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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon
"DD (Rox)" wrote in message ... In article CiF3f.1650$UF4.1597@fed1read02, "MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number says... Well, it was hard to tell that you meant the 28-135, since it is hardly "crappy," either. It's a good lens, and a good match for the 5D, too. Dallas, it's nice you discovered your mistake in time to tell all the world about how bad Canon's equipment is. Now is about time to take a break, because you are starting to sound like StevieG/George Preddy. No Canon mention can go unremarked upon by you and your vitriol are sadly misplaced. I've enjoyed some of the interplay with you, but your inferences about the people who are buying the 5D are probably wide of the mark, and not appreciated. Dallas and I called a truce some time back...and then enjoyed playful banter. But he's not entered into full Troll mode, and it's becoming tiresome. -Nearly plonked him a couple days ago... Oops! That SHOULD have said, "He's NOW entered into full Troll Mode!!!!!" Yeah, I made that translation/transition! ;-) And I agree, he's not even maintaining the level of objectivity that Douglas has. Even Dallas says he's no longer objective. -Go figure what he hoped to accomplish by announcing that... ? -It does simplify the formation of opinions regarding his posts, though... Funny how you Canon guys get upset to the point of plonking when someone disses your precious brand. It's because no one disses any other brand, except Sigma, to the extent that Canon gets dissed. It is unreasonable to expect Canon owners to react otherwise. The product is not deserving of such vitriol as you throw at it. I couldn't care if you do, but it certainly won't stop me from telling it like it is. If you really told it like it was/is, then there wouldn't be a problem. BTW, Skip, that 28-135mm lens is only good for amateurs who don't know any better. Hardly something I would recommend to someone who is serious about photography. That would be your opinion, now wouldn't it, Dallas? That's certainly not mine. There's nothing in either Canon's or Nikon's line that exceeds it, or at least there wasn't until the 24-105 f4L IS came out. I have the lens, and, yes, it's build quality ain't all that hot, but optically, it more than holds its own. And certainly doesn't deserve to be called a "crappy kit lens." Nor does the 28-105 f3.5-4.5, if that was the other lens to which you referred. And Mark, if dissing Canon is called trolling in your book, what's Bret guilty of everytime he disses Nikon? He's doing that in an oddly lighthearted way, a manner which you seem to have lost touch. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon
DD (Rox) wrote:
In article 2fI3f.1674$UF4.484@fed1read02, "MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number says... Funny how you Canon guys get upset to the point of plonking when someone disses your precious brand. That had nothing to do with it. I nearly plonked you when you made your ridiculous "shadow" comment. Ridiculous? Not really. Just obvious. Whenever I say something about Canon, there you are, like the proverbial shadow. I don't know who you are, Dallas. I don't know who any of the people on this forum are, but I can classify them segmentally with the greatest of ease. You don't have to like Canon. I like Nikon. I like Pentax. I like lots of brands. The only difference here is that you are clearly incapable of being even remotely objective about anything any more. You seem to take some sort of new-found pride in coming up with new ways of stating your hatred for a *brand.* This is not only intellectually embarrassing for you, but also indicative of someone who appears incapable of rational thought on the subject. I also like Pentax and I also like Olympus. But I will not tolerate people saying that Canon is superior to anything else because as I have proved over and over again, that is bull****. There is *nothing* special about Canon. Sadly this goes against the thought processes of yourself and a few others around here and you get uptight about it. I have gone to great lengths to speak with balance regarding various brands. You, on the other hand, have taken to wearing your lack of objectivity like a badge of honor. It's not. It merely paints you as a fool who can't rise above his emotions, and his tiny little corner of thought. Unlike you and the rest of the Canon worshipers I have used Nikons and Canons extensively. In fact I was just working it out that out of the 5 years I have been sick with photograhpy disease, 3 of them were spent using Canon equipment. So I have effectively had more experience with Canon than I have with Nikon. A tiny corner of thought? I don't think so, Mark. A LOT of thought has gone into the comments I make about how crap the Canon consumer line is. I have no doubt that it required significant efforts in thougth on your part. I couldn't care if you do, but it certainly won't stop me from telling it like it is. BTW, Skip, that 28-135mm lens is only good for amateurs who don't know any better. Hardly something I would recommend to someone who is serious about photography. Please point to images that demonstrate you've somehow moved beyond the quality of that particular lens, Dallas. I've looked at your sight, and I can't find a basis for your opinion in this regard. What can you show in this regard? What have you seen in your lenses that leads you to declaring crap on anything else. Mark...you're going to have to do better than that, m'boy. Let us begin by you telling me what it is about my published images that leaves you in any mind as to the notion that I don't know what I am talking about? Didn't say that. Are you saying the images are ****? Why do you keep asking me to tell you your pictures are crap? Read what I said. -What is there in your images that leads you to claim obvious optical superiority? I have never made superiority claims. Never. If so, tell me how, because from where I stand every one