Picking Lice With The 70-200 VR2!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Review sites DESPERATE for SOMETHING to test
Next: Amazon and Apple, two vile companies probed for price fixing
From: otter on 4 Aug 2010 08:40 On Aug 4, 1:21 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > On 2010-08-03 23:02:47 -0700, SneakyP > <48umof...(a)WHITELISTONLYsneakemail.com> said: > > > > > > > SneakyP <48umof...(a)WHITELISTONLYsneakemail.com> wrote in > >news:Xns9DCA6C8D961748umofa02sneakemailc(a)127.0.0.1: > > >> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in > >>news:2010080319223119336-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom: > > >>> ...I do like nice things though, and most times they seem to be > >>> prohibitively expensive. > > >> I'd like to get my hands on a pair of RAAL tweets. Different hobby of > >> course, but it's just a $1,200 ribbon tweeter speaker with a sweetly > >> diffracted high-end. (or so it has been praised). > > >> OTOH, I want a lens that can produce the clarity that one seems to > >> show and it appears that it's going to cost about $1,000 to do that, > >> with the rest of the equipment being compatible too. > > > If Larry/Rita would be able to share what taking that kind of picture > > would involve in the equipment end, I'd appreciate the cost quote facts.. > > Consider Larry/Rita has boasted of a camera armory of a D3x @ $7,400 + > 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII @$2,179 for a camera lens combo of $9,579. > Not chump change even if we tone back the D3x to a D3s @ $5,200 giving > us a total of $7,379. Although that seems like a lot of money to most of us, for many people it is not. If you look at what gets spent on cars, houses, boats, motorcycles, etc., clearly many people could afford a $10K camera if they really really wanted it.
From: Superzooms Still Win on 4 Aug 2010 09:00 On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 05:40:13 -0700 (PDT), otter <bighorn_bill(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On Aug 4, 1:21�am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >> On 2010-08-03 23:02:47 -0700, SneakyP >> <48umof...(a)WHITELISTONLYsneakemail.com> said: >> >> >> >> >> >> > SneakyP <48umof...(a)WHITELISTONLYsneakemail.com> wrote in >> >news:Xns9DCA6C8D961748umofa02sneakemailc(a)127.0.0.1: >> >> >> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in >> >>news:2010080319223119336-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom: >> >> >>> ...I do like nice things though, and most times they seem to be >> >>> prohibitively expensive. >> >> >> I'd like to get my hands on a pair of RAAL tweets. �Different hobby of >> >> course, but it's just a $1,200 ribbon tweeter speaker with a sweetly >> >> diffracted high-end. (or so it has been praised). >> >> >> OTOH, I want a lens that can produce the clarity that one seems to >> >> show and it appears that it's going to cost about $1,000 to do that, >> >> with the rest of the equipment being compatible too. >> >> > If Larry/Rita would be able to share what taking that kind of picture >> > would involve in the equipment end, I'd appreciate the cost quote facts. >> >> Consider Larry/Rita has boasted of a camera armory of a D3x @ $7,400 + >> 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII @$2,179 for a camera lens combo of $9,579. >> Not chump change even if we tone back the D3x to a D3s @ $5,200 giving >> us a total of $7,379. > >Although that seems like a lot of money to most of us, for many people >it is not. If you look at what gets spent on cars, houses, boats, >motorcycles, etc., clearly many people could afford a $10K camera if >they really really wanted it. "A fool and his money are soon parted." -- Thomas Tusser There's a sucker born every minute." -- P. T. Barnum The trouble with Larry/Rita's reasoning as an investment, is that now many inexpensive superzoom and compact cameras for $350 or less easily rival any images that come from such expensive gear based on last-century designs. All that investment will become worthless. Doubling the value of the two phrases above, now applicable to both seller and buyer. His/Her feeble attempts to try to increase the value of that gear for resale on E-Bait by posting his/her sorry excuses for photos taken with it, only making matters rapidly worse. Like I've always said, anyone using a DSLR for any reason has never proved to be very intelligent.
From: Stuffed Crust on 4 Aug 2010 09:08 In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Superzooms Still Win <ssw(a)noaddress.org> wrote: > only making matters rapidly worse. Like I've always said, anyone using a > DSLR for any reason has never proved to be very intelligent. Duno about that. DSLR can make pretty good flails in a pinch. They also make excellent paperweights, and occasionally a good doorstop. - Solomon -- Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
From: Pete on 4 Aug 2010 10:20 On 2010-08-04 14:00:22 +0100, Superzooms Still Win said: > On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 05:40:13 -0700 (PDT), otter <bighorn_bill(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: >> Although that seems like a lot of money to most of us, for many people >> it is not. If you look at what gets spent on cars, houses, boats, >> motorcycles, etc., clearly many people could afford a $10K camera if >> they really really wanted it. > > "A fool and his money are soon parted." -- Thomas Tusser > > There's a sucker born every minute." -- P. T. Barnum > > The trouble with Larry/Rita's reasoning as an investment, is that now many > inexpensive superzoom and compact cameras for $350 or less easily rival any > images that come from such expensive gear based on last-century designs. > All that investment will become worthless. Doubling the value of the two > phrases above, now applicable to both seller and buyer. > > His/Her feeble attempts to try to increase the value of that gear for > resale on E-Bait by posting his/her sorry excuses for photos taken with it, > only making matters rapidly worse. Like I've always said, anyone using a > DSLR for any reason has never proved to be very intelligent. "Attempting to prove one's intelligence serves only to demonstrate a lack of it." -- Pete -- Pete
From: Superzooms Still Win on 4 Aug 2010 10:41
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 15:20:48 +0100, Pete <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >On 2010-08-04 14:00:22 +0100, Superzooms Still Win said: > >> On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 05:40:13 -0700 (PDT), otter <bighorn_bill(a)hotmail.com> >> wrote: >>> Although that seems like a lot of money to most of us, for many people >>> it is not. If you look at what gets spent on cars, houses, boats, >>> motorcycles, etc., clearly many people could afford a $10K camera if >>> they really really wanted it. >> >> "A fool and his money are soon parted." -- Thomas Tusser >> >> There's a sucker born every minute." -- P. T. Barnum >> >> The trouble with Larry/Rita's reasoning as an investment, is that now many >> inexpensive superzoom and compact cameras for $350 or less easily rival any >> images that come from such expensive gear based on last-century designs. >> All that investment will become worthless. Doubling the value of the two >> phrases above, now applicable to both seller and buyer. >> >> His/Her feeble attempts to try to increase the value of that gear for >> resale on E-Bait by posting his/her sorry excuses for photos taken with it, >> only making matters rapidly worse. Like I've always said, anyone using a >> DSLR for any reason has never proved to be very intelligent. > >"Attempting to prove one's intelligence serves only to demonstrate a >lack of it." -- Pete "Attempting to be witty without one lick of wisdom nor wit serves only to demonstrate being less than a halfwit." -- Common Sense 101 |