Dpreveiw figures a way to LOVE Canon even more

Rich ranted inanely:

Reviews people want, missing in action:
Canon 40D

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0710/07...s40dreview.asp

Too much wonking, Rich, causes blindness.

-Wolfgang

Annika1980 wrote:

Here, I'll give ya the Readers Digest version.

Canon 40D: GREAT!
Canon 1DMKIII: Same as 40D but costs lots more.
Nikon, Sony, and all the rest: SUCK!


Any questions?

Yes, how much did Rich and/or Nikon and/or Sigma pay you?

-Wolfgang

David J Taylor wrote:
James Silverton wrote:
[]
I would be interested in having someone tell me what is an
"entry-level" camera.

"entry level" = cheapest (in a particular range)

Perhaps a word people don't like to use!

That was my thought,too. An entry level digital camera would be a lot
cheaper than an entry level DSLR.

In California, R.E. types use the term "starter home"- i.e, and entry
level dump. Is the term in use elsewhere?

==
John McWilliams

John McWilliams wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:
James Silverton wrote:
[]
I would be interested in having someone tell me what is an
"entry-level" camera.

"entry level" = cheapest (in a particular range)

Perhaps a word people don't like to use!

That was my thought,too. An entry level digital camera would be a lot
cheaper than an entry level DSLR.

In California, R.E. types use the term "starter home"- i.e, and entry
level dump. Is the term in use elsewhere?

==
John McWilliams

Not in the UK.

David

John McWilliams wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:
James Silverton wrote:
[]
I would be interested in having someone tell me what is an
"entry-level" camera.

"entry level" = cheapest (in a particular range)

Perhaps a word people don't like to use!

That was my thought,too. An entry level digital camera would be a lot
cheaper than an entry level DSLR.

In California, R.E. types use the term "starter home"- i.e, and entry
level dump. Is the term in use elsewhere?

LOL, a "starter" home in my city is now $750,000, and a dumpy 1960's
Eichler style home (Eichler built massive numbers of very poorly built
houses that sold for something like $14,000 new).

"http://www.mls-2.com/houseDetail.jsp?id=748150"

On Oct 26, 12:19 pm, SMS wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:
James Silverton wrote:
[]
I would be interested in having someone tell me what is an
"entry-level" camera.

"entry level" = cheapest (in a particular range)

Perhaps a word people don't like to use!

That was my thought,too. An entry level digital camera would be a lot
cheaper than an entry level DSLR.

In California, R.E. types use the term "starter home"- i.e, and entry
level dump. Is the term in use elsewhere?

LOL, a "starter" home in my city is now $750,000, and a dumpy 1960's
Eichler style home (Eichler built massive numbers of very poorly built
houses that sold for something like $14,000 new).

"http://www.mls-2.com/houseDetail.jsp?id=748150"

A crackerbox house on a 125ft x 40ft lot in Toronto built after WW2
and sold for $7,000 would now cost $750,000 and only for the land.

Tony Polson wrote:

I am not sure how you would identify any changes in bias due to
changes in advertising. For example, you can be pretty sure that
manufacturers who feel they have had a raw deal on a web site in the
past are not going to spend their advertising dollars there. Why feed
the hand that smites you? (if you see what I mean)

I find dcresource.com to be much better than dpreview.

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d200-review/
http://dcresource.com/reviews/canon/...ew/index.shtml

Pretty much what you'd expect in the reviews. Each has it's pros and
cons, with of course the 40D's biggest advantage of being lower noise at
higher ISOs, something Canon has always excelled at, and something that
Nikon has always had a problem with.

Other than the high-ISO noise and the price, the D200 seems to win out
over the 40D. They haven't reviewed the D300 yet.

The D200 and D300 are actually about a half-segment up from the 40D,
somewhere between the 5D and the 40D. I think Canon needs something a
step up from the 40D that competes better against the D200 and D300, at
a similar price.

On Oct 26, 12:43 pm, Rich wrote:

A crackerbox house on a 125ft x 40ft lot in Toronto built after WW2
and sold for $7,000 would now cost $750,000 and only for the land.

I think it was Will Rogers who wisely advised, "Invest in land because
they ain't makin any more of it."

Annika1980 wrote:
On Oct 26, 12:43 pm, Rich wrote:
A crackerbox house on a 125ft x 40ft lot in Toronto built after WW2
and sold for $7,000 would now cost $750,000 and only for the land.

I think it was Will Rogers who wisely advised, "Invest in land because
they ain't makin any more of it."

Occasionally they do make more of it. Like all the landfill around San
Francisco Bay.

On Oct 24, 7:15 pm, TRoss wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:54:37 GMT, "James Silverton"

wrote:
I would be interested in having someone tell me what is an
"entry-level" camera.

It's kinda like a "starter home" - it's a vague-specific tag that has
more to do with the price-point than anything else. Entry-level DSLRs
are in the $1000 price range.

The dpreview says " the Olympus 510 is an
entry-level digital SLR that is the "big brother" to the E-410
which I recently reviewed. For an additional $100, the E-510
offers all of the things that made the E-410 impressive (and, in
some cases, not impressive) and throws in image stabilization, a
larger grip, better battery life, and more."

Surely the E410 would be the *entry* level!

James Silverton

I would argue *both* are entry-level cameras.

TR

Everything plastic is entry level.