From: RichA on
On Feb 1, 6:48 am, Henry <theei...(a)not.co.uk> wrote:
> http://www.dantestella.com/technical/lightcheap.html

The unsupported conclusions in that list are pure B.S. Case in point,
plastic lens mounts. Not only do they have their mount flanges break,
which never or almost never happens to metal, they generate fine dust
every time a lens is removed or replaced and this can get into the
optics and the camera body.

From: Paul Furman on
On 2/2/2010 12:56 AM, Henry wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 15:27:51 -0800 (PST), RichA<rander3127(a)gmail.com>
> wrote this:
>
>> On Feb 1, 6:48 am, Henry<theei...(a)not.co.uk> wrote:
>>> http://www.dantestella.com/technical/lightcheap.html
>>
>> The unsupported conclusions in that list are pure B.S. Case in point,
>> plastic lens mounts. Not only do they have their mount flanges break,
>> which never or almost never happens to metal, they generate fine dust
>> every time a lens is removed or replaced and this can get into the
>> optics and the camera body.
>
> You really need to see this video through.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzOLbMPe0u8&feature=related
>
> Not bad for a plastic encased lens! And cheap, great optics.
> By Canon!!!!!
>
> Comments would be welcome.

Heh :-)

I actually did that to a lens recently, a junky (Makinon?) 28mm f/2.8.
It broke easier than that, perhaps because of the metal mounting.
From: RichA on
On Feb 2, 11:54 am, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> On 2/2/2010 12:56 AM, Henry wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 15:27:51 -0800 (PST), RichA<rander3...(a)gmail.com>
> > wrote this:
>
> >> On Feb 1, 6:48 am, Henry<theei...(a)not.co.uk>  wrote:
> >>>http://www.dantestella.com/technical/lightcheap.html
>
> >> The unsupported conclusions in that list are pure B.S.  Case in point,
> >> plastic lens mounts.  Not only do they have their mount flanges break,
> >> which never or almost never happens to metal, they generate fine dust
> >> every time a lens is removed or replaced and this can get into the
> >> optics and the camera body.
>
> > You really need to see this video through.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzOLbMPe0u8&feature=related
>
> > Not bad for a plastic encased lens! And cheap, great optics.
> > By Canon!!!!!
>
> > Comments would be welcome.
>
> Heh :-)
>
> I actually did that to a lens recently, a junky (Makinon?) 28mm f/2.8.
> It broke easier than that, perhaps because of the metal mounting.

Today I had the displeasure of seeing 12 cheap old Pentax 35mm-70mm
zoom lenses. PURE plastic. All 12 were broken. Not because the
plastic broke however, but because the glue needed to glue crappy
plastic parts together failed. Metal camera parts don't have that
problem, because in most cases, they SCREW them together.
From: Ofnuts on
On 02/02/2010 22:23, NameHere wrote:

> And yet it doesn't refute what was stated, not one bit.

Because what you say is irrefutable. Any of us can also boast that he
can make the best photos in the world, and then refuse to show any to
prove it. You are on the same stand as religious miracles. Either we
believe, or we don't. Practical evidence is that there is no gain in
believing in the Holy P&S of Antioche, or in His Prophet, since His ways
are unfathomable and the Brand and Model of the Holy P&S that blows thy
enemy's DSLR to tiny bits shall be kept secret. So far NameHereism
hasn't gathered many followers, because even though there are plenty of
gullible people on this planet, they still want to see something (read:
a hint that God has some interest in them). But we are more likely to
see proof of extraterrestrial intelligence than a picture from the Holy
P&S or the Prophet, let alone a good one.

--
Bertrand, agnostic
From: NameHere on
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 23:38:44 +0100, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u.t.s(a)la.poste.net>
wrote:

>On 02/02/2010 22:23, NameHere wrote:
>
>> And yet it doesn't refute what was stated, not one bit.
>
>Because what you say is irrefutable. Any of us can also boast that he
>can make the best photos in the world, and then refuse to show any to
>prove it. You are on the same stand as religious miracles. Either we
>believe, or we don't. Practical evidence is that there is no gain in
>believing in the Holy P&S of Antioche, or in His Prophet, since His ways
>are unfathomable and the Brand and Model of the Holy P&S that blows thy
>enemy's DSLR to tiny bits shall be kept secret. So far NameHereism
>hasn't gathered many followers, because even though there are plenty of
>gullible people on this planet, they still want to see something (read:
>a hint that God has some interest in them). But we are more likely to
>see proof of extraterrestrial intelligence than a picture from the Holy
>P&S or the Prophet, let alone a good one.

That's because you and your kind are the most lost of all.

"There are none so lost as those who follow."

Think about it. I'm sure you have the time. You probably don't have the
mental acuity to comprehend that, but you most certainly have the time.

Only DSLR proponents are followers. They can never think for themselves.
Even worse, they doubt their choices so much that they don't feel
vindicated unless they can convince everyone else to believe as they
believe and make the same camera purchasing mistakes that they make in
life. The greater their insistence to have others buy DSLRs the more they
show their insecurity in their own decision to do so. Just like those who
doubt their religions the most, always being the most vocal about wanting
others to believe as they do. Because if they can convince someone else,
then perhaps they can stop doubting their own beliefs so much. It's that
simple.

Further, there is no need to prove anything to the likes of you. True
professionals who have used all manner of cameras discover what I said all
on their own. They already know these things of which I speak. I'm just
letting you know how true professionals think. You, on the other hand, are
revealing to the whole world your thoughts of a snapshooting,
blind-following, DSLR-preaching, insecure fool.

Go ahead, prove it some more. It's fun watching you fools continue to do
so.