Digital photography, changing the world

Keith Willshaw writes:

They've come down a good bit. The 6.3 megapixel Canon EOS 300D
now sells for under £700 and uses the existing Canon EOS lenses

What happened to the 1Ds?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Keith Willshaw writes:

They've come down a good bit. The 6.3 megapixel Canon EOS 300D
now sells for under £700 and uses the existing Canon EOS lenses

What happened to the 1Ds?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Keith Willshaw writes:

They've come down a good bit. The 6.3 megapixel Canon EOS 300D
now sells for under £700 and uses the existing Canon EOS lenses

What happened to the 1Ds?


Nothing , they are available for around £3,300

Keith

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Keith Willshaw writes:

They've come down a good bit. The 6.3 megapixel Canon EOS 300D
now sells for under £700 and uses the existing Canon EOS lenses

What happened to the 1Ds?


Nothing , they are available for around £3,300

Keith

Keith Willshaw writes:

Nothing , they are available for around £3,300

And they still don't match film. So a 300D certainly won't do.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Keith Willshaw writes:

Nothing , they are available for around £3,300

And they still don't match film. So a 300D certainly won't do.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On 2004-12-17 22:07:59 +0100, Mxsmanic said:

Keith Willshaw writes:

Nothing , they are available for around £3,300

And they still don't match film. So a 300D certainly won't do.

How do you deduce that?

J;

--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG

On 2004-12-17 22:07:59 +0100, Mxsmanic said:

Keith Willshaw writes:

Nothing , they are available for around £3,300

And they still don't match film. So a 300D certainly won't do.

How do you deduce that?

J;

--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG

On 2004-12-15 15:50:40 +0100, Tim Challenger said:

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 19:58:47 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

JohnT writes:

I don't really think that your limitation is low intelligence.

I agree. But I don't resort to personal attacks, either.

Your limitations are obstinacy, condescension, lack of knowledge of
whatever it is you are lecturing us about and, most importantly of all,
the total lack of a sense of humour.

All of these are simply ways of characterizing my persistent refusal to
adopt the opinions of others based solely on their emotional appeals.
People get upset when they rant and rave and others still refuse to
agree with them.

I also deliberately attack opinions that I know to be objectively
baseless. Unfortunately (for those who hold them), these also tend to
be the opinions to which people cling most strongly for security. They
were indoctrinated with them or developed them based on emotion alone,
and they know that the opinions are baseless and fragile, and it upsets
them to consider abandoning them. Nevertheless, I think it more healthy
to abandon opinions that are without foundation than it is to cling to
them in a world of illusion.

Going to show us an example from your life?

Mixi has a life?

J;

--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG

On 2004-12-15 15:50:40 +0100, Tim Challenger said:

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 19:58:47 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

JohnT writes:

I don't really think that your limitation is low intelligence.

I agree. But I don't resort to personal attacks, either.

Your limitations are obstinacy, condescension, lack of knowledge of
whatever it is you are lecturing us about and, most importantly of all,
the total lack of a sense of humour.

All of these are simply ways of characterizing my persistent refusal to
adopt the opinions of others based solely on their emotional appeals.
People get upset when they rant and rave and others still refuse to
agree with them.

I also deliberately attack opinions that I know to be objectively
baseless. Unfortunately (for those who hold them), these also tend to
be the opinions to which people cling most strongly for security. They
were indoctrinated with them or developed them based on emotion alone,
and they know that the opinions are baseless and fragile, and it upsets
them to consider abandoning them. Nevertheless, I think it more healthy
to abandon opinions that are without foundation than it is to cling to
them in a world of illusion.

Going to show us an example from your life?

Mixi has a life?

J;

--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG