Ultimate Machine Gunner Dumps Nikon for Canon!

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Rita Ä Berkowitz, Mar 7, 2007.

  1. This guy has got to be the ultimate QA tester for Nikon. With 410,000 shots
    under his belt on a D70 and over 600,000 shots on his D2x and D2h he has got
    to be a world champion machine gunner. It seems his beef with Nikon is he
    doesn't think Nikon's AF is fast enough.

    <http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=22329899>

    And what makes this even more enjoyable is his subject.

    <http://www.pbase.com/billmcintyre>

    The ultimate question is will the new Mk III stand up to this guy's demands
    and abuse? Is this the right camera for him? Or will Canon have to install
    a restrictor plate to limit the fps?






    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Mar 7, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    What a complete and utter waste of fine hardware. I like pix of dogs, too,
    but millions of them (literally)? What's the point?
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Mar 7, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Photography is dead...

    Ken
     
    Ken Nadvornick, Mar 7, 2007
    #3
  4. Ever since Photoshop.





    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Mar 7, 2007
    #4
  5. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Douglas Guest

    : Ken Nadvornick wrote:
    :
    : > Photography is dead...
    :
    : Ever since Photoshop.
    :
    : Rita

    Well only partly.
    I still print traditional photographs for my wedding albums. Sure, most are
    digitally created and edited but when I print them, I still use an enlarger
    (an old Durst 4x5) and I still process the prints in chemicals (a Durst
    roller transport processor). It's just that I use a digital head on the
    enlarger to print digital photos.

    No one can dispute the avalanche of digital cameras into a hobby/industry
    previously dedicated to chemicals but to outright claim photography is dead
    just because of how the practice is evolving is wrong.

    Douglas
     
    Douglas, Mar 7, 2007
    #5
  6. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Beach Bum Guest

    That's cool. I wonder how much a digital head would cost and if one is
    available for my enlarger.. must dig it out of the closet to look up the
    model number.

    --
    Mark

    Mostly photography...
    http://www.marklauter.com

    I was heavily armed and absent minded. You pay a high price for that in
    the Army.
    - Dom
     
    Beach Bum, Mar 7, 2007
    #6
  7. The "practice" has "evolved" to the point where anyone can create (and - god
    help us all - post to the world) 1.01 million images in only a few years.
    Or months? days? hours? minutes?

    The "death of photography" resides not in the fact that they can. It
    resides in the fact that they do...

    Ken
     
    Ken Nadvornick, Mar 7, 2007
    #7
  8. Naaaa.....Unless YOU do, it's not dead to you......I still play the good old
    songs and minuet's and dances on my trumpet.....I could care less if the
    whole world is listening to rap or some such other garbage.....Or canned
    crap.....I play for me. And you can do photography for yourself, too.......
     
    William Graham, Mar 8, 2007
    #8
  9. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Noons Guest

    he should be using a movie camera: guaranteed
    25 frames per second!
     
    Noons, Mar 8, 2007
    #9
  10. True enough, as far as it goes.

    Nevertheless, like it or not we are all still captive inhabitants of The
    Pale Blue Dot. And as such we are all still subject to The Tyranny of the
    50th Percentile. And in more ways than just photography.

    There is no other place to run and hide...

    Ken
     
    Ken Nadvornick, Mar 8, 2007
    #10
  11. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Annika1980 Guest

    No, it's just gone to the dogs.

    Take it from me, if you are shooting dogs you want a Canon.
    If you want a dog, buy a Nikon.
     
    Annika1980, Mar 8, 2007
    #11
  12. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    uw wayne Guest

    god, I just love the BS coming out of Canon cameras and their
    users..Let me analyze this...hum...52 weeks year..times 7 days a
    year...by NIKON standards that is give or take 364 days in a year....
    364 times 5 years = 1820 days, by Nikon standards..hum...1,000,010
    frames in 1820 days = 549 shots per day..hum..549/24 hours a day =
    22.89 shots per hour, by Nikon standards...a really credible
    guy....but of course that means the Canon convert has not fallen
    asleep for 5 years...........I guess he, like most Canon shooters has
    accomplished this...I guess that's why he dropped Nikon for Canon...
    Canon shooters are just whacked out shooting a million frames + just
    to get a few acceptable photos...he was a born Canon shooter...like
    monkeys at a typewriter, eventually, they will write a full page of
    readable text.
     
    uw wayne, Mar 8, 2007
    #12
  13. Heh, heh...

