new dSLR from Canon

Derek Clarke said:

English is so widely spoken in the US as well as everywhere else
because of the language spoken by the early colonists, the same
reason that Mexico speaks Spanish and Brazil speaks Portuguese.

Steve Farmer said:

I think that the widespread use of English is entirely due
to the US's geographical location, as you observe.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood the intent of my very terse reference to the advantage of the US's geographic location. Because of favorable geography the US was beyond attack in World Wars I and II, its manufacturing capacity was preserved, and it became an economic (and military) superpower between and after the wars. Consequently almost everyone wanted, or at least needed, to speak English so that they could do business with the US.

That's still way oversimplified, but I hope it makes my intent clearer.

Good shooting!
Steve Farmer

You are totally wrong, Chasseur d'images is one of the most respect newspaper in the photography world for the last 20years...but I'm sure your opinion is not based on any real fact or real reading of this newspaper.

Derek Clarke said:

Mark Douglas 2 said:

DavidP said:

Mark Douglas 2 said:

As an EOS user looking to get a digital SLR in the near future,
I've been following rumors on this website regarding the
replacement for the D60. I don't have the time to peruse every
discussion, so please don't get ticked if this is something that
someone has already pointed out.

I found a pic of a Canon digital SLR on the Chasseur d'Images
website. Though my french isn't good enough to translate the
article, the accompaning pics make it look like a lower end dSLR -
probably based on a Rebel body.

Comment from the group? Again, I apologize if this has already
been pointed out by someone else.

Mark

--
digital imaging neophyte / new Apple computer user

Click to expand...

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Click to expand...

--
digital imaging neophyte / new Apple computer user

Click to expand...

--
Derek

Click to expand...

What is the percentage of Iraqi oil flowing into France? A bit more that 10% as you know. And what are the oil companies/countries with the biggest interest in running Iraqi oil? Not the US. Russia, in fact, tops the list. Ans if you want an "honest" reason for taking out Saddam, it isn't oil or UN violations, it is simply this: Saddam is a bully, and the whole middle-eastern playing field will not only be leveled with his demise, but opportunities for genuine progress, similar to what we already see in Afganistan, will be ripe. That will make the world a safer place for all.

Enough with the "no blood for oil arguement!" The US gets less than 6% of our oil from Iraq. That is easily replaced by Russian, Saudi, or (heaven forbid) our own untapped reserves. France on the other hand gets 70% of their oil from Iraq. Germany and Russia are also heavily dependent on Iraqi for oil and hard currency respectively. Who is motivated by oil here?

Nicolas Meunier said:

Nicolas Meunier said:

I can't figure your position out... Do you not believe that Iraq is
pursuing a 'weapons of mass detruction' program? Do you think if
they have them they wouldn't use them on us if they could find a
way?

Click to expand...

Exactly!

Did you ever see an evidence of Iraq preparing an attack against
USA???

Click to expand...

You're eyes are as closed as your mind.

Nicolas Meunier said:

Today their is evidence of construction of missile with a range
between 150 and 180km...and during the GolfWar, the best Iraq
weapon was the Scud.. not exactly the style of weapon with a range
to attack USA...so your assumption of an attack from Iraq against
USA with mass destruction weapon are difficult to understand.

Click to expand...

So many ways to go here....

1) Oh, thank goodness only Israelis will be killed.

2) Missile is the only delivery method for a weapon?

3) Countries that announce to the world that they are developing a nuclear program (NK) do so because they are trying to negotiate concessions, deter attacks on them, or just climb the ladder of nations. It's the regime that clearly develops nuclear technology and does so in secret and denies it that frightens me.

Nicolas Meunier said:

Today more and more country are laughing, when they are looking at
the "evidence" of USA, we will not speak of the "super report from
the MI-6", which is in fact a very old text written by an english
student...

Click to expand...

Keep laughing Nick. That's what fools do.

Nicolas Meunier said:

Understand me well, in no way I'm saying that Iraq is a good
country, but I can not undestand, why the USA wants so badly to
attack Iraq and only Iraq.

When I see today "the evidence" of the USA...I can't stop thinking
of this girl, who said in front of the UN in 1990, that IRAQ was
killing babies in KOWEIT...but in fact this girl was not in KOWEIT
at this time and was in fact the daugter of the KOWEIT ambassador
in the US...so the "main evidence" to convince the UN to attack
IRAQ in 1990 was a complete lye.
So today, I would like to have good evidence BEFORE dropping tons
of bombs on IRAQ population.

Click to expand...

This should be an easy question for you... Do you think Iraq invaded Kuwait 12 years ago or not? Your argument sure sounds like the only reason we invaded was because a "girl" told us to. I think when we got to Kuwait what we found was an agressor army trying to steal a country. I don't know who this girl is but I've gone under the foolish assumption that Iraq really did try to occupy Kuwait.