of them is way, way better than the snapshots you have posted to Pbase. I say that with conviction. Ah. Conviction! -Good word. I don't claim to be in the same league as someone like Simon Stanmore, for instance, but I am a lot better than most of the people who have the cheek to call themselves professional photographers. Of that there is no doubt in my mind. I've never slammed your pics. Why do you keep asking me to? To your likely dismay...I have posted recently how my 24-70 leaves my old 28-135 behind in terms of sharpness...but I have spoken with measured, comparative language. You, on the other hand, speak with foam frothing from your mouth. I've lost all respect for your opinion because you've chosen a self-declared lack of objectivity. The 28-135mm Canon lens is a very soft lens compared to most consumer grade Nikkors I have used with similar focal lengths (I have never used a 24-120mm though). But all that is besides the point, because you, like so many other psuedo photo experts, seem to think that you can tell how good a lens is simply by looking at a jpeg posted to the internet. Show me where I've done this. Quote? FWIW, the images I have on my site come from a variety of different sources...digital SLR's (3 types), film SLR's (about 5 types) and rangefinders (1 type). At least 10 different lenses too. I challenge you to tell me what equipment took what shot. That's the point. If you/I can't tell, then what is it about your shots vs. other's shots that leads you to declare crap? And Mark, if dissing Canon is called trolling in your book, what's Bret guilty of everytime he disses Nikon? Humor. He's guilty of goading, blatant...humor. -Something you clearly don't have. But you just said you don't know me, so how can you make a statement like that in the same post? My comments pertain to your posts. I do know your posts...which is what I've commented on. We all know Bret's schtick. You don't have a schtick, Dallas. It's just you. I remeber WAAAY back when Bret first started posting...I gave him crap all the time. -Then after a time it became clear what he was up to, and it turned into entertainment...not to mention a number of spurts of decent photography. You, on the other hand, are just turning into an arse. You aren't funny, Dallas, and you don't show evidence of anything other than your own bitterness. You merely come off as a guy who got a black eye from the South African Canon Service Center...and as a result, has set aside sanity to continue your mindless ravings against a brand. You have become the poster child for why brand wars are reserved for fools. At least I am not a nerd. There are other states of being which are also worth avoiding. Regarding "dissing..." Even I have "dissed" Canon, you boob. Did you read my thread about whether the 5D was/is over-priced for it's build quality? -About the lack of this and that? Did you read my loudly expressed displeasure with Canon's handling of 20D problems way back when--even though I don't own one? --When Nikon announced specs for their new generation of topline DSLR a year or so ago...guess who started a new thread, glowingly expressing how impressed he was?? -That was me, Dallas. -You know...the Canon worshipper (or so you claim). So you see, DD...Roxy...Dallas...whoever the heck you are... You have proven only that when it comes to discussions of equipment, you are a closed-minded, bitter man...hell-bent on your own version of reality that leads you to robotic responses of mindless anti-blatherings. I never blather. I speak the truth. LOL! Some people can't handle the truth. Are you among them? Now there's some humor! Unintentional, of course, but still humorous. Other than that...You're not a bad guy. Too late for that. Aw gee... |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon
Douglas... wrote:
MarkČ wrote: So you see, DD...Roxy...Dallas...whoever the heck you are... You have proven only that when it comes to discussions of equipment, you are a closed-minded, bitter man...hell-bent on your own version of reality that leads you to robotic responses of mindless anti-blatherings. Other than that...You're not a bad guy. Feel better now, Mark? I'm fine. How are you? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon
DD (Rox) wrote:
Please point to images that demonstrate you've somehow moved beyond the quality of that particular lens, Dallas. I've looked at your sight, and I can't find a basis for your opinion in this regard. What can you show in this regard? What have you seen in your lenses that leads you to declaring crap on anything else. Mark...you're going to have to do better than that, m'boy. Let us begin by you telling me what it is about my published images that leaves you in any mind as to the notion that I don't know what I am talking about? Are you saying the images are ****? If so, tell me how, because from where I stand every one of them is way, way better than the snapshots you have posted to Pbase. Actually, I agree with you. Many of the images I have posted there are indeed nothing more than snapshots. I use Pbase for various reasons...and not to impress or sell my photos... Shots like these are certainly snapshots: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/38258545/original and http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47924570/original Others are posted merely for purposes relating to discussions... Like: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/37018969/original But oops! There's yet another example of me pointing out Canon flaws! Once again, I foil your accusations of Canon worship. Then there are other shots that I think surpass your "snapshot" put-down... Like this one: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47982648/original And this one: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36235344/original (you should see that one printed to 48 inches... Looks rather better than most other shots I've seen of this famous crater--which is as close as you'll ever hear me come to bragging). Or perhaps this non snap-shot: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36235043/original Here's another one I like, though I'd have to say it's a bit off-level: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/38258451/original I like this one too...kinda different: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47616297/original What are some of the shots you like from your site? (And please note I've made zero claims about any great this or that... These are just shots that I think move a bit beyond happy-snaps... -Mark |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon
