Well, as an adventure in self-chastisement, much needed after neglecting numerous pressing household chores that scream silently for my attention, I decided to read the entire thread from start to finish (for me, that´s here).
And what did I learn? Simply, that given the invective, time and passion spent by some on this topic, there can be no way that a normal, non-obsessed person will ever buy the correct equipment. He might be happy in his own ignorance, just as I have been over the years buyng silly Hasselblads and ludicrous Nikons, he might be able to produce great photography with that stuff, but ultimately, someone will pop down from the stratosphere and point out where he has gone wrong, where he has overspent by twenty bucks or cherished the wrong bokeh.
Circular thread? Not quite. Linear, then? Can´t say that either, probaly leans more towards the circular but let´s consider that it might bend even more so in the direction of the loopy?
Holy Batman! Is this what the adults do? Thank God for my second childhood.
Rob C
Rob C., it's clear by the tone of your posts that you have an extreme amount of self-love and that you have a very high opinion of yourself. Funny though, wasn't it
you I saw sobbing on another thread (in the "About This Site" forum) trying to make a case for "civility?" I seem to remember you taking the pulpit, and giving a great emotional speech about how we should all treat other people with respect. Yes, I could swear that was you Rob, lamenting with quivering lip, that we members here should all be more respectful of each other ... and yet here you are running your mouth with sarcasm. Hypocrites are like that ...
Anyway, Rob, as a matter of real-world fact, your sarcasm here not only is hypocritical it is also wrong. The mathematical fact of the matter is, the difference in
whole system monetary investment between brand names is quite a bit more than a mere "twenty bucks"; it can actually be several thousand bucks, which not only makes you out to be a bit of an ass for your comments, but it shows your entire premise is also founded upon a lie, making you a dishonest ass. To refresh your memory:
Nikon D300 = $1,500
MicroNikkor 100 mm = $800
Nikkor 600mm = $9,700
TOTAL PRICE = $12,000By Contrast:
Canon 50D = $1,167
Canon 100 mm macro = $490
Canon 600mm = $7,600
TOTAL PRICE = $9,257Now then, this is with just 3 pieces of naturalist field equipment, showing the
contrast of value offered by these two competitors. In point of fact, the difference is $2,743, not $20. That is close to a 3-grand difference, in just 3 pieces of commonly-purchased top-end field equipment, which means it is 137x more costly than your silly attempt at underming this thread admitted to. In the real world, this is a very large difference.
When one considers the fact that one must get a top-notch tripod, and a topnotch ballhead, just to make a 600 mm lens functional at its full potential, the fact that one can spend $12,000 with Nikon and
still face another $1-$2K expense on top of what he's already put out there, should be daunting to all but the wealthy.
The fact that a Canon user still has over $2,700 in spending money that would allow him to purchase an $800 Gitzo tripod, a $600 Wimberly ballhead, a $400 top-shelf backpack, two $150 polarizing filters for both lenses, and a $685 macro ringlight flash for his macro lens ... and
still not have spent as much as the Nikon user ... and yet has BY FAR the greater amount of equipment for his money ... ought to make anyone but a dullard stand up and take notice.
Now, as has been pointed out by other members who live in other countries, in some areas these wide ranges of disparity in pricing might not be so great---but they remain in some degree nonetheless. I do believe B&H photo is sponsored by this website, and if anyone wants to check my numbers they will see I am correct and not exaggerating here.
And if I am not mistaking here, the topic of this thread (and of the forum owner's own most recent written work) is "Quality versus Value," and yet a man can't come here and discuss this very topic without a bunch of highfalutin' jackoffs running their mouths. So, please, allow people the right to discuss these topics. This is a very real subject that affects many people, and far too many people don't think of these things before they make their own personal purchase decisions.
It's a serious enough topic that the moderator is writing a multi-piece body of work on the subject, and there are at least 5 different threads here discussing the matter. I am sorry if my numbers show that the system you chose does NOT offer the most value for the money. In certain contexts (perhaps your own context) it does. But in other applications, most notably macro, and especially telephoto, the Nikon system is
a terrible buy for the money, and wastes a person thousands of dollars in needless expense. This might not be relevant to your particular photography, but it is most definitely relevant to other people's photography.
So kindly sit your @$$ down and spare us your sarcasm, which is all based on a lie anyway. Show us all that "civility" you cried so much about the other month. If you can't do this, then I will have offer this as my commentary, the next time you get all misty about civility
The simple fact is, some systems may offer tremendous products, but their
value compared to other systems is much less, precisely because of over-pricing. This is a relevant topic to everyone, so I do believe a person who can show how one system offers BY FAR more options, outstanding options, and yet is priced thousands of dollars below their competitors ought to be spared being called a "fanboy" --- when the truth is, he is just being a realistic person with some hard facts and numbers. I don't see why some of you "rational, intelligent" folks are blinded by these numbers. They are real numbers. So perhaps it's a little bit of your own fanboyism that makes you want to bury your heads in the sand as to what these numbers,
in fact, pan-out to regarding which brand offers true value.
Jack
.