Was our response to the Iraqi invasion 12 years ago correct or not? This should be yes or no.

I don't think you understand, Tex. We've got you figured out. You, Texas, Bush, Iraq, Oil, conspiracy theories, Oswald, Texas, Houston, Dallas, Oil, Texas. It is becoming clearer. You are in cahoots taking over IRaqi oil and returning Texas to its oil producing heyday via Baghdad. You probably think Texas is a republic and live in the hills too! How many of your relatives are working in Kuwait, by the way? We'll be watching you...friend.

G.

TheTexan said:

Enough with the "no blood for oil arguement!" The US gets less than
6% of our oil from Iraq. That is easily replaced by Russian, Saudi,
or (heaven forbid) our own untapped reserves. France on the other
hand gets 70% of their oil from Iraq. Germany and Russia are also
heavily dependent on Iraqi for oil and hard currency respectively.
Who is motivated by oil here?

Click to expand...

If you think 10sec that, after destoying Sadam and Iraq, US will ask to control Oil production in Iraq by putting his men everywhere, it makes all my arguments very clear...and by the way, it's exactly, what Bush said, it will do...so he will be able to lowered the oil prize.

By the way North Korea claims to have nuclear weapons (a mass destruction weapon if you don't know) and says he's ready to use it...so why is US acting like their is no problem in this case???

In one hand a country with no real evidence he has mass destruction weapon and you want to kill his population...and in an other hand, you have a country, who claims to have the ultimate weapon and clearly says, he is ready to use it...and you do nothing. I don't think your interest here is peace on earth??? ...or I missed something...

Nicolas Meunier said:

If you think 10sec that, after destoying Sadam and Iraq, US will
ask to control Oil production in Iraq by putting his men
everywhere, it makes all my arguments very clear...and by the way,
it's exactly, what Bush said, it will do...so he will be able to
lowered the oil prize.

Click to expand...

Opec wants the price lowered too, big deal--don't you? And soldiers don't control oil production--Unless they are Iraqi soldiers. Is it possible that in a post-war goverment the Iraqis should decide what to do with their oil? To whom to sell it, to move it, process it, etc? Oh, wait, we destroyed the population.... Let's keep the oil for ourselves...

Nicolas Meunier said:

By the way North Korea claims to have nuclear weapons (a mass
destruction weapon if you don't know) and says he's ready to use
it...so why is US acting like their is no problem in this case???
In one hand a country with no real evidence he has mass destruction
weapon and you want to kill his population...

Click to expand...

The US wants to destroy the Iraqi Population. Mmmmmm...are you working for Aziz?

and in an other hand,

Nicolas Meunier said:

you have a country, who claims to have the ultimate weapon and
clearly says, he is ready to use it...and you do nothing. I don't
think your interest here is peace on earth??? ...or I missed

Click to expand...

Seamless garment argument. Nice in theory....

Where the D60 lets me down because of slow autofocus is not just fast sport action but in spontaneous pictures of people in action - for example - candids of children and other family members. You miss too much when you can't focus on time. You miss important moments when it takes 1.5 seconds to focus.

f guay said:

My answer for the autofocus problem of the D-60 has been the
following.
I bought a EOS 3 on e-bay and a negative scanner. The only time my
D-60 was letting me down was on fast sport action. The 1D was out
of reach for me. So far so good.

Francois

Click to expand...

Dang. You figured me out. I done got nothin but my cattle and my oil wells and Frenchmen and hippies want to take it all away from me. ;-)

I wish.... I'm just trying to figure out how to afford the D80s-limited edition with the satellite phone and MP3 player (or whatever it is going to be called)

The really aweful part is that I know people who work at Enron! I even like and trust most of 'em.

I haven't met Oswald yet... but I hear he's still around.

BrGabe said:

I don't think you understand, Tex. We've got you figured out. You,
Texas, Bush, Iraq, Oil, conspiracy theories, Oswald, Texas,
Houston, Dallas, Oil, Texas. It is becoming clearer. You are in
cahoots taking over IRaqi oil and returning Texas to its oil
producing heyday via Baghdad. You probably think Texas is a
republic and live in the hills too! How many of your relatives are
working in Kuwait, by the way? We'll be watching you...friend.

G.

Click to expand...

I find that having my flash mounted on the D-60 has given me better results for candid shots. But I agree it is a bit frustrating when you don't have different contrast on your main subject to lock focus. If I were a professionnal, this would not be acceptable. Francois

marianco said:

f guay said:

My answer for the autofocus problem of the D-60 has been the
following.
I bought a EOS 3 on e-bay and a negative scanner. The only time my
D-60 was letting me down was on fast sport action. The 1D was out
of reach for me. So far so good.

Francois

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Not trying to be snotty here but your English is a little tough to follow here so I am not exactly sure what this point is. I've tried to address what I think you are getting at.