MarkČ wrote:
DD (Rox) wrote: Please point to images that demonstrate you've somehow moved beyond the quality of that particular lens, Dallas. I've looked at your sight, and I can't find a basis for your opinion in this regard. What can you show in this regard? What have you seen in your lenses that leads you to declaring crap on anything else. Mark...you're going to have to do better than that, m'boy. Let us begin by you telling me what it is about my published images that leaves you in any mind as to the notion that I don't know what I am talking about? Are you saying the images are ****? If so, tell me how, because from where I stand every one of them is way, way better than the snapshots you have posted to Pbase. Actually, I agree with you. Many of the images I have posted there are indeed nothing more than snapshots. I use Pbase for various reasons...and not to impress or sell my photos... Shots like these are certainly snapshots: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/38258545/original and http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47924570/original Others are posted merely for purposes relating to discussions... Like: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/37018969/original But oops! There's yet another example of me pointing out Canon flaws! Once again, I foil your accusations of Canon worship. Then there are other shots that I think surpass your "snapshot" put-down... Like this one: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47982648/original And this one: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36235344/original (you should see that one printed to 48 inches... Looks rather better than most other shots I've seen of this famous crater--which is as close as you'll ever hear me come to bragging). Or perhaps this non snap-shot: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36235043/original Here's another one I like, though I'd have to say it's a bit off-level: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/38258451/original I like this one too...kinda different: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47616297/original What are some of the shots you like from your site? (And please note I've made zero claims about any great this or that... These are just shots that I think move a bit beyond happy-snaps... -Mark What happened, Dallas? Where are you? Is it possible that you've been shooting your mouth off...busily bragging that your pictures are "better than my snapshots"...only to run off with your tail between your legs? I've NEVER made claims of ANYTHING about my images, but since you seem entirely determined to draw comparisons here, lets see if you can back up your mouth. So far...I just don't see it. In my above posted response to you, I've not only shown images that are decent, but I've also shown yet more examples of my LONG history of pointing out Canon flaws...which AGAIN negates your endlessly monotonous accusations of Canon worship. I've acknowledged the obvious...that some of my posts are indeed snapshots (Uh...Dallas...I've never claimed otherwise). -But it appears that your mouth has again landed egg on your face. OK. Since you won't respond... Here are your site's landscape shots: http://dallasdahms.com/v3_Other.htm I like the top and bottom shots here, but the middle two are about as interestingly framed as mud is clean. Why all the sky and sand? Let's have a look at your "Animal" (zoo) images by clicking "Next Set" under the above images: Here we find a poorly focussed/poorly framed bird, and noisy and dull B&W dog pic, and a strangely-framed beach picture that is 50% plain blue sky with a horizon smack in the middle for no apparent reason. OK. Not sure what you're braggin about... People pics: http://dallasdahms.com/v3_People.htm# I think a couple of these are perhaps your best shots. My favorite is the B&W of the boy playing with his car track. Very nice. As for your claims that any of your site's shots are "better than my Pbase posts" -I really think you should avoid this kind of bragging...at least until your images can back you up. And even then...bragging just isn't a good practice in general, which is why I have never, and will never do it. -M2 PS--Just in case you're not up to referencing my images from the earlier post...here they are(and then some), quickie-style (crap that they are): http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47982648/original http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36235344/original http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47616297/original A non-Canon-worshipper pic: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/37018969/original And since you posted that boring doggie pic, here's a non-boring doggie pic for you: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/37319958/original http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36235043/original A bit off-level, but nice: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/38258451/original Close and sticky: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/49043194/original A crappy snapshot: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47903081/original Another crappy snap: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47770602/original A NON-zoo bird: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36235052/original A ZOO bird: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47306222/original A portrait: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47306216/original Another "snapshot": http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47306239/original A 30 second snapshot: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/37442910/original And finally...just to make you smile... ....An image of Canon pain: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47959941/original -M2 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon
