Canon vs Nikon vs Etc

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Paul J Gans, Jun 3, 2008.

  1. Paul J Gans

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Once upon a time, back in the Good Old Days(TM), this newsgroup
    (actually, its predecessor) was inhabited by folks whose
    interest was digital photography.

    Alas, those days are gone and nothing will bring them back.

    But it is sad to see the endless religious wars. Nikon
    is better than Canon, this lens is better than that lens,
    and on and on without end.

    And it is more sad to see the endless troll wars.

    It is most sad to note the ranks of the regulars are thinning
    as more and more old timers find better things to do with their
    time than to read most of the stuff being posted theese days.
    Paul J Gans, Jun 3, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. Paul J Gans

    Alan Browne Guest

    I think the worst thing to do is to couch anything as "Canon v. Nikon"
    or even worse: "the dramatic failure of the camera companies: plastic"

    We should be pushing our knowledge and know how of cameras period and
    enjoy the damned things more. This year will see more great cameras
    coming out as well as lenses and other accessories.

    As to the trolls, just bin them.
    Alan Browne, Jun 3, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Paul J Gans

    saycheez Guest

    Perhaps since the Nikon D300 showed that noise is not immutably linked to
    sensor size there is little left for the religious zealots to argue.
    Hopefully they are out actually using their cameras, for which many have
    little talent, instead of arguing about technology, of which they have
    little comprehension.
    saycheez, Jun 3, 2008
  4. Paul J Gans

    frederick Guest

    Really? The D300 isn't bad at all, but the D3 is better by
    approximately the margin predicted. Perhaps noise is linked to sensor
    size after all.
    And ignore the desire for "better"? I doubt it.
    frederick, Jun 4, 2008
  5. Paul J Gans

    Charles Guest

    You see it exactly the way I do and that means we are both wrong, or perhaps
    both right. Subsequent posts will no doubt trash both of us.

    Brands have little to do with photography. The newer cameras are mostly
    good enough for typical use. The people using them seem to be more
    interested in flames than in learning how to use them. The splitting of
    fine hairs is getting tiresome and the bashing is nauseating.

    Internet venting is better than child beating, I suppose.
    Charles, Jun 4, 2008
  6. Paul J Gans

    Frank Arthur Guest

    If you simply block the dozen or so repetative trolls you will find
    this group a much more pleasant and informative group. If that don't
    work then block another dozen. At some point all that will be left
    with helpful & good humored folks.
    Frank Arthur, Jun 4, 2008
  7. Paul J Gans

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    I think that the real crux of the matter is to note how many "photographers"
    seem to spend more time on their computer than behind their viewfinder.

    Take Care,
    Dudley Hanks, Jun 5, 2008
  8. Paul J Gans

    Ray Fischer Guest

    I take that you don't mean the time spend with PhotoShop (or
    equivalent). After all, Ansel Adams spent many hours in the darkroom
    trying to get prints just right.
    Ray Fischer, Jun 6, 2008
  9. Paul J Gans

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Yeah, I'm just noting that a few photogs seem to be posting to multiple
    newsgroups about every 10 minutes, 24 / 7. I just can't figure out when
    they've got time to take or process pics...

    Take Care,
    Dudley Hanks, Jun 6, 2008
  10. Paul J Gans

    Archibald Guest

    I suppose most of these are unemployed, and that would also explain
    their ugly mood. As for picture taking, maybe they are armchair

    It's also been noted here and there, for instance, that some reviewers
    of cameras have never had those cameras in their hands. Quite amazing
    what you can do just in front of the computer.

    Archibald, Jun 7, 2008
  11. Why do you think there are so many different Digital Cameras.
    ALL digital cameras are junk.. want proof?
    Look at how fast new models come out.
    The camera makers have elected to NOT allow the CCD/CMOS
    to be upgraded. They elected to sell you cheap junk that you
    replace every 2 years AND pay $500-$2000 each time.

    A old Nikon FM could take better pictures every year.
    You used the same camera.. how could that be.
    I can even change how the picture looks.. how could that be?
    Oh, I change the film.. You know that stuff that does the same
    thing as a CCD/CMOS chip..

    So, you go buy that new low noise camera. I'll just keep that
    noise generator that I have.

    Steve Sherman, Jun 8, 2008
  12. Peter Jason wrote:
    But they buy through the competitive tender process, and would need to
    justify getting something other than the cheapest. And look what that
    sometimes gets them!

    David J Taylor, Sep 28, 2008
  13. Paul J Gans

    Eric Stevens Guest

    As long as you weren't paying Zawi Hawass. :)

    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Sep 28, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.