Canon 1Ds gets a 32% "thumbs down" rating from users.

"Georgette Preddy" wrote in message
om...
Wow.

-There's nothing like source credibility to win them over, Geogie.

In article , Georgette
Preddy wrote:

As opposed to Sigma's 100% thumbs down?

In article , Georgette
Preddy wrote:

As opposed to Sigma's 100% thumbs down?

"Georgette Preddy" wrote in message
om...
Wow

This guy needs serious help!.

In message ,
Randall Ainsworth wrote:

In article , Georgette
Preddy wrote:

As opposed to Sigma's 100% thumbs down?

You always have to write something ridiculous. Lots of Sigma DSLR users
like their cameras.

There is a wide variety of brush types and sizes, and other colors
besides black and white.
--


John P Sheehy

In article ,
wrote:

In message ,
Randall Ainsworth wrote:

In article , Georgette
Preddy wrote:

As opposed to Sigma's 100% thumbs down?

You always have to write something ridiculous. Lots of Sigma DSLR users
like their cameras.

There is a wide variety of brush types and sizes, and other colors
besides black and white.

They may like their Sigmas, but that doesn't make them good cameras.

In article , Georgette
Preddy wrote:

And Sigma has a 100% thumbs up. It's on CNET. I wanted to wait until
the few non-Canon users here who constantly bash Sigma for being
massively superior to Canon's $8000 DSLRs posted their disbelief
before providing the link. I'm sure the frustrated Sigma-hating crowd
will now proceed to spam the site with fake Sigma-hater reviews
starting with today's date.

But now you know, and the fact will always remain, real life Canon
users are terribly upset with the low value of their cameras and very
blurry image qualtiy. And real Simga DSLRs users (not the faked ones
about to appear, written by children who cannot afford either) are
universally thrilled. This site really does end this debate.
Objectively, the 1Ds is viewed as absolute junk by its own user base.
And they're right, too bad it takes $8000 to get a hands on review not
bought and paid for by Canon.

The really sad thing is, I seriously doubt even they know how badly
the $8000 1993-vintage 1Ds's CMOS gets raked by current technology...

Hey George, why dont' you stick it up your ass? At least it's easy to
discern the truth from your posts...just turn your posts 100% the
opposite and you're probably pointing to truth.

In article ,
wrote:

In message ,
Randall Ainsworth wrote:

In article , Georgette
Preddy wrote:

As opposed to Sigma's 100% thumbs down?

You always have to write something ridiculous. Lots of Sigma DSLR users
like their cameras.

There is a wide variety of brush types and sizes, and other colors
besides black and white.

They may like their Sigmas, but that doesn't make them good cameras.

In article , Georgette
Preddy wrote:

And Sigma has a 100% thumbs up. It's on CNET. I wanted to wait until
the few non-Canon users here who constantly bash Sigma for being
massively superior to Canon's $8000 DSLRs posted their disbelief
before providing the link. I'm sure the frustrated Sigma-hating crowd
will now proceed to spam the site with fake Sigma-hater reviews
starting with today's date.

But now you know, and the fact will always remain, real life Canon
users are terribly upset with the low value of their cameras and very
blurry image qualtiy. And real Simga DSLRs users (not the faked ones
about to appear, written by children who cannot afford either) are
universally thrilled. This site really does end this debate.
Objectively, the 1Ds is viewed as absolute junk by its own user base.
And they're right, too bad it takes $8000 to get a hands on review not
bought and paid for by Canon.

The really sad thing is, I seriously doubt even they know how badly
the $8000 1993-vintage 1Ds's CMOS gets raked by current technology...

Hey George, why dont' you stick it up your ass? At least it's easy to
discern the truth from your posts...just turn your posts 100% the
opposite and you're probably pointing to truth.

"Georgette Preddy" wrote in message
om...
Wow.

You are a pathetic attention seeker. Go seek professional help (of the
psychiatic kind) instead.

Bart