Originally Posted by andnowimbroke
Their tractors aren't near what they used to be either.
Agreed, my point is Canon isn't doing anything wrong.
They also make lenses for Nikon, Sony, Pentax and Olympus.
Beats the alternative [:P].
(EDIT: I just looked at your profile. 35 is not old, I should know I'm 35.)
T3i, Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 L, Sigma 30mm f/1.4, 430ex (x2), 580ex
13.3" MacBook Pro (late '11 model) w/8GB Ram & 1TB HD, Aperture 3 & Photoshop Elements 9
Amen to that.
I'll agree with that too. I just agree with the PCbusiness planmore than the Apple plan. PC is wide open and anyone can make software for itwhich is why most of the world uses them. Apple is very selective in its offerings and more expensive because they are the only ones holding the ropes. I hope Neuro doesn't read this. He'd poke all kinds of holes in this theroy[*-)]
Exactly! Canon cuts them out entirely and they become Apple. They'll hold maybe 10% of the market then and have to raise prices to cover the loss. Nikon,ect. will benefit with the extra support from cheaper third party lenses to suck you in to their camp.
You mean old AND married? I'm feeling better already[]
Words get in the way of what I meant to say.
Only 35 until Friday[:'(]
Words get in the way of what I meant to say.
The point is that the third party lens makers keep Canon and Nikon honest. What happens if Canon doesn't have competitors making lenses for their platform -- they can charge almost anything they want. The less competition, the more they can charge for the brand.
Of course you can say Nikon is still there as competition. But once someone has settled on that platform and bought a few lenses, they are unlikely to want to switch. So the two big camera makes also need competition in the lens department.
And the more we just accept that status quo, the more we're going to pay for the brand. If it was up to me, I would be pushing for Tamron and Sigma to develop higher quality lenses instead of trashing them. And I would acknowledge that for folks who don't have deep pockets, a third party lens may give you more bang for the buck. That's what keeps Canon quality up and their prices reasonable.
Don't forget the basics guys...it's not the gear that makes the best photos, it's the man or woman using it.
My point, perhaps Canon lenses are generally better, doesn't mean Tamron, Sigma and other 3rd party brands can't compete. And if you want to have the bang for bucks argument, I'm afraid Canon looses in a lot of situations []
A technical correct photo isn't per se a great photo [:#]
You proved that with your Sigma. I know you had to send it back, which if they just fixed their QC policy, they would be an awesome company, but once they fixed it, it was uber sharp. The Canon version, while consistent with QC, is always soft from what you folks say.
The Tamron lens in question, was an all-in-one that I bought to see if I wanted to go the DSLR route and for the $136 it cost me new,it did it's job. Just stay away from anything white. Uhg.
Lots of folks have great reps and they use Nikon, so you know it ain't the gear[6]
Words get in the way of what I meant to say.
You proved that with your Sigma. I know you had to send it back, which if they just fixed their QC policy, they would be an awesome company, but once they fixed it, it was uber sharp.
I've never send it back thanks to in-camera micro-adjustment [
I also had a tamron 17-50 before I updated to the canon 17-55 and I also loved that lens, although focus was a bit slow for my needs. But quality-wise it could compete to the canon in like 9/10 situations and that for 3/8 of the price! I would call that bang for bucks. If you had both lenses and you'd make the same photo and ask your family which one they prefer....
Hard to believe haha [6]
I remember now! I was close.
I've still got my Tammy 28-75mm. I use it on a crop and it hides the vignetting. It's a little noisy and hunts in low light, but for $350...come on. Pretty sweet. Just wish it went a little wider to have gotten all the waterfall.
EDIT: And Tamron lens caps ROCK! It might be a small thing, but in my eyes or lack there of.
Words get in the way of what I meant to say.
Lol. Well, I was going to just let this slip past - but there was a blurb on the business news this morning that Apple now has the highest corporate valuation of any US tech company (beating out Microsoft by a couple of billion). I suppose they must be doing something right. The report credited the iPhone and iPad for their increased value - but, personally I think it was Mark's recently-purchased iMac that sent them over the top. [:P]
When surrounded by facts I can't dispute, I tend to lean towards childish tactics...I RUBBER AND YOUR GLUE[:P]
Words get in the way of what I meant to say.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote