains required, much more his style.  SignatureJohn Bean >>>...at least according to the horse's mouth. >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > the perceived shortcomings of someone else. Less effort, no > brains required, much more his style. And a wider audience. How many people would inhabit a site RichA set up? SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm Probably the same number you would get. ljc >>>>...at least according to the horse's mouth. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > And a wider audience. How many people would inhabit a site RichA set up? > Probably the same number you would get. > > ljc That was sort of uncalled for. Of course, depending on what site you're talking about, some of my pages have gotten more than 30,000 hits in about a year, or double that for the shadowcatcherimagery.com site. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > >>...at least according to the horse's mouth. > >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > -- > John Bean Or post truly thoughtless reactionary posts and never post anything original. >>...at least according to the horse's mouth. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > You could set up your own site and run it as you see fit. And cater to RichA-style obsessive a.sholes. >>>...at least according to the horse's mouth. >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >And cater to RichA-style obsessive a.sholes. There are more? Shudder. However unless the "second rate" cameras are reviewed no one knows if it is second rate. What Phil has is a hardon for the ad money that Canon and Nikon push at him. Nothing more nothing less. ljc > ...at least according to the horse's mouth. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > playing. I thought I heard some playing as I read the dpreview > response. > However unless the "second rate" cameras are reviewed no one knows if it is > second rate. What Phil has is a hardon for the ad money that Canon and Nikon > push at him. Nothing more nothing less. I guess you'll be happy to see that the D40 got a "highly recommended" rating but without the "just" that the K10d got. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/ BTW - FYI: http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html > > However unless the "second rate" cameras are reviewed no one knows if it is > > second rate. What Phil has is a hardon for the ad money that Canon and Nikon [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > BTW - FYI: > http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html A stripped down D50 (the D40) outrates the Pentax!!!! Another oddity, WHY in the Pentax K10D review did they use the 30D Canon and not the 400???? The other cameras were entry level 10 megs. It reminded me of one of those games, "pick the one that doesn't belong." Could it be because the Canon is so much LESS camera than the Pentax K10D, the Nikon D80, The Sony Alpha??? > Could it be because the Canon is so much LESS camera than the > Pentax K10D, the Nikon D80, The Sony Alpha??? Don't think so. Cameras nowadays are all good and are mostly limited by users and their skill sets. Take up a new tack. >>> However unless the "second rate" cameras are reviewed no one knows >>> if it is second rate. What Phil has is a hardon for the ad money [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Canon and > not the 400???? Simple: Because the 30D is the closest in PRICE to the Pentax, you dumb dumb... At B&H: Canon 30D $1,069 Pentax K10D: $1,059 What will around $1K get you from Pentax or Canon? Answer: 30D or K10D. This isn't rocket science, Rich. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > >>> However unless the "second rate" cameras are reviewed no one knows > >>> if it is second rate. What Phil has is a hardon for the ad money [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > This isn't rocket science, Rich. Who CARES about MSRPs???? The Canon 400 is FAR closer in physical configuration and capability to the Pentax than the 30D is, the 30D is in a different class altogether. is > This isn't rocket science, Rich. >Who CARES about MSRPs???? >The Canon 400 is FAR closer in physical configuration and capability to >the Pentax than the 30D is, the 30D is in a different class altogether. Anyone who's thinking of buying one? >>>>> However unless the "second rate" cameras are reviewed no one knows >>>>> if it is second rate. What Phil has is a hardon for the ad money [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > to the Pentax than the 30D is, the 30D is in a different class > altogether. That's not MSRP. That the price you pay at B&H. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote: > RichA wrote: > > frederick wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > This isn't rocket science, Rich. Who CARES about MSRPs???? The Canon 400 is FAR closer in physical configuration and capability to the Pentax than the 30D is, the 30D is in a different class altogether. is RichA, you are the king of the obsessive-compulsive a.sholes. Do you enjoy living in your mother's basement? >> > However unless the "second rate" cameras are reviewed no one knows if it >> > is [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Could it be because the Canon is so much LESS camera than the > Pentax K10D, the Nikon D80, The Sony Alpha??? Is it difficult to use the keyboard with one hand sown the front of your pants? > ...at least according to the horse's mouth. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > second rate models which need publicity in order to survive. > Keith-C" As someone else suggested, curb your envy and invest your time, energy and money in your own web site. By the way, sites of this type do not have a long-term future, in my opinion. The technical minutia and arcane details are becoming less important as the engineering advancement curve is flattening out. Maybe these sites can adapt ... time will tell. >By the way, sites of this type do not have a long-term future, in my >opinion. The technical minutia and arcane details are becoming less >important as the engineering advancement curve is flattening out. Maybe >these sites can adapt ... time will tell. I think you're right. Possibly there is still room for a genuinely impartial site that gives honest appraisals of equipment, but who would pay for it? As soon as a site takes advertising revenue from manufacturers, or even worse, invites "sponsorship", which is only a very short step from outright bribery, its reputation for impartiality will become badly tarnished, or as with dpreview.com, it will simply disappear altogether. > I think you're right. Possibly there is still room for a genuinely > impartial site that gives honest appraisals of equipment, but who [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > badly tarnished, or as with dpreview.com, it will simply disappear > altogether. Hi Tony: You hit the bulls-eye with ... "Who would pay for it?" Many seem to be unrealistic about the WWW. A critical analysis of ego sites, blogs, and that ilk, where there is no feedback to correct absolute nonsense, reveals that they are often just noise. Thinking folks know that free is worth what it costs. >> I think you're right. Possibly there is still room for a genuinely >> impartial site that gives honest appraisals of equipment, but who [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >nonsense, reveals that they are often just noise. Thinking folks know that >free is worth what it costs. True, sadly. I have become very disillusioned with several blogs by "respected reviewers" who have lost all sense of objectivity and, as you say, have become mere noise. >>By the way, sites of this type do not have a long-term future, in my >>opinion. The technical minutia and arcane details are becoming less [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > impartial site that gives honest appraisals of equipment, but who > would pay for it? They call it Consumer Reports, but it is even worse than one run by advertising. > As soon as a site takes advertising revenue from manufacturers, or > even worse, invites "sponsorship", which is only a very short step > from outright bribery, its reputation for impartiality will become > badly tarnished, or as with dpreview.com, it will simply disappear > altogether. > By the way, sites of this type do not have a long-term future, in my > opinion. The technical minutia and arcane details are becoming less > important as the engineering advancement curve is flattening out. Maybe > these sites can adapt ... time will tell. I think I'd disagree on that. Photography has been enveloped by the consumer electronics and computing market and the fascination with specifications is common in consumer electronics and computing. Digital is a new world. Just like computer nerds obsessing over their computer's megahertz we now have those same computer nerds obsessing over their camera's specifications (megapixels, image stabilization, etc). Many never used film and they judge their cameras by specifications and brand name, just as they judge their computers by which CPU it has and which operating system it uses. Since they've never used film, they've never used cameras that can take full advantage of good optics -- hence the full transition to zooms and the clueless who think Canon has better optics than Nikon. Many of the posters here seem more obsessed with technology than they do with photography (as their cameras sit around collecting dust). So there will be plenty of readers remaining for dpreview .... Rich, where you banned? > Rich, where you banned? And if not...why not??? SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > > Rich, where you banned? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: > www.pbase.com/markuson Because it isn't run by dictatorial leftist busybodies? |
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.