for Rita

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Jufi - 26 Feb 2008 13:03 GMT

http://clublexus.com/forums/showthread.php?t=326811

Sorry if this the third attempt, but I didn't want you to miss this one...

Reply to this Message

jean - 27 Feb 2008 16:21 GMT

Like a horse with blinders, she will not reply.

Jean

PS I liked the "test", and as they said, both cameras are very capabale
units, something lost to some people.

> http://clublexus.com/forums/showthread.php?t=326811
>
> Sorry if this the third attempt, but I didn't want you to miss this one...

Reply to this Message

BobW - 27 Feb 2008 22:14 GMT

>> http://clublexus.com/forums/showthread.php?t=326811
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> PS I liked the "test", and as they said, both cameras are very capabale
> units, something lost to some people.

It is an interesting test. However, a guy I know pointed out (as described
also in this forum),

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=26239502

it's really just a comparison of the difference in pixel density between the
two cameras, and both cameras have their respective "sweet spots".

Bob

Reply to this Message

Rita Berkowitz - 27 Feb 2008 23:16 GMT

> It is an interesting test. However, a guy I know pointed out (as
> described also in this forum),
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> between the two cameras, and both cameras have their respective
> "sweet spots".

Yep! There are a lot of great points being brought up on dpreview. In all
seriousness, one can really wake up the Mk III with decent glass, that's a
fact. I know when I put my Nikkors on my Mk III the damn things were razor
sharp. Funny thing is I have been reading a lot of Mk III owners are
switching to the D3.

Rita

Reply to this Message

Jufi - 28 Feb 2008 01:55 GMT

>> It is an interesting test. However, a guy I know pointed out (as
>> described also in this forum),
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> sharp. Funny thing is I have been reading a lot of Mk III owners are
> switching to the D3.

And what bible is this printed in?

As far as "waking up" the MIII, I guess those Canon teles must suck...

Reply to this Message

Rita Berkowitz - 28 Feb 2008 02:29 GMT

>>> It is an interesting test. However, a guy I know pointed out (as
>>> described also in this forum),
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> And what bible is this printed in?

Whatever one you want it to be in.

> As far as "waking up" the MIII, I guess those Canon teles must suck...

Ah.. Glad you asked, though using a different sock. As you are aware I did
own the infamous 500/4L IS and yes it did suck. Very inexpensive compared
to its Nikon counterpart, but it did suck so much that it was worth putting
in the extra $2K for the Nikon.

Rita

Reply to this Message

Jufi - 28 Feb 2008 18:14 GMT

>>>> It is an interesting test. However, a guy I know pointed out (as
>>>> described also in this forum),
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Whatever one you want it to be in.

As I thought. Anecdotal; no real proof of anything.

>> As far as "waking up" the MIII, I guess those Canon teles must suck...
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> putting
> in the extra $2K for the Nikon.

Can't wait to see your test results.

No socks, just got bored of being "Kinon." Something I do every so often.

Reply to this Message