Sigma's getting unrealistically greedy
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Film and Motrin
Next: Are there any programs that can convert color infra-red photos to actual color?
From: Doug McDonald on 18 Jul 2010 09:21 On 7/17/2010 10:37 PM, N wrote: > > "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message > news:2010071720124929560-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >> On 2010-07-17 16:24:43 -0700, "N" <N(a)onyx.com> said: >> >> >> ...but then you keep getting shots of your feet. >> > > Did you ever solve a Rubik Cube without cheating? > What's cheating? Reading a book? I was never able to solve one of the damn things in my head. I was however able to write a computer program based on group theory that told me what to do. This means that I could have done it in my head if I could have remembered what I instructed the computer to do. But I never was able to memorize it. Doug McDonald
From: N on 19 Jul 2010 04:56 "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2010071720525870933-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2010-07-17 20:37:27 -0700, "N" <N(a)onyx.com> said: > >> >> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message >> news:2010071720124929560-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >>> On 2010-07-17 16:24:43 -0700, "N" <N(a)onyx.com> said: >>> >>> >>> ...but then you keep getting shots of your feet. >>> >> >> Did you ever solve a Rubik Cube without cheating? > > Actually yes, but that was about 30 years ago. > I have since moved on to other things, some of which include an occasional > smile. > > -- > Regards, > > Savageduck > My point was about three dimensional thinking. I do have a sense of humour, but being an Aussie, it's a very dry humour. I understood the humour in your comment, although I feel I shouldn't have to say that. -- N
From: Savageduck on 19 Jul 2010 07:52 On 2010-07-19 01:56:51 -0700, "N" <N(a)onyx.com> said: > > "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message > news:2010071720525870933-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >> On 2010-07-17 20:37:27 -0700, "N" <N(a)onyx.com> said: >> >>> >>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message >>> news:2010071720124929560-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >>>> On 2010-07-17 16:24:43 -0700, "N" <N(a)onyx.com> said: >>>> >>>> >>>> ...but then you keep getting shots of your feet. >>>> >>> >>> Did you ever solve a Rubik Cube without cheating? >> >> Actually yes, but that was about 30 years ago. >> I have since moved on to other things, some of which include an >> occasional smile. >> >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Savageduck >> > > My point was about three dimensional thinking. > I do have a sense of humour, but being an Aussie, it's a very dry humour. > I understood the humour in your comment, although I feel I shouldn't > have to say that. Then why even bother punctuating with sarcasm? -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Pete Stavrakoglou on 26 Jul 2010 16:39 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:sed146prfd8bt3efvu77c4onqo2pofgj23(a)4ax.com... > On 16 Jul 2010 15:09:40 GMT, Stuffed Crust <pizza(a)spam.shaftnet.org> > wrote: > >>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10071501sigma1750mm.asp >>> >>> The Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF (phew!) is well made and >>> significantly cheaper. It is unlikely to be bettered by the Sigma. >> >>There's also the Tokina 165 (16-50/2.8 DX), also cheaper and generally >>well-regarded > > > I've never seen one, But thanks for reminding me about it. > It's a nice lens and has the typically excellent tokina build quiality. But it has no internal focus motor. >>-- but. >> >>What differentiates the new Sigma is optical image stabilization and an >>internal ultrasonic focus motor. The lenses aren't directly comparable >>because of that. > > > Sorry, I had kind of assumed that Tamron had by now updated their lens > with a focusing motor so it would work on the D40, D40X, D60 and D80 > (and any other Nikon DSLR bodies I may have forgotten which lack the > screwdriver drive. Of course Tamron has already done this to other > key lenses in their range. > > >> - Solomon [wanting a fast zoom in the 50-100mm range..] > > > You may have a long wait. ;-)
From: Pete Stavrakoglou on 26 Jul 2010 16:42
"RichA" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:18a6d143-fe5e-48a5-87d3-5e549898337b(a)x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... On Jul 16, 9:23 am, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <nto...(a)optonline.net> wrote: > "RichA" <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:49d5c14b-019a-4a26-a30e-0194398c73c9(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > >> $1000 for a fast kit zoom? Are they insane? As much as an Olympus > >> 12-60 (which would destroy the Sigma in every performance area). >> > >>http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10071501sigma1750mm.asp >> >>Two things which should be obvious to you: >> > >1) the lens will sell for less than MSRP as all of Sigma's lenses do > >2) it's not a kit lens >> > >You need to find something constructive to do with your time inmstead of > >going off half-cocked like you did once again. >It's a wide to mid-angle zoom, slightly faster than a kit lens. That's >all. It's not a kit lens yet you said it was, you are wrong, it's that simple. If you actually ever used a kit lens and one of Sigma's EX lenses, you would now how silly it is to say that an EX lens is a kit lens. |