    I never even considered the Wilt Chamberlain angle.

    Ken
     
    Ken Nadvornick, Mar 8, 2007
    #13
  14. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    uw wayne Guest

    Doug, I develope my own B&W still today. I print on my Beseler
    enlarger with awesome Rodenstock Lens's. The look is just different
    than digital, silver is...terrific. We ain't going away, the images we
    make are just unique. I will not give up film in this lifetime. I can
    enjoy both digital and the old science simultaneously....pleasure
    enchanced.
     
    uw wayne, Mar 8, 2007
    #14
  15. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    uw wayne Guest

    But Wilt had real stats!
     
    uw wayne, Mar 8, 2007
    #15
  16. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Skip Guest

    Try reading that again, before you go off on an anti-Canon rant. He uses
    NIKON cameras!

    --
    Skip Middleton
    www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    www.pbase.com/skipm
    god, I just love the BS coming out of Canon cameras and their
    users..Let me analyze this...hum...52 weeks year..times 7 days a
    year...by NIKON standards that is give or take 364 days in a year....
    364 times 5 years = 1820 days, by Nikon standards..hum...1,000,010
    frames in 1820 days = 549 shots per day..hum..549/24 hours a day =
    22.89 shots per hour, by Nikon standards...a really credible
    guy....but of course that means the Canon convert has not fallen
    asleep for 5 years...........I guess he, like most Canon shooters has
    accomplished this...I guess that's why he dropped Nikon for Canon...
    Canon shooters are just whacked out shooting a million frames + just
    to get a few acceptable photos...he was a born Canon shooter...like
    monkeys at a typewriter, eventually, they will write a full page of
    readable text.

    Try reading that again, before you go off on an anti-Canon rant. He uses
    NIKON cameras!
    I truly resent people like you, who assume, in all the cliched glory of that
    word, that, just because someone doesn't use the same gear as you do, that
    they are somehow inferior. I use Canon gear, by the way, if you hadn't
    figured that out.
     
    Skip, Mar 8, 2007
    #16
  17. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Mark² Guest

    Luckily, it doesn't mean the death of good photograhpy.
    It just means there's a larger proportion of crap out there.

    Recently I had occasion to browse through several thousand shots taken by an
    acquaintence of mine who recently bought a DSLR (so she could "get better
    pictures").

    They are ALL...100%...C-R-A-P.

    Did she buy Photoshop?
    Yep.
    Can she use it in any way to iomprove her photos beyond the level of CRAP?
    Nope.

    So photographers...take heart. There is still a place for good photography,
    and billions of bad photos out there these days only means that the goods
    stand out even more.
     
    Mark², Mar 8, 2007
    #17
  18. According to my calculator, only in his dreams...

    Ken
     
    Ken Nadvornick, Mar 8, 2007
    #18
  19. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Douglas Guest

    : "Douglas" wrote:
    :
    : > No one can dispute the avalanche of digital cameras into a
    : > hobby/industry previously dedicated to chemicals but to
    : > outright claim photography is dead just because of how the
    : > practice is evolving is wrong.
    :
    : The "practice" has "evolved" to the point where anyone can create (and -
    god
    : help us all - post to the world) 1.01 million images in only a few years.
    : Or months? days? hours? minutes?
    :
    : The "death of photography" resides not in the fact that they can. It
    : resides in the fact that they do...
    :
    : Ken
    :
    :
    That part I'll agree with Ken
     
    Douglas, Mar 8, 2007
    #19
  20. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Beach Bum Guest

    Seems we share more than a name.. it's like you were inside my brain for a
    few minutes today. :)
    Dude calls in this IT support show on the radio this last weekend. He asks
    what resolution is best to scan his old family snaps. My answer to him
    would have been, "If you're asking that question, maybe you should just take
    them to a service to have them done." But no. Before the end of the
    conversation the host is suggesting Photoshop to the guy so he can edit out
    dust specs. All this leads to is angst for the guy and everyone who now has
    to listen to him complain about how hard it is to scan and edit photos.
    Some helpful (not) dork will be telling him "hey, you should have bought a
    Mac"..

    ugh.

    --
    Mark

    Mostly photography...
    http://www.marklauter.com

    I was heavily armed and absent minded. You pay a high price for that in
    the Army.
    - Dom
     
    Beach Bum, Mar 8, 2007
    #20
    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.