In article niH4f.2140$UF4.990@fed1read02, "MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest
even number says... Actually, I agree with you. Many of the images I have posted there are indeed nothing more than snapshots. I use Pbase for various reasons...and not to impress or sell my photos... Shots like these are certainly snapshots: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/38258545/original and http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47924570/original Others are posted merely for purposes relating to discussions... Like: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/37018969/original But oops! There's yet another example of me pointing out Canon flaws! Once again, I foil your accusations of Canon worship. Then there are other shots that I think surpass your "snapshot" put-down... Like this one: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47982648/original You think that is somehow visually stimulating? You stich together a few snapshots of a river bend with a mountain in the background and it passes for good photography? Uh-uh. And this one: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36235344/original (you should see that one printed to 48 inches... Looks rather better than most other shots I've seen of this famous crater--which is as close as you'll ever hear me come to bragging). Very little contrast in that one which leaves it somewhat flat, but otherwise a good shot. Or perhaps this non snap-shot: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36235043/original Doesn't do it for me. Here's another one I like, though I'd have to say it's a bit off-level: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/38258451/original Again, the contrast should be increased. The picture looks flat. I like this one too...kinda different: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47616297/original It's different alright, but what is it a photograph of? What are some of the shots you like from your site? (And please note I've made zero claims about any great this or that... These are just shots that I think move a bit beyond happy-snaps... All the photos on my site are shots I feel I accomplished something with. There are technically demanding shots, simple but effective shots, interesting shots, etc. There are also a few that could be classified as snapshots, particularly in the "people" catagory, but for the most part they are better than some of the "professional" works I have seen from other photographers. -Mark What happened, Dallas? Where are you? Uh, some of us enjoy this thing called a weekend, Mark. I switch off my computer on Fridays at about 3pm and I don't switch it back on until Monday morning 7am. Okay, thats unless I have some work to do at home, but this weekend all I did on the laptop was rip some audio into MP3 from a couple of my music concert DVD's. I don't dial into the net from home anymore. Is it possible that you've been shooting your mouth off...busily bragging that your pictures are "better than my snapshots"...only to run off with your tail between your legs? Yeah, right. I've NEVER made claims of ANYTHING about my images, but since you seem entirely determined to draw comparisons here, lets see if you can back up your mouth. So far...I just don't see it. See above. In my above posted response to you, I've not only shown images that are decent, but I've also shown yet more examples of my LONG history of pointing out Canon flaws...which AGAIN negates your endlessly monotonous accusations of Canon worship. I've acknowledged the obvious...that some of my posts are indeed snapshots (Uh...Dallas...I've never claimed otherwise). -But it appears that your mouth has again landed egg on your face. It has? Not. OK. Since you won't respond... Here are your site's landscape shots: http://dallasdahms.com/v3_Other.htm I like the top and bottom shots here, but the middle two are about as interestingly framed as mud is clean. Why all the sky and sand? He-heh. Mark, that B&W shot is a crop. A major crop. The original was a portrait oriented colour Velvia slide. I wanted to put something on the site to show the beach where I grew up. The other shot you say is poorly framed was taken about 4 years ago using a Nikon F80 and a Tokina 19- 35mm zoom lens. The city skyline disects the blue of the ocean and the sky into more or less equal halves. No cropping here. What you can't really see in the scan is the clean, clear water just in front of the boys. Mud? No, this is not New Orleans. Let's have a look at your "Animal" (zoo) images by clicking "Next Set" under the above images: Here we find a poorly focussed/poorly framed bird, and noisy and dull B&W dog pic, and a strangely-framed beach picture that is 50% plain blue sky with a horizon smack in the middle for no apparent reason. Poorly focussed? Poorly framed? Zoo? That eagle shot was taken in the wilds of the Drakensberg mountains and it is not cropped. That's how close I got to the bird with an 80-200mm f/2.8 Nikkor. Noisy??!!! That's FILM grain you nitwit!!! Some of us still use film around here. OK. Not sure what you're braggin about... Who was bragging? People pics: http://dallasdahms.com/v3_People.htm# I think a couple of these are perhaps your best shots. My favorite is the B&W of the boy playing with his car track. Very nice. Not too noisy for you? Seeing as it was shot with a Leica M3 and XP-2. As for your claims that any of your site's shots are "better than my Pbase posts" -I really think you should avoid this kind of bragging...at least until your images can back you up. And even then...bragging just isn't a good practice in general, which is why I have never, and will never do it. You brought this up, Mark. You said I had no room to talk, but as far as I'm concerned my images are better than yours. I never brag. I just take pictues. -M2 PS--Just in case you're not up to referencing my images from the earlier post...here they are(and then some), quickie-style (crap that they are): http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47982648/original http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36235344/original http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47616297/original A non-Canon-worshipper pic: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/37018969/original And since you posted that boring doggie pic, here's a non-boring doggie pic for you: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/37319958/original http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36235043/original A bit off-level, but nice: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/38258451/original Close and sticky: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/49043194/original A crappy snapshot: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47903081/original Another crappy snap: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47770602/original A NON-zoo bird: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36235052/original A ZOO bird: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47306222/original A portrait: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47306216/original Another "snapshot": http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47306239/original A 30 second snapshot: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/37442910/original And finally...just to make you smile... ...An image of Canon pain: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47959941/original Can I give you some advice? Learn how to use fill flash properly. In other words, either don't use it, or get something that works. Some of those animal snapshots are ruined by too much flash... -- DD (everything is temporary) www.dallasdahms.com |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon
DD (Rox) wrote:
In article niH4f.2140$UF4.990@fed1read02, "MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number says... Actually, I agree with you. Many of the images I have posted there are indeed nothing more than snapshots. I use Pbase for various reasons...and not to impress or sell my photos... Shots like these are certainly snapshots: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/38258545/original and http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47924570/original Others are posted merely for purposes relating to discussions... Like: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/37018969/original But oops! There's yet another example of me pointing out Canon flaws! Once again, I foil your accusations of Canon worship. Then there are other shots that I think surpass your "snapshot" put-down... Like this one: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47982648/original You think that is somehow visually stimulating? Yes. I do. You know, Dallas...some beauty in nature doesn't require quirky, artsy-fartsy style. It is simply beautiful by capturing it as it really looks. That's what I did, and the response from viewers of these panoramas have been overtly and enthusiastically positive. You stich together a few snapshots of a river bend with a mountain in the background and it passes for good photography? Uh-uh. That depends on what you're after. As a depiction of one of the world's most beutiful areas, it served its purpose well. -But...Like bilong yu... I guess you find blurry images of sweaty guitar players more...ahem...stimulating? And this one: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36235344/original (you should see that one printed to 48 inches... Looks rather better than most other shots I've seen of this famous crater--which is as close as you'll ever hear me come to bragging). Very little contrast in that one which leaves it somewhat flat, but otherwise a good shot. HA! You are so full of it, Dallas... I challenge you to find a better shot of Haleakala on the net. There may be one, but I haven't found it yet. I've looked, and have found only comparatively crappy renditions of it...like these: "20 year, professional photographer:" http://www.jankaulins.com/p158.html Hideously over-saturated fakes:: http://www.haleakalaphotos.com/ More fake, over-saturated crap, pretending to be Haleakala (believe me...it doesn't have neon green shrubs and neon orange rocks): http://www.haleakalaphotos.com/gall1.html My shot presents it in as contrasty a way as you'll ever see it in real life. Or perhaps this non snap-shot: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36235043/original Doesn't do it for me. Oh? What was it supposed to "do" for Dallas Dahms? I'll try to make it a little more blurry, or perhaps throw in a bird with his nose against a black wall for ya next time... That ought to "do it" aye? Here's another one I like, though I'd have to say it's a bit off-level: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/38258451/original Again, the contrast should be increased. The picture looks flat. You need a new monitor, bub. I like this one too...kinda different: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47616297/original It's different alright, but what is it a photograph of? Not tellin' (Hint: It's less than 1 meter high, and it's a slow shutter) What are some of the shots you like from your site? The silence is deafening... (And please note I've made zero claims about any great this or that... These are just shots that I think move a bit beyond happy-snaps... All the photos on my site are shots I feel I accomplished something with. There are technically demanding shots, simple but effective shots, interesting shots, etc. There are also a few that could be classified as snapshots, particularly in the "people" catagory, but for the most part they are better than some of the "professional" works I have