NCAA DivII Basketball 3200

Started Nov 27, 2007 | Discussions thread
snappey Senior Member • Posts: 1,050
Re: I discuss technical details, you personally attack

betterliving wrote:

No, I think you are here to stir things up.

Think what you want. You're wrong.

There is something about the D300 that is causing to go out and diss
it.

With the exception of one cheap shot about the D300 build quality, I have not "dissed" the D300. In fact, I don't even criticize the D300. Pointing out that a shot is soft and a bit OOF is a comment about a photo, not a "diss" of the camera that took it. Are other posts in this thread that question the posted photo's color a "diss" of the D300? I do respond to posts and comments in here about the 40D and sometimes the 30D/20D and then respond to responses to those posts. My posts in here were a continuation of that from another thread here, as I've already explained.

Not sure why. I was a part of that 40d AI Server thread. Clearly,
the 40d did a very poor job with keeping AF on a moving target.

I disagree. I thought the results from those tests were quite good and the 40D did a excellent job of keeping focus. Others agreed with me, others didn't. Most, including you, in that thread were confused about looking at a resized original verses a small 100% crop of an unprocessed original. Never did get any of the others in that thread to post a extreme 100% crop of their unmodified originals. The OP's resized originals looked really great too, just like the processed originals some of the others posted in that thread.

you went out on the limb to turn a blind eye to it and defend the 40d.

It wasn't a limb at all. Others agreed with me. Actually, I think you were on a much longer limb in that thread than me.

Why do you feel the need to do that? What is it about the D300 that
causes you to lash out with over-the-top statements?

I don't lash out with over-the-top statements at all. Why do you feel so defensive? Why are you so threatened about posts that compare the 40D and the D300?

What is it about
the 40d that you feel you need to defend it in discussions?

See above.

Note that you didn't just make a comment about these BB photos. No,
you took it to the level to erroneously claim how much better the 40d
was.

Go back and read what I posted in this thread. I didn't claim that the 40D was much better. I said the shot posted here was not as sharp and in focus as the other iso3200 40D shots in question. I also pointed out that two months ago the 40D was capable of producing excellent high ISO indoor basketball shots. sandy b erroneously claimed that two months ago no camera existed that could have taken photos as good for under $2000.00.

That is not discussing technical issues, that is simple
trolling/flame bating.

No, it's not. I think you're just so ultra defensive that you can't see that I am talking about the cameras and photos and not flame baiting and trolling.

snappey wrote:

Beau Long wrote:

You're just here to stir the pot... that's all.

Wrong. I like to discuss cameras and photos and debate their merits
and capabilities.

Please go buy
a camera and start using it instead of posting your inflammatory
comments.

I own more than one camera. I don't believe my posts are
inflammatory. Perhaps some are just too defensive.

BTW-do you have permission from the bug to link those shots here?

All the links I've posted here are legal and are to other dpreview
posts or to legal flickr URLs that contain appropriate copyright
notices and declarations.

-- hide signature --

David

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow