From: RichA on
On May 5, 8:11 am, John Bean <waterf...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 May 2007 21:34:26 +1000, "Pete D" <n...(a)email.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The price difference in the UK is probably the only thing
> >he said that was actually correct.
>
> Yep. But it's a valid reason to go the Samsung route if
> you're not brand-sensitive. The rest was drivel, not worth
> the effort of responding.
>
> >Pretty good post for his first post, silly me for sounding like a fanboi.
>
> He baited you - he actually said so up front - and you went
> for it. Bad move.
>
> "Never wrestle with a pig - you both get dirty but only the
> pig enjoys it."
>
> "Don't argue with a fool, he'll drag you down to his level
> and beat you with experience."
>
> Et cetera...
>
> >Back to it.
>
> Good idea :-)
>
> --
> John Bean

The seething anger of those with personal vested interests in products
that get criticized (or even mildly compared!) never ceases to amaze.
People really do have to learn how to separate their emotions from
cameras.


From: Sam on

<mark.thomas.7(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178443081.311077.305990(a)e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On May 4, 9:06 am, "Sam" <n...(a)thisaddress.net> wrote:
> Just in case anyone was wondering whether the Samsung GX-10 (K10D clone)
> is
> as good as the Pentax version, wonder no more - it's better.
>
> Having owned both cameras I can state that the Samsung JPG algorithm
> produces noticeably sharper (yet also smoother) results.
>
> The infamous banding issue of under-exposed images is also reduced - to
> the
> point where RAW files (DNG only on the GX-10) opened in Lightroom
> eliminate
> the phenomenon completely when compared to the same image opened in
> Silkypix
> (Adobe obviously likes its own format)
>
> The menu system is also much improved over the Pentax version - much more
> modern and aesthetically pleasing. Build quality is exactly the same -
> but
> the Samsung comes with a 2 year warranty in the UK, and costs only �600
> for
> the 2 lens kit.
>
> On the subject of the supplied lenses - I had planned to sell both lenses
> immediately on ebay (18-55 & 50-200) but they are so sharp and generally
> pleasing that I see no need to splash out on anything better at the
> moment.
> I have some considerable experience of various Pentax glass, including the
> 18-55, 50-200, and a couple of the Limiteds (as well as many others) so I
> know what constitutes a good example. There is no reason why the Samsung
> brand lenses would be better than the Pentax version - so it appears that
> (for once in my life) I got lucky and landed two samples at the better end
> of the tolerance range.
>
> All in all I'm a happier camper than I've been for a couple of years
> trying
> cameras from Pentax Nikon and Fuji, now that Samsung have released a
> battery
> grip to fit the slightly deeper grip profile of the GX-10 I see no reason
> for buying the Pentax product.
>
> So, if you're debating the merits of the two cameras - buy the Samsung
> with
> confidence - I doubt that you'll be disappointed.
>
> Regards

Sam(sung? - a tribute perhaps, or do you work for them, or is it just
a happy coincidence?), you've made a strong claim that would be far
better served by examples. And they should be easy to post - in fact
one wonders why you haven't, given that you infer you have closely
examined and compared similar scenes.

Like Pete, I am a little puzzled by your angry defence and sudden
appearance - only one post ever? Forgive the cynicism (and call me a
monkey too if it makes you feel better), but given manufacturers are
known to plant these sort of posts, can you offer anything to prove
you aren't in that category? It is also a tiny bit puzzling that you
claim to be an owner of both cameras (why?), but also say that you
have spent "a couple of years trying cameras from Pentax Nikon and
Fuji" .. Do you buy to try?

Frankly, if you are after the best quality it is already well known
that (most of?) the Pentaxes give their best from Raw, so I'm not sure
why this is such a huge deal.

FWIW I own neither camera, so have no axes to grind...



FWIW, and without wishing to be unduly rude, I don't actually give a flying
fukc *what* you think. I have used the Samsung over the bank holiday and
obtained some really nice jpg's - and that's good enough for me.

As far as I'm concerned, you, Pete, and every other no-lifer here who just
wants to create an argument for argument's sake can crawl away and die
(preferably slowly and painfully)

I posted my views for the benefit of those who might be considering the
GX-10 - not for you and your fellow anal retentives to minutely examine for
ulterior motives.

Cheers.


From: Sam on

"RichA" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178469971.935811.256160(a)n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On May 5, 8:11 am, John Bean <waterf...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 May 2007 21:34:26 +1000, "Pete D" <n...(a)email.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The price difference in the UK is probably the only thing
>> >he said that was actually correct.
>>
>> Yep. But it's a valid reason to go the Samsung route if
>> you're not brand-sensitive. The rest was drivel, not worth
>> the effort of responding.
>>
>> >Pretty good post for his first post, silly me for sounding like a
>> >fanboi.
>>
>> He baited you - he actually said so up front - and you went
>> for it. Bad move.
>>
>> "Never wrestle with a pig - you both get dirty but only the
>> pig enjoys it."
>>
>> "Don't argue with a fool, he'll drag you down to his level
>> and beat you with experience."
>>
>> Et cetera...
>>
>> >Back to it.
>>
>> Good idea :-)
>>
>> --
>> John Bean
>
> The seething anger of those with personal vested interests in products
> that get criticized (or even mildly compared!) never ceases to amaze.
> People really do have to learn how to separate their emotions from
> cameras.


I'm afraid that some of the Pentax crowd get *extremely* pissed when it's
discovered that Samsung have managed to implement a JPG algorithm that
solves the perennial complaint about Pentax's own JPGS - that they are soft.

