July 25, 2014, 06:38:52 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - dilbert

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 178
1
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: Today at 04:40:09 AM »
Also...

Quote from: DxO
All of the top ten DSC manufacturers are DxO Analyzer customers as well as the top brands of smartphone and camera module.

I don't see Canon's logo listed among their clients, yet Canon is certainly one of the 'top ten DSC manufacturers'.  So either Canon refused to give DxO permission to display their logo, or the above statement by DxO is false.

Read the quote on DxO's web page:

"Here is a sample of some of our clients."

It doesn't say that those listed are DxO's only customers. It also doesn't say those listed are the top ten DSC manufacturers. It just says that they are *some* of DxO's customers. So Canon could well be a customer of DxO and if they were, then the statement on DxO's webpage is still true.

2
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: Today at 02:57:05 AM »
...
Seriously, dude?  :o

Your going to ask me for "evidence" when I'm using an OBVIOUS FIGURE OF SPEECH now? Every time I use a PLAY ON WORDS?  ???

The other take away from this is that you don't actually believe that they're "joined at the hip" and that you made that comment just to be inflamatory. i.e. you were being a troll.

Of course I don't believe they are "joined at the hip"...companies don't have hips.  ::) The only person on these forums who could possibly take that comment as being "inflammatory", Dilbert, is you...and as I already stated, that isn't surprising. So, moving on...

So why did you say it?

Why are you making such an issue out of a trivial, pointless thing? Are you personally offended by a figure of speech? Seriously, who's the troll now?  ??? Who's disrupting the potential useful discussion in this thread to grind their own personal axe? Hmm?  ::)

If you can't answer a simple question without being evasive then obviously you were just trolling in the first place and hoping that nobody would pick you up on it. So I'll ask you again, why did you say that Nikon and DxO were joined at the HIP? Please answer the simple question without being evasive.

I have no obligation to answer you, Dilbert

Fine, suit yourself.

Lets see what you've said:

Let me make it easier for you.

Why do you think that it is appropriate to use that figure of speech with Nikon and DxO?

Because it is! :)
...
And yes, just to be completely clear, it was, is, and will forever be entirely appropriate to say Nikon and DxO are joined at their virtual corporate hips.

So what you're saying is that because you say Nikon and DxO are joined at the virtual hips, they are?

We should believe what you're saying without any evidence to back it up?

3
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: Today at 02:36:54 AM »
...
Seriously, dude?  :o

Your going to ask me for "evidence" when I'm using an OBVIOUS FIGURE OF SPEECH now? Every time I use a PLAY ON WORDS?  ???

The other take away from this is that you don't actually believe that they're "joined at the hip" and that you made that comment just to be inflamatory. i.e. you were being a troll.

Of course I don't believe they are "joined at the hip"...companies don't have hips.  ::) The only person on these forums who could possibly take that comment as being "inflammatory", Dilbert, is you...and as I already stated, that isn't surprising. So, moving on...

So why did you say it?

Why are you making such an issue out of a trivial, pointless thing? Are you personally offended by a figure of speech? Seriously, who's the troll now?  ??? Who's disrupting the potential useful discussion in this thread to grind their own personal axe? Hmm?  ::)

If you can't answer a simple question without being evasive then obviously you were just trolling in the first place and hoping that nobody would pick you up on it. So I'll ask you again, why did you say that Nikon and DxO were joined at the HIP? Please answer the simple question without being evasive.

4
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: Today at 02:27:04 AM »
...
Seriously, dude?  :o

Your going to ask me for "evidence" when I'm using an OBVIOUS FIGURE OF SPEECH now? Every time I use a PLAY ON WORDS?  ???

The other take away from this is that you don't actually believe that they're "joined at the hip" and that you made that comment just to be inflamatory. i.e. you were being a troll.

Of course I don't believe they are "joined at the hip"...companies don't have hips.  ::) The only person on these forums who could possibly take that comment as being "inflammatory", Dilbert, is you...and as I already stated, that isn't surprising. So, moving on...

So why did you say it?

5
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: Today at 02:03:37 AM »
...
Seriously, dude?  :o

Your going to ask me for "evidence" when I'm using an OBVIOUS FIGURE OF SPEECH now? Every time I use a PLAY ON WORDS?  ???

