July 28, 2014, 09:10:04 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 ... 179
1
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 27, 2014, 11:58:10 PM »
Look, I'll be easy on you and give you the chance to respond to one request at a time.

* Please explain how DxO is accomodating [f]or more clients more important to them.

First, you can explain why you think it would be a good idea for you to take remedial courses in reading comprehension and logical reasoning.

Wow, you are behaving true to form for a politician in evading answering a question with a completely unrelated statement. Is that your real job? Oh, in case you're wondering, I asked first and then you started with the evasion tactics. What are you trying to hide? Why don't you want to explain this?

Let me repeat:

* Please explain how DxO is accomodating [f]or more clients more important to them.

I don't have to wonder, I know what I wrote, what you wrote, and when.  You obviously do not.  You didn't ask first, you asked after I had already indicated that I don't believe is DxO is in collusion with Nikon (although it certainly is a possiblity, just a remote one).

Ok, that's a statement that addresses the "joined at the hip" comment that has been floating around but it still doesn't address the "Please explain" above.

2
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 27, 2014, 10:45:18 PM »
....
Perhaps DxO is biased. Perhaps Nikon and Sony have decided to "build to the test." Perhaps the differences being tested are so insignificant that the ratings have only academic and no real-world application. Most likely it's a combination of all three.

It's not like the scores have the tiniest bit of impact on the market. So really, who cares?

jrista and neuro obviously care a lot because they go to great lengths to shout down DxO's results.

3
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 27, 2014, 10:42:23 PM »
Look, I'll be easy on you and give you the chance to respond to one request at a time.

* Please explain how DxO is accomodating [f]or more clients more important to them.

First, you can explain why you think it would be a good idea for you to take remedial courses in reading comprehension and logical reasoning.

Wow, you are behaving true to form for a politician in evading answering a question with a completely unrelated statement. Is that your real job? Oh, in case you're wondering, I asked first and then you started with the evasion tactics. What are you trying to hide? Why don't you want to explain this?

Let me repeat:

* Please explain how DxO is accomodating [f]or more clients more important to them.

4
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50 1.4 Art NOT bokehlicious?
« on: July 27, 2014, 09:10:35 PM »
Ugh.

DigitalRev reviews have no purpose beyond entertainment.

What amazes me most are the number of posts on the forum lately scrutinizing the Sigma 50 1.4 beyond belief. Apart from the Otus, it's the best FF 50mm ever made from an optics standpoint. Let's stop discussing preferences about bokeh, rendering, etc. as if they are objective fact.

Yep.  According to nearly every review, too.  Everyone take a step back and breathe then answer honestly.

If Canon had released this lens with a red ring on it:  People would be singing the praises of its sharpness and color, contrast, and maybe some would swear that they can detect a certain undefinable something; something which can't be put into words, something which stirs the soul, etc...  And the price would be double or more.

If Zeiss had released this lens:  There would be no autofocus at all, and people would scoff at those lesser shooters that depend on such a pedestrian crutch as autofocus.  People would marvel at its sharpness and color rendering.  The images would send viewers into spasms of joy due to their sublime, yet undefinable other-worldly quality.  And the price would be four times what it is now.

+1

5
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 27, 2014, 10:32:29 AM »
Why does everyone respond to dilbert's nonsense? Can't we just ignore his posts and hope he goes away? It would make this forum much more enjoyable.

It is bit extreme to stop anyone from posting their viewpoints.

The fun part is trying to get jrista/neuro to be open with people rather than hide their viewpoints and thoughts. "DxO and Nikon are joined at the hip". How many times has that been repeated now but no substance has been given as to why anyone should think that but yet nobody wants to back away from saying that.

6
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 27, 2014, 10:27:10 AM »
Let me make it simple for you..

DxO is accommodating one or more of the clients more important to them (e.g., they are 'joined at the hip with Nikon', which you have been arguing against), or DxO are makes foolish business decisions?

1) Explain how DxO is accomodating or more clients more important to them
2) Explain your reasoning  behind using the phrase "joined at the hip with Nikon."

Let me try to help you read and comprehend what I originally wrote:

EDIT: or perhaps you're suggesting a third possibility that I intentionally dismissed, namely that Canon is a client but DxO chose to not display the logo of the leading manufacturer of dSLRs among their clients.  Possible reasons for that could be to placate other clients more important to theme, i.e. Nikon (which would certainly imply some sort of hip-joining) or simply because DxO is foolish.  Is that what you're suggesting?

In other words, I was providing plausible explanations for a possibility that I had already indicated I thought to be so unlikely that I didn't even mention it initially.

Of course it is easy to claim anything after the fact but the fact remains that your initial public attempts to explain something were built around alleging misbehavior by DxO.

Quote
Seriously, look into some remedial education.  Maybe we can have this discussion someday when you've learned how to comprehend what you read.  Until then, it's merely a waste of time.

I love how you pick and choose which questions to answer that are put to you! You'd make a great politician in the way that you evade questions and queries that are put to you.

Look, I'll be easy on you and give you the chance to respond to one request at a time.

* Please explain how DxO is accomodating [f]or more clients more important to them.

7
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 27, 2014, 09:04:07 AM »
I don't really care why Canon isn't listed or not. It makes no difference to me and I can't see it meaning anything.

"I don't care."  The last bastion of someone unable to prove their point and incapable of admitting they are wrong.  Pathetic and sad, but not surprising.   In fact, I was fairly certain that would be your response...as I already stated:

Let me put it to you a different way: why should I or anyone else care whether Canon is listed or not?
What difference will listing Canon there make to you?

8
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 27, 2014, 09:00:53 AM »
Let me make it simple for you..

DxO is accommodating one or more of the clients more important to them (e.g., they are 'joined at the hip with Nikon', which you have been arguing against), or DxO are makes foolish business decisions?

1) Explain how DxO is accomodating or more clients more important to them
2) Explain your reasoning  behind using the phrase "joined at the hip with Nikon."

9
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 27, 2014, 03:45:34 AM »
What I want to draw attention to is where you effectively raise the specter of DxO being false on the web page, which is in completely in line with how you characterize their ratings, etc. There was no call for you to make that remark or even to suggest that and in that, it is you who is being false. Hide, if you like, behind the fact that you listed other options but the fact remains you went out of your way to allege that DxO was being false on their web site when you knew they weren't.

I know nothing of the sort
...

So now you're denying that you read the web page with the company logos and thus didn't read the part where DxO said that they were only listing some of their customers? Which is it? That you read the entire page and at the time of suggested that DxO were being false in their claims about the "top 10" fully aware that the logos presented weren't fully representative of their customer base or that you made the suggestion that DxO's exclusion of Canon was because you hadn't read what DxO printed on their web page properly?

Is there a community college near you that offers basic reading comprehension and logical reasoning courses?

I don't need a community college to teach me when someone makes an allegation that is wrong.

You're joining together two statements by DxO that are unrelated.

Nowhere do they say that the listing of logos includes all of the top ten DSC manufacturers.

They state that (1) all of the top DSC manufacturers are their clients and that (2) the listing of logos is some of their clients. There is no statement on their website that says all of the logos are those from the top ten DSC manufacturers.

Even though you buy DxO's software, you just seem to see red whenever you look at their website. I feel sorry for you.

Quote
Perhaps you could state your reasoning which supports the idea that DxO is being truthful that their client list includes 'all of the top ten DSC manufacturers' as defined in a relevant way ... but has chosen not to display the logo of the #1 dSLR maker and BusinessWeek's #35 global brand ... among their list of clients.   What can you come up with, besides 'Canon didn't permit it' (which I have already suggested as the most likely possibility),

I don't really care why Canon isn't listed or not. It makes no difference to me and I can't see it meaning anything. I can't make any more meaningful comment on why Canon isn't there than you can - unless you know the people at DxO that made the decisions to put vendors there or someone at Canon that knows why Canon said no if the company did in fact say no. I don't have an opinion as to why DxO don't include Canon there, nor do I have (or need to have) a theory as to why Canon isn't included. If you do then I feel sorry for you.