seen from other photographers. I'm glad you feel happy with them. As was the original question, though, Dallas... -What are you seeing in your shots that lead you to make claims about Canon being somwhow inferior? That was the reason I ever mentioned your site to begin with. What are you seeing/showing in your shots that offer insight into Leica/Nikon superiority? Again... I just don't see it. What do you see? What happened, Dallas? Where are you? Uh, some of us enjoy this thing called a weekend, Mark. I switch off my computer on Fridays at about 3pm and I don't switch it back on until Monday morning 7am. Okay, thats unless I have some work to do at home, but this weekend all I did on the laptop was rip some audio into MP3 from a couple of my music concert DVD's. I don't dial into the net from home anymore. Is it possible that you've been shooting your mouth off...busily bragging that your pictures are "better than my snapshots"...only to run off with your tail between your legs? Yeah, right. Exactly. I've NEVER made claims of ANYTHING about my images, but since you seem entirely determined to draw comparisons here, lets see if you can back up your mouth. So far...I just don't see it. See above. In my above posted response to you, I've not only shown images that are decent, but I've also shown yet more examples of my LONG history of pointing out Canon flaws...which AGAIN negates your endlessly monotonous accusations of Canon worship. I've acknowledged the obvious...that some of my posts are indeed snapshots (Uh...Dallas...I've never claimed otherwise). -But it appears that your mouth has again landed egg on your face. It has? Not. OK. Since you won't respond... Here are your site's landscape shots: http://dallasdahms.com/v3_Other.htm I like the top and bottom shots here, but the middle two are about as interestingly framed as mud is clean. Why all the sky and sand? He-heh. Mark, that B&W shot is a crop. A major crop. Oops. "Crap" is spelled with an "a"...not an "o". The original was a portrait oriented colour Velvia slide. I wanted to put something on the site to show the beach where I grew up. The other shot you say is poorly framed was taken about 4 years ago using a Nikon F80 and a Tokina 19- 35mm zoom lens. The city skyline disects the blue of the ocean and the sky into more or less equal halves. I'll just leave that to you... I think it looks rather like what most novices do--which is cut horizon shots right at teh middle. You've done this in several horizon shots, which, as a group tend to make it look amateurish. No cropping here. What you can't really see in the scan is the clean, clear water just in front of the boys. Mud? No, this is not New Orleans. Let's have a look at your "Animal" (zoo) images by clicking "Next Set" under the above images: Here we find a poorly focussed/poorly framed bird, and noisy and dull B&W dog pic, and a strangely-framed beach picture that is 50% plain blue sky with a horizon smack in the middle for no apparent reason. Poorly focussed? Sure looks that way. Poorly framed? Oh good gravy, Dallas...could you run his beak a little MORE into the edge? -Heck, it almost looks as though you cloned in a bit of extra background...just to the right of the beak, to try and salvage the shot...? Or were you cropping something out to the right of the bird? I can't think of any other reason for your placement. What gives? Zoo? That eagle shot was taken in the wilds of the Drakensberg mountains and it is not cropped. That's how close I got to the bird with an 80-200mm f/2.8 Nikkor. Gongrats. Too bad he looks like he's sniffing a big black wall... Noisy??!!! That's FILM grain you nitwit!!! Some of us still use film around here. Why is that relevant? Does the fact that it's film somehow make up for it being a very boring picture of a run-of-the-mill dog, sitting there being...well...a panting dog? Oh, wait! -Silly me. I forgot that ANYTHING in B&W automatically = a good, artsy photo. OK. Not sure what you're braggin about... Who was bragging? Uh...Dallas... When you state that "any of your photos are better than my snapshots"...that's what is referred to in the english-speaking world as bragging. People pics: http://dallasdahms.com/v3_People.htm# I think a couple of these are perhaps your best shots. My favorite is the B&W of the boy playing with his car track. Very nice. Not too noisy for you? Seeing as it was shot with a Leica M3 and XP-2. Ooooh! WELL..gee! If it was shot with a (shudder) LEICA...then it MUST be good! What is "Leica-ish" about that photo? As for your claims that any of your site's shots are "better than my Pbase posts" -I really think you should avoid this kind of bragging...at least until your images can back you up. And even then...bragging just isn't a good practice in general, which is why I have never, and will never do it. You brought this up, Mark. You said I had no room to talk, Well, no, Dallas...that's not what I said. I asked what it is about your images on your sight that give an indication to you that your gear is somehow superior to Canon. You've never mustered an answer on that one, and yet you continually slam anything Canon. Can you help demonstrate these shortcomings in your images? If so, I can't see it. 'Splain. but as far as I'm concerned my images are better than yours. I never brag. L..O....L!!!! That's the funniest thing I've heard all day, Dallas! In that *one line*, you have offered both proof of bragging, AND self contradiction. -You say "my images are better than yours......