«

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:52:23 -0600, charles-billings
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:59:04 -0500, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>The people who have trouble with camera store sales clerks are the
>>amateurs who come into the store thinking that they know more than the
>>clerk and are more intent on proving this than they are in being
>>informed. The clerks usually figure this out early in the
>>conversation and stop being helpful. They know they aren't going to
>>convince this know-it-all that (brand) lenses are good, and they just
>>lay back and let the customer run the show. Then the customer struts
>>out thinking "That guy isn't qualified to sell cameras".
>
>No, the people who have problems with camera store clerks are those that know
>more than the clerk ever will. They quickly find out that the clerk is trying to
>pawn off the item that will make the most money for the store or clerk and has
>the highest retail markup. Then when you try to explain to the ignorant clerk
>whey they are ignorant, the start pulling red-herring sales tactics that make
>themselves look even more stupid. So you have to sit there and argue with that
>ignorant moron clerk trying to convince them you don't want what's popular and
>what all the other people are buying, because you only want the camera that you
>came for, which you've already researched and found it to be better than
>anything that idiot clerk would ever know about.
>
>I can't even begin to tell you how many times this happened in the SLR days when
>I was trying to buy Olympus and Zuiko gear and the ****ing moron clerk would
>always try to pawn off that "popular" crap-Nikon **** on me. That made more
>money for him, and that's the ONLY reason they would try that sales-tactic crap.
>
>You sound just like one of those gawd-awful idiot sales clerks trying to defend
>your stupidity and ignorance. I've come this > < close to punching your
>particular kind of self-serving idiot in the face, many times.

Your comments prove my point. The person who truly knows photography
and photographic equipment - and know what they want - doesn't get
into discussions with camera store clerks. They walk in, tell the
clerk what they want to buy, pay for it, and leave. No customer has
to "sit there" and listen to anything.

The fact that you've engaged in argumentive discussions with camera
store clerks indicates that you went in looking for an argument. No
clerk is going to engage in an argument with a buyer that specifies
exactly what he wants unless the buyer provides the opening. When you
say you "explain" why the "ignorant clerk" is "ignorant", you are
admitting that you are looking for an argument. You only tried to
explain because you wanted the argument.

What you wanted was an audience; someone who had to listen to you
blather on about your expertise. Your audience is trapped because
they were paid to stand behind the counter. You, on the other hand,
could have said "Ring up the (item)" and been out of there.

My guess is that the reaction of the camera store clerks when you walk
in the store in your area is "Here comes the blowhard again".


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:03:12 -0500, Larry the dipThong wrote:

>> I am sure that Nikon will give your advice all the attention that it
>> deserves. By the way, there are long wait lists for the D3X. Odd, for
>> a camera that will never sell.
>
> I'm glad I got on the list when I did. You're right about the lists, they
> are chin deep now.

There are easier, cheaper ways to find the lice on your mutt.

Alan Browne wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>> In article <9zU%k.18$(E-Mail Removed)>, John Smith <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Read Ken Rockwell's astute article
>>
>> you mean the guy who fabricates a lot of what he writes? that's not
>> what i'd call astute.
>
> How the hell can you accuse him of not being an astute fiction writer?

Did you send him any money to help him continue his fiction career?

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:31:38 -0500, Larry Thong wrote:

>>> I'm glad I got on the list when I did. You're right about the
>>> lists, they are chin deep now.
>>
>> There are easier, cheaper ways to find the lice on your mutt.
>
> But none more satisfying. Another 18-months of pure enjoyment.

In other words, you got the thing because you had an itch. That's
one expensive mutt.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:40:52 -0800, SMS wrote:

>> How the hell can you accuse him of not being an astute fiction writer?
>
> Did you send him any money to help him continue his fiction career?

That's pretty low of you to charge your understudy.

Stephen Bishop wrote:

> Yet the Nikon gear is still capable of better image quality than any
> Olympus. Look at any camera review online. Maybe the clerk knows
> more than you think?

Also, the store's margins on off-brand equipment like Olympus, Pentax,
and Minolta were always higher than the margins on Canon and Nikon. If
the clerk was trying to dissuade someone from buying Olympus, you had a
clerk that was interested in selling the customer the better choice, not
the one with the highest margin. Yet there probably was some
self-interest on the clerks part, because they realized that a Nikon
buyer would be a long term customer, coming back for more lenses and
accessories in the future.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:56:04 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:37:03 -0500, Alan Browne
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>John Smith wrote:
>>> Come on: "Some people need the resolution"???? 99.9999% of the
>>> prints made in the world are 11x14 and under. Just ask ANY film lab
>>> anywhere.
>>>
>>> Read Ken Rockwell's astute article on the D3x.
>>>
>>> Perhaps 1/100 of 1% of us ever print larger than 16x20. Who the ****
>>> needs 25mp for anything 11x14 and under???
>>>
>>> I'm staying with my D3 and saving $5,000
>>
>>1. Don't top post.
>>
>>2. Ken Rockwell is an idiot.
>
> I don't believe thet Ken Rockwell is an idiot, although at times he
> seems to have multiple personalities in that he can't decide what he
> likes better... Canon or Nikon, Film or digital, dslr or p&s.. etc.
>
> Regardless of his inconsistent approach to discussing camera gear, he
> is 100% spot-on with many of his writings about the subject of
> photography and what makes for a good image. He may not always
> practice what he preaches, but at least he knows that there is a huge
> difference between a photographer and a mere camera enthusiast.
>
> These articles of his are absolutely brilliant:
>
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm
>
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/howto.htm
>
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/spectator.htm
>
>
>
>
>>
>>3. You ever hear of crop margin?
>>
>>4. I know one print lab nearby that prints nothing less than 36" wide by
>>typically that long and much longer. (photo banners for trade shows,
>>other events, corporate lobby artwork, clubs, etc.)
>>
>>5. You can be sure that a "pro-sumer" FF Nikon at 24.6 Mpix is just
>>around the corner, likely to be announced or leaked at about PMA time.
>>
>>Then like all the Nikon cry babies arguing that 12 Mpix is enough,
>>you'll kneel before your wife and beg for the credit card promising her
>>the moon and the stars if you can spend the $3K or whatever for the camera.

Some people think Ken Rockwell is an idiot. Others think he is right on.
When that happens he knows he is a success for his objective is to be
controversial.

I do not agree with all his opinions and it is easy to tell they are
opinions. Many times he takes a grain of fact and magnifies it. But I do
find him entertaining and one can lean things by overlooking certain
things. For the most part he is partial to Nikon for DSLR and Canon for
P&S. He does like the image quality of the Canon 5D but prefers the
handling of Nkons.

Stephen Bishop wrote:

> The Olympus 4/3 system is innovatve in its design, but ultimate image
> quality is still limited by the smaller sensor size. Again, check any
> camera review. Nikons are simply better.

I was referring more to the erroneous claim that a camera store clerk
would try to sell someone Nikon gear in order to generate a higher
margin sale or an additional spiff, versus selling them a less popular
brand.

If you know anything about the retail camera business, you know that in
fact it's the less popular products from the second tier manufacturers
that use spiffs and higher margins to try to have stores promote their
products in the store.

Alan Browne wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>> Stephen Bishop wrote:
>>
>>> Yet the Nikon gear is still capable of better image quality than any
>>> Olympus. Look at any camera review online. Maybe the clerk knows
>>> more than you think?
>>
>> Also, the store's margins on off-brand equipment like Olympus, Pentax,
>> and Minolta were always higher than the margins on Canon and Nikon. If
>
> "off-brand"?

Yeah, my mistake. I meant "second-tier." The less popular gear comes
with bigger spiffs and bigger margins from the manufacturers. Of course
it varies by product, with the top-selling products receiving the least
spiffs and the smallest margins.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:08:14 -0500, Alan Browne
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>SMS wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>> nospam wrote:
>>>> In article <9zU%k.18$(E-Mail Removed)>, John Smith <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Read Ken Rockwell's astute article
>>>>
>>>> you mean the guy who fabricates a lot of what he writes? that's not
>>>> what i'd call astute.
>>>
>>> How the hell can you accuse him of not being an astute fiction writer?
>>
>> Did you send him any money to help him continue his fiction career?
>
>I've sent him e-mails telling him what an idiot he is on a few of his
>pet issues.
>
>He doesn't seem to have profited from that.

Strangely enough, people don't seem to be receptive to "Dear Idiot"
e-mails.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida