If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Olympus was right: The value of good adhesives. Canon, Canon, Canon...
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Olympus was right: The value of good adhesives. Canon, Canon, Canon...
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) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Olympus was right: The value of good adhesives. Canon, Canon, Canon...
"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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Olympus was right: The value of good adhesives. Canon, Canon, Canon...
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) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Olympus was right: The value of good adhesives. Canon, Canon, Canon...
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Olympus was right: The value of good adhesives. Canon, Canon, Canon...
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Olympus was right: The value of good adhesives. Canon, Canon, Canon...
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.' |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Olympus was right: The value of good adhesives. Canon, Canon, Canon...
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Olympus was right: The value of good adhesives. Canon, Canon, Canon...
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Olympus was right: The value of good adhesives. Canon, Canon, Canon...
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Good and Bad Canon | Bill | Digital Photography | 35 | February 10th 06 02:22 AM |
Canon i9900, any good? | Woggy_tm | Digital Photography | 34 | April 5th 05 10:30 AM |
Canon should be totally ashamed of this (and some others too) HP got this basic and absolutely essential thing right in their little digicam that's cheap even for a P&S, so why can't Canon?!! Yes, I know, there's more to the Canon 20D, but w | Mike Henley | Digital Photography | 58 | December 15th 04 05:21 PM |
A good buy on a Canon T90 and A1 | R Leachman | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | November 30th 04 02:07 AM |
Canon...the A80 is very good, the A95 even better, but... | Bob Hayden | Digital Photography | 2 | August 31st 04 07:27 PM |