From: Mr. Strat on
In article
<8ec2ad78-6bb6-4cfe-9722-a5780237bc45(a)y12g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> For instance, Popular Photography basically said...

OK, that explains a lot.
From: Ray Fischer on
Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:43:16 -0600, Rich <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>Forget Dpreview's recommended B.S. It's just them selling glass for a
>>manufacturer. Even ones that don't advertise on the site now are fetted
>>because of the potential for advertising down the road.
>
>Almost every item tested by DPReview is also offered by Amazon.

So what? Amazon carries tens of thousands of products.

>Amazon owns DPReview.

So what?

>So even if a particular manufacturer doesn't advertise on the DPReview
>site, there is a very powerful incentive for DPReview to avoid being
>too critical in order not to hurt Amazon's sales figures.

That's just stupid.

1) It would also hurt Amazon's competitors
2) Since Amazon carries a wide variety of products then if one product
is panned people can by another one instead, also from Amazon.

Next time try to think it through first before resorting to knee-jerk
conspiracy nonsense.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Ray Fischer on
RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 2, 1:22�pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:43:16 -0600, Rich <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Forget Dpreview's recommended B.S. �It's just them selling glass for a
>> >manufacturer. �Even ones that don't advertise on the site now are fetted
>> >because of the potential for advertising down the road.
>>
>> Almost every item tested by DPReview is also offered by Amazon.
>>
>> Amazon owns DPReview. �
>>
>They were whores even before Amazon.

Rich hates everyone.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Ray Fischer on
RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>For instance, Popular Photography basically said the Nikon D3s had
>unacceptable noise beyond 6400 ISO. Based on what I've seen, I'd say,
>yes. 100,000+ ISO? Ridiculous, I don't care what camera it is.
>Then, Amateur Photographer magazine tests it and doesn't say anything
>of the kind. This is what happens where there are no standards.
>Lastly, you have the double-standards. A Pentax K7 pushed to 12,800
>ISO probably has similar noise as the Nikon D3s at 51,200, but in most
>cases, the testers would fail the Pentax while passing the Nikon.
>This is a typical double-standard applied whenever one of the "big
>two" is tested.

But those people with brains and less hate can read detailed reveiews
and see for themselves how noisy the cameras are. In fact, dpreview
pointed out that the Penta was a lot noiser that Canon & Nikon.

>We need absolute cut off lines for cameras and lenses. Noise is not
>acceptable at this level:

You really are a closet fascist, aren't you?

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: whisky-dave on

"Scott W" <biphoto(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:396233ce-0cef-48f9-8174-8c7e7de06f6c(a)t17g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 2, 6:24 am, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> >http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_18-250_3p5-6p3_os_c16/page3...
>
> No, no Rich, you have it all wrong. Stigma lenses are just the same
> as the big-name camera brand lenses, only cheaper. They are made in
> the same factory to the same high standards.
>
> That's why so many professional photographers use Stigma lenses!
>
> This 18-250mm lens is actually better than its 18-200mm predecessor
> and it beats all the camera brand lenses because it now goes to 250mm!
> Another optical achievement for Stigma!
>
> ;-)

}I used to have an amplifier where the volume went to 11, wow was that
}great, it beat all the amplifiers that only went to 10.


I built my own amp and it went to 12, so there ;-P



First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: For Rich and his fans.
Next: Tamron-f teleconverter