Olympus was right: The value of good adhesives. Canon, Canon, Canon...

!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=24556138

In article om, RichA
writes
!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=24556138

Err, Olympus only claimed they used "special adhesive" on the AF block.

How would that stop the mirror coming off either Oly or Canon cameras?

Don't tell me, Oswald didn't shoot JFK, Elvis is still alive and working
on Vegas East Side, and Diana was pregnant!

Sure, Canon cut some corners with the 5D to get FF into a marketable
price range, but what the **** does that have to do with your kooky DNA?
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

"RichA" wrote in message
ps.com...
!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=24556138

Rich,
Please crawl back under your rock!
All your posts are negative.
Do you have anything positive to contribute?
Marcel

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 18:24:57 -0400, "Celcius"
wrote:


"RichA" wrote in message
ups.com...
!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=24556138

Rich,
Please crawl back under your rock!
All your posts are negative.
Do you have anything positive to contribute?
Marcel


Sure, he's POSITIVE that Canon sucks.

Bill :0)

On Oct 7, 6:16 pm, Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article om, RichA
writes!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=24556138

Err, Olympus only claimed they used "special adhesive" on the AF block.

How would that stop the mirror coming off either Oly or Canon cameras?

Don't tell me, Oswald didn't shoot JFK, Elvis is still alive and working
on Vegas East Side, and Diana was pregnant!

Sure, Canon cut some corners with the 5D to get FF into a marketable
price range, but what the **** does that have to do with your kooky DNA?
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Canon probably switched (like GM did) from expensive synthetic
adhesives to animal glues to save $0.0001 on the cost of each 5D.
Looks like the old horse's hooves don't quite cut the mustard.

On Oct 7, 6:16 pm, Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article om, RichA
writes!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=24556138

Err, Olympus only claimed they used "special adhesive" on the AF block.

How would that stop the mirror coming off either Oly or Canon cameras?

Don't tell me, Oswald didn't shoot JFK, Elvis is still alive and working
on Vegas East Side, and Diana was pregnant!

Sure, Canon cut some corners with the 5D to get FF into a marketable
price range, but what the **** does that have to do with your kooky DNA?

"Cut corners?" The camera cost $3500 when it debuted. Pretty sad when
you consider a Canon F1 (FAR better built) used to cost about $1700.00.

In article . com,
RichA wrote:

Sure, Canon cut some corners with the 5D to get FF into a marketable
price range, but what the **** does that have to do with your kooky DNA?

"Cut corners?" The camera cost $3500 when it debuted. Pretty sad when
you consider a Canon F1 (FAR better built) used to cost about $1700.00.

it was basically a cut down version of an $8000 camera, so yes, they
'cut corners.'

On Oct 7, 10:09 pm, nospam wrote:
In article . com,

RichA wrote:
Sure, Canon cut some corners with the 5D to get FF into a marketable
price range, but what the **** does that have to do with your kooky DNA?

"Cut corners?" The camera cost $3500 when it debuted. Pretty sad when
you consider a Canon F1 (FAR better built) used to cost about $1700.00.

it was basically a cut down version of an $8000 camera, so yes, they
'cut corners.'

Rubbish. It was a 20D with a FF processor. It has little physically
in common with the 1DsMkI or II except for it's FF processor.

In article . com,
RichA wrote:

On Oct 7, 10:09 pm, nospam wrote:
In article . com,

RichA wrote:
Sure, Canon cut some corners with the 5D to get FF into a marketable
price range, but what the **** does that have to do with your kooky DNA?

"Cut corners?" The camera cost $3500 when it debuted. Pretty sad when
you consider a Canon F1 (FAR better built) used to cost about $1700.00.

it was basically a cut down version of an $8000 camera, so yes, they
'cut corners.'

Rubbish. It was a 20D with a FF processor. It has little physically
in common with the 1DsMkI or II except for it's FF processor.

and the full frame sensor is what costs a lot.

On Oct 8, 12:48 pm, nospam wrote:
In article . com,



RichA wrote:
On Oct 7, 10:09 pm, nospam wrote:
In article . com,

RichA wrote:
Sure, Canon cut some corners with the 5D to get FF into a marketable
price range, but what the **** does that have to do with your kooky DNA?

"Cut corners?" The camera cost $3500 when it debuted. Pretty sad when
you consider a Canon F1 (FAR better built) used to cost about $1700.00.

it was basically a cut down version of an $8000 camera, so yes, they
'cut corners.'

Rubbish. It was a 20D with a FF processor. It has little physically
in common with the 1DsMkI or II except for it's FF processor.

and the full frame sensor is what costs a lot.

Sure. But it has nothing to do with the rest of the camera and the 5D
is not a 1Ds.