So speculate all you like but all you are doing is guessing/speculating. Attempting to pass off your opinions or guesses as fact does not change them from just being a guess.

There's a phrase that you should include more in your posts and it goes like this: "In my opinion." Start using those three words with your statements and they'll be a lot less contentious.

Quote
DxO is accommodating one or more of the clients more important to them (e.g., they are 'joined at the hip with Nikon', which you have been arguing against), or DxO are makes foolish business decisions?

Why do you think that DxO is more accommodating towards Nikon?

10
Lenses / Re: Selling my two Zeiss lenses. Your advice?
« on: July 27, 2014, 02:54:53 AM »
Friends.
I have 3 Zeiss lenses: 15mm. 35mm 1.4 and 135mm f2.
I am thinking of selling the 15 and 35 because:
...
Anyone has any advice for me?


Well since you don't see any value in keeping them and you don't want them, I think you should just give them to me :-) Selling them will come with all kinds of unwanted stress and you don't need that either. I can promise I won't make you feel bad about it by gloating about how I can take amazing pics using them ;)

11
Lenses / Re: How many years before we see a 50L II
« on: July 26, 2014, 08:52:30 AM »
So the question is... When will Canon respond to the Sigma 50 Art with an update to the 50L?
...
Thoughts?

Canon's lenses have historically had a life of somewhere between 15 and 20 years as a current product.

Expect the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 to be updated well before the 50/1.2L.

12
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 25, 2014, 08:04:05 PM »
What I want to draw attention to is where you effectively raise the specter of DxO being false on the web page, which is in completely in line with how you characterize their ratings, etc. There was no call for you to make that remark or even to suggest that and in that, it is you who is being false. Hide, if you like, behind the fact that you listed other options but the fact remains you went out of your way to allege that DxO was being false on their web site when you knew they weren't.

I know nothing of the sort
...

So now you're denying that you read the web page with the company logos and thus didn't read the part where DxO said that they were only listing some of their customers? Which is it? That you read the entire page and at the time of suggested that DxO were being false in their claims about the "top 10" fully aware that the logos presented weren't fully representative of their customer base or that you made the suggestion that DxO's exclusion of Canon was because you hadn't read what DxO printed on their web page properly?

13
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 25, 2014, 09:46:20 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.

Yes, I can read and comprehend, a skill some lack.  Perhaps you should read my post again to confirm for yourself that I did not indicate that DxO's statement is false, only that it could be...  You might also note that I listed that possibility second, not first.

EDIT: or perhaps you're suggesting a third possibility that I intentionally dismissed, namely that Canon is a client but DxO chose to not display the logo of the leading manufacturer of dSLRs among their clients.  Possible reasons for that could be to placate other clients more important to them, i.e. Nikon (which would certainly imply some sort of hip-joining) or simply because DxO is foolish.  Is that what you're suggesting?

Indeed, maybe Canon don't spend enough money with DxO for DxO to put their name there :) There could be any number of reasons why Canon's logo isn't there, including commercial reasons. It is pointless to speculate as to why those that are listed are and others aren't as we're not privy to the decision making process.

What I want to draw attention to is where you effectively raise the specter of DxO being false on the web page, which is in completely in line with how you characterize their ratings, etc. There was no call for you to make that remark or even to suggest that and in that, it is you who is being false. Hide, if you like, behind the fact that you listed other options but the fact remains you went out of your way to allege that DxO was being false on their web site when you knew they weren't.

14
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 25, 2014, 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.

15
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 25, 2014, 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?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 179