The other take away from this is that you don't actually believe that they're "joined at the hip" and that you made that comment just to be inflamatory. i.e. you were being a troll.

6
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: Today at 01:57:00 AM »
...
This really isn't a surprise. DxO and Nikon are inseparably joined at the hip.
...

Do you have any evidence of this?

All of this (everyone's comments) just sounds like more sour grapes from Canon fans because their cameras don't score as well and it is well recognised that Canon's sensors aren't as good.

Does anyone complain that the scores for Canon sensors are too high?
Or that DxO incorrectly says that Canon camera X has a better/worse sensor than Canon camera Y?

^--- This ---^

Isn't a surprise, either. :P  ;D Our resident Nikon foreverfanboyyayz!

BTW, Dilbert...are you ACTUALLY asking me if Nikon and DXO are "literally" joined at the hip?

Well you're the one making the claim so what I'm doing is asking you to provide evidence to back up your claim.

If you can't see how companies would be joined at the hip then why claim that they are?

Seriously, dude?  :o

Your going to ask me for "evidence" when I'm using an OBVIOUS FIGURE OF SPEECH now? Every time I use a PLAY ON WORDS?  ???

Let me make it easier for you.

What events/facts made you decide that it was appropriate to use that figure of speech Nikon and DxO?

7
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 24, 2014, 11:34:37 PM »
...
This really isn't a surprise. DxO and Nikon are inseparably joined at the hip.
...

Do you have any evidence of this?

All of this (everyone's comments) just sounds like more sour grapes from Canon fans because their cameras don't score as well and it is well recognised that Canon's sensors aren't as good.

Does anyone complain that the scores for Canon sensors are too high?
Or that DxO incorrectly says that Canon camera X has a better/worse sensor than Canon camera Y?

^--- This ---^

Isn't a surprise, either. :P  ;D Our resident Nikon foreverfanboyyayz!

BTW, Dilbert...are you ACTUALLY asking me if Nikon and DXO are "literally" joined at the hip?

Well you're the one making the claim so what I'm doing is asking you to provide evidence to back up your claim.

If you can't see how companies would be joined at the hip then why claim that they are?

8
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 24, 2014, 11:23:53 PM »
...
This really isn't a surprise. DxO and Nikon are inseparably joined at the hip.
...

Do you have any evidence of this?

All of this (everyone's comments) just sounds like more sour grapes from Canon fans because their cameras don't score as well and it is well recognised that Canon's sensors aren't as good.

Does anyone complain that the scores for Canon sensors are too high?
Or that DxO incorrectly says that Canon camera X has a better/worse sensor than Canon camera Y?

9
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel EOS on the Way as Mentioned by Canon
« on: July 24, 2014, 08:27:25 AM »
The line says that 4-5% dont buy lenses other than the kit lens.

Which line?  The one in the original Japanese, or the one in the poor machine-translation of the original?   ::)

70 million cameras, 100 million lenses – 1.43 lenses/body isn't consistent with 95% of people buying additional lenses.

5% of 70,000,000 cameras is 3,500,000
That means 66,500,000 kits where there is a one to one ration of lens to camera.
That leaves 33,500,000 lenses which were not bought with the camera.
On average, that would mean the 5% of camera owners (3,500,000) have ~9.6 lenses each.

10
Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm Art 1.4 Focusing problems
« on: July 24, 2014, 08:22:32 AM »
...
But it's annoying to buy a fairly expensive AF lens which you're expected to fiddle around with on a docking station and even then seems best used, in the case of many copies at any rate, in MF mode.
...

Why do you think AFMA exists on Canon cameras? To address the same problem that the docking station is for.

The problem isn't QC it is engineering tolerances and the fact that neither camera nor lens are all made the same. There is copy variation between each camera and lens. This means that whilst AFMA might be +5 for a given lens on your camera, that same lens might be -5 on my camera and that same lens might be +0 on someone else's camera.

I don't disagree with any of that (to the extent you're talking about AFMA adjustments rather than inconsistency).  My comment wasn't specifically about Sigma, though it seems more of their lenses need adjusting than others and more of them focus inconsistently within any given AFMA tweak.  But after using a variety of mirrorless cameras over the past 18 months, where AFMA simply isn't an issue, I'm getting less tolerant of/patient with this aspect of dslr technology.