[then hilariously followed by]...I never brag"(!!) So first you brag...then you say that you don't brag. What's funniest about that is I don't think you even understand why it's funny. I just take pictues. -M2 PS--Just in case you're not up to referencing my images from the earlier post...here they are(and then some), quickie-style (crap that they are): http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47982648/original http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36235344/original http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47616297/original A non-Canon-worshipper pic: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/37018969/original And since you posted that boring doggie pic, here's a non-boring doggie pic for you: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/37319958/original http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36235043/original A bit off-level, but nice: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/38258451/original Close and sticky: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/49043194/original A crappy snapshot: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47903081/original Another crappy snap: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47770602/original A NON-zoo bird: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36235052/original A ZOO bird: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47306222/original A portrait: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47306216/original Another "snapshot": http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47306239/original A 30 second snapshot: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/37442910/original And finally...just to make you smile... ...An image of Canon pain: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47959941/original Can I give you some advice? Learn how to use fill flash properly. In other words, either don't use it, or get something that works. Some of those animal snapshots are ruined by too much flash... There's a reason they are overtly "flashy." -The majority of those birdie snap-shots were taken in near-darkness, Dallas. Fill flash?? OK. Next time I'm shooting birds in near darkness, I'll leave the shutter open for oh...say, 30-60 seconds to capture mostly ambient light...and then add a little fill. -Could you please train the birds to stay motionless so that I only need fill flash? Thanks. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon
"MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message news:6zW4f.2186$UF4.45@fed1read02... Oh? What was it supposed to "do" for Dallas Dahms? Does anyone care? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon
In article 6zW4f.2186$UF4.45@fed1read02, "MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even
number says... You think that is somehow visually stimulating? Yes. I do. Well then you have **** taste in landscape photography because it's a boring, mind numbing photograph. You know, Dallas...some beauty in nature doesn't require quirky, artsy-fartsy style. It is simply beautiful by capturing it as it really looks. That's what I did, and the response from viewers of these panoramas have been overtly and enthusiastically positive. From who? Mama, Papa and auntie Fanny? Get real mate. Your photography is boring. That depends on what you're after. As a depiction of one of the world's most beutiful areas, it served its purpose well. -But...Like bilong yu... I guess you find blurry images of sweaty guitar players more...ahem...stimulating? Actually I do. I'd like to see you get even one decent shot of a musician in a dark, smokey club. But no...spiders asses seem to be more stimulating to you. You are so full of it, Dallas... I challenge you to find a better shot of Haleakala on the net. There maybe one, but I haven't found it yet. You actually linked to one! Thanks for saving me the time! My shot presents it in as contrasty a way as you'll ever see it in real life. "Real life"? Is that what you think photography is all about? Don't ever quit your day-job, Mark. Doesn't do it for me. Oh? What was it supposed to "do" for Dallas Dahms? I'll try to make it a little more blurry, or perhaps throw in a bird with his nose against a black wall for ya next time... That ought to "do it" aye? It's a photograph of an ugly spider climbing up a web to what I assume is a hibiscus bulb. What's the photo of? The spider or the flower? There is nothing technically difficult about the shot. Anyone could have taken it. Again, the contrast should be increased. The picture looks flat. You need a new monitor, bub. IF that's the case then how come the other volvano photo you linked to looks fine on my laptop screen? All the photos on my site are shots I feel I accomplished something with. There are technically demanding shots, simple but effective shots, interesting shots, etc. There are also a few that could be classified as snapshots, particularly in the "people" catagory, but for the most part they are better than some of the "professional" works I have seen from other photographers. I'm glad you feel happy with them. As was the original question, though, Dallas... -What are you seeing in your shots that lead you to make claims about Canon being somwhow inferior? Er, that wasn't the question. If you had half a brain you would realise that half the pictures on my site WERE taken with Canon cameras and lenses! What you fail to understand is the fundamental difference between Nikon and Canon as companies. One sucks and the other sucks a lot less. That was the reason I ever mentioned your site to begin with. What are you seeing/showing in your shots that offer insight into Leica/Nikon superiority? Again... I just don't see it. What do you see? I see a rabid dude who has more dollars than photographic skill. But lets analyse briefly why I believe Nikon and Leica are better than Canon: 1. Canon sucks. 2. Nikon has a much bigger, better system. 3. Nikon cameras appear to require a lot less attention than Canons. 4. Canon sucks. 5. Leica rangefinders allow you to take photos that you wouldn't ordinarily get with an SLR and their lenses are all optomised to be sharp when wide open. 6. Canon flash sucks (as evidenced by your photos). 7. Canon photographers somehow think they're automatically better using Canon. 