Canon's flagship not so great?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <h006i119d6u0usqr2gipta896pkg9ln5vp@4ax.com>,
Rich <none@none.com> wrote:

>Yes, that article should not have been done, or posted. Spoken like
>one of the typical Canon three monkeys.

If you thought that Guy Mancuso had something interesting to say, you
could have linked to his post. Instead, you linked to someone who did a
digested version of what Guy had to say.

In any event, you have to see the guy's workflow and what it is he
likes/dislikes to really evaluate his opinion. Does he view 100%? The
higher MP camera using the same lens is always going to look softer.
Does the Leica have more aliasing? Less aliasing? A RAW conversion or
in-camera JPEG that is more like the film he used to use?
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <msv5i1dk9ie9k1nefcjqlgdv9q5fbittqj@4ax.com>,
Rich <none@none.com> wrote:

>But good reading comprehension, unlike yourself. Notice the "?" at
>the end of the post's subject? I didn't say I believed the article
>one way or another.
>It's getting harder to post things without hurting the flower-delicate
>feelings of Canon supporters.

This has nothing to do with Canon; it has to do with your style of
posting. You are like our own National Enquirer.


--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
 

Rich

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2004
325
0
18,930
0
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 02:23:39 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:

>In message <msv5i1dk9ie9k1nefcjqlgdv9q5fbittqj@4ax.com>,
>Rich <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>But good reading comprehension, unlike yourself. Notice the "?" at
>>the end of the post's subject? I didn't say I believed the article
>>one way or another.
>>It's getting harder to post things without hurting the flower-delicate
>>feelings of Canon supporters.
>
>This has nothing to do with Canon; it has to do with your style of
>posting. You are like our own National Enquirer.

And like all intelligent people, it's up to you to determine if the
post in-question has any merit. I only presented the article, with
the question posed by it, maybe the Canon flagship isn't so terrific
if a 10meg camera produces better images? I didn't say adamantly that
the statement was true. I read things like, "The 1DMkII is a better
camera than the 1DSMkII." You can simply avoid reading this kind of
thing if in your mind it makes no sense and no tangible reasons can
be provided to prove it.
-Rich
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
L Digital Cameras 1
L Digital Cameras 0
Bdubb11 Digital Cameras 1
H Digital Cameras 1
H Digital Cameras 1
D Digital Cameras 2
E Digital Cameras 0
D Digital Cameras 0
H Digital Cameras 1
S Digital Cameras 1
1 Digital Cameras 1
R Digital Cameras 1
T Digital Cameras 1
G Digital Cameras 0
P Digital Cameras 1
G Digital Cameras 0
A Digital Cameras 3
B Digital Cameras 1
P Digital Cameras 1
F Digital Cameras 1

ASK THE COMMUNITY