So with mirrorless, AFMA isn't an issue because the focus is "calculated" based on what's drawn on the sensor rather than light diverted to an AF sensor that may or may not be the exact same distance from the mirror as the sensor.

Every time you see someone talking about a soft Canon lens, that is typically something that AFMA has been designed to help deal with.

The goal of AFMA is to give the camera system owner a tool by which they can tune the camera to match the lens due to manufacturing inconsistencies with both - regardless of who the manufacturers are.

Having either perfect lens or perfect camera manufacturing is not enough to get rid of AFMA. Both need to be perfected and in alignment with each other for AFMA to not be needed.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel EOS on the Way as Mentioned by Canon
« on: July 23, 2014, 11:47:29 PM »
no news here: "we look forward to the advent of high-resolution model of the EOS".  We are all looking forward to that.  This poor guy works for Canon and he is looking forward to the same thing we are.

Pretty much my thoughts.

What?!!!

That there is heresy! How dare you blaspheme and validate Nikon's 36MP D800/D810 or Sony's cameras?

You should be saying that a high MP will be hard to work with, your computer is not fast enough, storage cards too small, pixels will be smaller and noisier, etc.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel EOS on the Way as Mentioned by Canon
« on: July 23, 2014, 05:10:30 PM »
...
Unless those 4-5% are each buying multiple lenses. I mean, personally, I have purchased five different lenses than the 18-55mm lens that came with my original 450D kit. I know I'm not even remotely close to a "lens collector", as many people are.

Another thing I'd bet is, Canon only accounts for new lenses other than the kit bought. I am quite certain that more than 5% of DSLR buyers also buy other lenses, but I think there is a very significant market for used lenses. I'd be willing to bet that at least 30% of Canon DSLR owners buy another lens, and the majority of them buy one used.

I'm willing to bet that you underestimate how many kits get sold.

Go somewhere like Paris in summer, near the Eiffel Tower and do a visual survey. Most cameras (by a huge margin) will have a kit lens on them.

I'm also willing to bet that Canon are able to look at returned warranty cards and correlate that data.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel EOS on the Way as Mentioned by Canon
« on: July 23, 2014, 08:59:47 AM »
Interesting:

"Iwamoto: EF16-35mm F4L IS USM, has adopted a double-sided aspherical lens to lens with a large diameter of the first group. We chose two-sided aspherical lens with a large diameter of this much this product will be the first of its kind."

And yes, the 16-35/F4L has been designed for higher IQ than the 16-35/F2.8L. Read the interview.

14
Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm Art 1.4 Focusing problems
« on: July 22, 2014, 07:15:41 AM »
...
But it's annoying to buy a fairly expensive AF lens which you're expected to fiddle around with on a docking station and even then seems best used, in the case of many copies at any rate, in MF mode.
...

Why do you think AFMA exists on Canon cameras? To address the same problem that the docking station is for.

The problem isn't QC it is engineering tolerances and the fact that neither camera nor lens are all made the same. There is copy variation between each camera and lens. This means that whilst AFMA might be +5 for a given lens on your camera, that same lens might be -5 on my camera and that same lens might be +0 on someone else's camera.

Like we've said soo many times before, it's NOT about afma ... Sigh, it's the  inconsistency ! Please print this message and tape it on your fridge.

AFMA is there because there is inconsistency. Canon recognizes that there is inconsistency in camera/lens manufacture and thus introduced that feature to allow people to tune their own camera. If every lens was the same, AFMA wouldn't be needed.

15
Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm Art 1.4 Focusing problems
« on: July 21, 2014, 07:56:40 PM »
...
But it's annoying to buy a fairly expensive AF lens which you're expected to fiddle around with on a docking station and even then seems best used, in the case of many copies at any rate, in MF mode.
...

Why do you think AFMA exists on Canon cameras? To address the same problem that the docking station is for.

The problem isn't QC it is engineering tolerances and the fact that neither camera nor lens are all made the same. There is copy variation between each camera and lens. This means that whilst AFMA might be +5 for a given lens on your camera, that same lens might be -5 on my camera and that same lens might be +0 on someone else's camera.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 178