8. Canon has really bad QC. 9. Canon's cutting edge will leave you bleeding from the pockets. I could go on...but I think you get the message. You see, it really doesn't matter what you use to get the image. A good photographer will be able to use anything to get the shot he wants, however, he will also know his equipment and its limitations. An astute photographer will also see the value in being able to tap into almost 50 years of lens designs and system interchangeability offered at very good prices. He-heh. Mark, that B&W shot is a crop. A major crop. Oops. "Crap" is spelled with an "a"...not an "o". Where's your B&W output? The original was a portrait oriented colour Velvia slide. I wanted to put something on the site to show the beach where I grew up. The other shot you say is poorly framed was taken about 4 years ago using a Nikon F80 and a Tokina 19- 35mm zoom lens. The city skyline disects the blue of the ocean and the sky into more or less equal halves. I'll just leave that to you... I think it looks rather like what most novices do--which is cut horizon shots right at teh middle. I was a novice at that point and IIRC that shot came off the first roll of slide film I ever shot. I like the shot as it is, even with its 1 degree horizon tilt. You've done this in several horizon shots, which, as a group tend to makeit look amateurish. Point taken. I'll go out and do better, safe in the knowledge that you won't be able to follow suit. Poorly focussed? Sure looks that way. Maybe you need glasses? How sharp is your 70-200mm lens wide open? Poorly framed? Oh good gravy, Dallas...could you run his beak a little MORE into the edge? -Heck, it almost looks as though you cloned in a bit of extra background...just to the right of the beak, to try and salvage the shot....? Or were you cropping something out to the right of the bird? I can't think of any other reason for your placement. What gives? When you are sitting 5 meters away from a crested eagle that has the ability to rip your eyes out within seconds, getting a shot (any shot) is more important than framing. Noisy??!!! That's FILM grain you nitwit!!! Some of us still use film around here. Why is that relevant? You tell me. You brought it up. Does the fact that it's film somehow make up for it being a very boring picture of a run-of-the-mill dog, sitting there being...well...a panting dog? Oh, wait! -Silly me. I forgot that ANYTHING in B&W automatically = a good, artsy photo. You catch on fast, Markie. Uh...Dallas... When you state that "any of your photos are better than my snapshots"...that's what is referred to in the english-speaking world as bragging. No, if I was going to brag I would say my photos are better than anything else. I'm saying they are better than yours. And they are. Maybe I should say they suck a lot less than yours? Not too noisy for you? Seeing as it was shot with a Leica M3 and XP-2. Ooooh! WELL..gee! If it was shot with a (shudder) LEICA...then it MUST be good! What is "Leica-ish" about that photo? Try and do that handheld with an SLR at 1/8sec. No IS allowed. You brought this up, Mark. You said I had no room to talk, Well, no, Dallas...that's not what I said. I asked what it is about your images on your sight that give an indication to you that your gear is somehow superior to Canon. You've never mustered an answer on that one, and yet you continually slam anything Canon. Can you help demonstrate these shortcomings in your images? If so, I can't see it. 'Splain. Well maybe I misunderstood your slight of my photography as arrogance, but as I have pointed out to you numerous times, a lot of my photos were taken with Canon equipment. Why do I dislike the brand so much? Because it sucks. but as far as I'm concerned my images are better than yours. I never brag. L..O....L!!!! That's the funniest thing I've heard all day, Dallas! In that *one line*, you have offered both proof of bragging, AND self contradiction. -You say "my images are better than yours......[then hilariously followed by]...I never brag"(!!) Stating a fact cannot be construed as bragging, my friend. We could always take this to the Shoot In, you know (that is if Alfonse has the mental wherewithall to not "lose" our pictures). Can I give you some advice? Learn how to use fill flash properly. In other words, either don't use it, or get something that works. Some of those animal snapshots are ruined by too much flash... There's a reason they are overtly "flashy." -The majority of those birdie snap-shots were taken in near-darkness, Dallas. Fill flash?? OK. Next time I'm shooting birds in near darkness, I'll leave the shutter open for oh...say, 30-60 seconds to capture mostly ambient light...and then add a little fill. -Could you please train the birds to stay motionless so that I only need fill flash? Thanks. You could always use a Leica and fast film, but that wouldn't be seen as being cool, would it? It looks far more impressive when you're walking around with big white lenses and a monster flash on top. It don't matter if the pictures you take suck, as long as they were taken with a Canon and people know that. -- DD (everything is temporary) www.dallasdahms.com |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:35:53 -0700, "MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even
number rhapsodized: You know, Dallas...some beauty in nature doesn't require quirky, artsy-fartsy style. It is simply beautiful by capturing it as it really looks. That's what I did, and the response from viewers of these panoramas have been overtly and enthusiastically positive. But then you wouldn't be really aware of any covert negative responses now, would you? g |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon D70 issues/questions Vs. Canon | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 611 | November 20th 05 04:04 PM |
Nikon User to Canon help me I'm slipping... | Richard Favinger, Jr. | Digital SLR Cameras | 141 | April 29th 05 02:52 PM |
A fully manual dSLR | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 130 | April 18th 05 04:00 AM |
Lift off with the Nikon D70!!! | Dallas | 35mm Photo Equipment | 132 | August 23rd 04 06:37 PM |
FA: Camera Collectibles for Auction on e-Bay: NIKON CANON PENTAX MINOLTA TAMRON | z-ride | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | October 22nd 03 10:17 PM |