Well, Pentax JPG's *are* soft - soft as butter, when compared to other
DSLR's. They respond to sharpening (to some degree) but they never equal
(let alone exceed) the JPG's produced by, for example, Nikon.

Samsung, however, *have* genuinely managed to produce a huge improvement -
sharper, more defined, not as ultra-sharp as those from a D200 - but pretty
close.

However, as most Pentax owners are petty camera-snobs at heart, it galls
them to the point of insanity to think that a johnny-come-lately camera
company like Samsung could excel Pentax (albeit that almost any JPG could
excel Pentax ;)

But Samsung have done so - and I know it for a fact, having owned both a K10
and a GX-10.

What's more, the DNG format used by Samsung produces very little vertical
noise banding, and that which is present is completely eliminated when the
DNG is opened in Lightroom - unlike either of the Pentax raw formats, which
no amount of PP can rescue from unsightly banding.

So, with much better JPG's and an absence of noise banding on the GX-10 - no
wonder the Pentax crowd are feeling touchy! - I'd be a bit pissed myself if
I was in their shoes ;)

Go Samsung!!



From: ASAAR on
On Mon, 7 May 2007 18:59:05 +0100, Sam wrote:

> Like Pete, I am a little puzzled by your angry defence and sudden
> appearance - only one post ever? Forgive the cynicism (and call me a
> monkey too if it makes you feel better), but given manufacturers are
> known to plant these sort of posts, can you offer anything to prove
> you aren't in that category? It is also a tiny bit puzzling that you
> claim to be an owner of both cameras (why?), but also say that you
> have spent "a couple of years trying cameras from Pentax Nikon and
> Fuji" .. Do you buy to try?
>
> Frankly, if you are after the best quality it is already well known
> that (most of?) the Pentaxes give their best from Raw, so I'm not sure
> why this is such a huge deal.
>
> FWIW I own neither camera, so have no axes to grind...
>
>
>
> FWIW, and without wishing to be unduly rude, I don't actually give a flying
> fukc *what* you think. I have used the Samsung over the bank holiday and
> obtained some really nice jpg's - and that's good enough for me.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, you, Pete, and every other no-lifer here who just
> wants to create an argument for argument's sake can crawl away and die
> (preferably slowly and painfully)

If that's an example of not being unduly rude,
You're one crazy, mixed up, arrogant dude.

In addition, you're confused, and don't appear to be able to
properly control your replies. You did NOT reply to Pete. You
replied to 'mark.thomas.7(a)gmail.com', and simply copied and pasted
from his message, without adding the necessary leading 'quote'
characters that distinguish between mark's reply and yours. For
anyone unable to see mark's original reply, his words in the above
quotes end with :

: FWIW I own neither camera, so have no axes to grind...

and yours begin with :

> FWIW, and without wishing to be unduly rude, I don't actually
> give a flying fukc *what* you think.


> I posted my views for the benefit of those who might be considering
> the GX-10 - not for you and your fellow anal retentives to minutely
> examine for ulterior motives.

So sorry. A better writer wouldn't have invited such criticism.
As long as you're unaware that your replies do this (or don't care),
you'll find much more critical examination of your future replies.

From: Sam on

"ASAAR" <caught(a)22.com> wrote in message
news:jsru33dksctv7d39u250p1neot36bkkclh(a)4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 May 2007 18:59:05 +0100, Sam wrote:
>
>> Like Pete, I am a little puzzled by your angry defence and sudden
>> appearance - only one post ever? Forgive the cynicism (and call me a
>> monkey too if it makes you feel better), but given manufacturers are
>> known to plant these sort of posts, can you offer anything to prove
>> you aren't in that category? It is also a tiny bit puzzling that you
>> claim to be an owner of both cameras (why?), but also say that you
>> have spent "a couple of years trying cameras from Pentax Nikon and
>> Fuji" .. Do you buy to try?
>>
>> Frankly, if you are after the best quality it is already well known
>> that (most of?) the Pentaxes give their best from Raw, so I'm not sure
>> why this is such a huge deal.
>>
>> FWIW I own neither camera, so have no axes to grind...
>>
>>
>>
>> FWIW, and without wishing to be unduly rude, I don't actually give a
>> flying
>> fukc *what* you think. I have used the Samsung over the bank holiday and
>> obtained some really nice jpg's - and that's good enough for me.
>>
>> As far as I'm concerned, you, Pete, and every other no-lifer here who
>> just
>> wants to create an argument for argument's sake can crawl away and die
>> (preferably slowly and painfully)
>
> If that's an example of not being unduly rude,
> You're one crazy, mixed up, arrogant dude.
>
> In addition, you're confused, and don't appear to be able to
> properly control your replies. You did NOT reply to Pete. You
> replied to 'mark.thomas.7(a)gmail.com', and simply copied and pasted
> from his message, without adding the necessary leading 'quote'
> characters that distinguish between mark's reply and yours. For
> anyone unable to see mark's original reply, his words in the above
> quotes end with :
>
> : FWIW I own neither camera, so have no axes to grind...
>
> and yours begin with :
>
>> FWIW, and without wishing to be unduly rude, I don't actually
>> give a flying fukc *what* you think.
>
>
>> I posted my views for the benefit of those who might be considering
>> the GX-10 - not for you and your fellow anal retentives to minutely
>> examine for ulterior motives.
>
> So sorry. A better writer wouldn't have invited such criticism.
> As long as you're unaware that your replies do this (or don't care),
> you'll find much more critical examination of your future replies.


Ah - I think you must be confusing me with someone who gives a fukc - it
ain't me babe, no, no no, it ain't me babe, it ain't me your looking for
babe........