Nicolas Meunier said:

TheTexan said:

Enough with the "no blood for oil arguement!" The US gets less than
6% of our oil from Iraq. That is easily replaced by Russian, Saudi,
or (heaven forbid) our own untapped reserves. France on the other
hand gets 70% of their oil from Iraq. Germany and Russia are also
heavily dependent on Iraqi for oil and hard currency respectively.
Who is motivated by oil here?

Click to expand...

If you think 10sec that, after destoying Sadam and Iraq, US will
ask to control Oil production in Iraq by putting his men
everywhere, it makes all my arguments very clear...and by the way,
it's exactly, what Bush said, it will do...so he will be able to
lowered the oil prize.

Click to expand...

What Bush HAS said is that the oil in Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people. Admittedly, I would like the second largest reserve in the world to be out of the control of a lunatic dictator that has said that his goal is to unify all Islamic people of the world into one government and with one mission - to rid the world of the Big Satan and the Little Satan. (He's the one who said it...)

I would also like the price of oil to be lower. But the idea has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread that the oil industry likes cheap oil... this is not correct. Refineries, yes, petroleum is their primary input so cheaper is better. But anyone in the Exploration and Production field likes the prices a little inflated thus higher profits.

I will say again, if the primary goal was cheap oil all we have to do is lift the embargo. Sadam will sell all the oil he can. He needs the money.

By the way France is the largest importer into Iraq making up 22.5% of net imports, regardless of the UN embargo that forbids it. Who is motivated by money here?

Nicolas Meunier said:

By the way North Korea claims to have nuclear weapons (a mass
destruction weapon if you don't know) and says he's ready to use
it...so why is US acting like their is no problem in this case???
In one hand a country with no real evidence he has mass destruction
weapon and you want to kill his population...and in an other hand,
you have a country, who claims to have the ultimate weapon and
clearly says, he is ready to use it...and you do nothing. I don't
think your interest here is peace on earth??? ...or I missed
something...

Click to expand...

Go back and read the post you were responding to. I'm not going to type the same answer again. The difference is motive. Why do they want the weapon? I'm no fan of North Korea, but they don't believe and preach that if they die martyrs they get to go to heaven. Sadam does. And he believes it. What a better way to go than to take out as many infidels as he can?

BTW I too want to get back to talking about cameras. I have never read Images Chasseurs (sp) and I don't want to talk about France or Iraq or North Korea any more. If you want to ask a straight question I will answer but after that I am really just hopeful for an 8MP camera with improved low-light AF and better exposure control. (and for as little loss of inocent life as possible.... believe it or not)

I agree. I use the camera primarily for candids. I get lots of "oh that was almost a great shot" pictures. This is the one area I hope we get the biggest improvement announced at PMA. 8MP would be great too...

marianco said:

Where the D60 lets me down because of slow autofocus is not just
fast sport action but in spontaneous pictures of people in action -
for example - candids of children and other family members. You
miss too much when you can't focus on time. You miss important
moments when it takes 1.5 seconds to focus.

Click to expand...

TheTexan said:

I would also like the price of oil to be lower. But the idea has
been mentioned elsewhere in this thread that the oil industry likes
cheap oil... this is not correct>

Click to expand...

The Saudis are an educated people and have a vested interest in keeping oil prices at reasonable levels. They know, and have publically expressed this knowledge, that high oil prices is a sure fire way to get the US to find ways to eliminate their dependance on oil.

A quote from a Saudi oil minister "The stone age did not end due to lack of stones".

--
legalize UPDOC!

Wait and see, all this speculation is killing me ! AAAAGH!

Gordon the lens said:

Wait and see, all this speculation is killing me ! AAAAGH!

Click to expand...

Sigh.... WHERE is canon announcement.... geeee.e.e.. can't wait no more.......

COME on canon.

This is the last post I'm going to make about this topic. I do apologize for starting this whole off-topic argument. On reflection, insulting the french language does seem like a childish way to object to french politics. At the time I was quite angry at the French for openingly turning against the US. If they were truly our friends, they would have voiced their opposition and criticism in private and not resort to encouraging anti-americanism. Do your friends ever criticize you in public and try to turn others against you? I know mine doesn't. Whenever there is disagreement, we would argue heatedly in private, but never try to disparage each other in front of others. I think the same should apply to international friendships.

I don't like French politics, never have. I believe they do take pleasure in frustrating american interests and sometimes their own when the two correspond just for sake of "standing up to America" (ie: pulling out of NATO at the height of the Cold War when we needed unity the most. The first Gulf War, they were against liberating Kuwait by force and obstructed our attempts to get UN backing until the last moment. Kosovo War, where they and the Brits wanted us to get involved in the first place and then one of their officers sell OUR military secrets to the Serbs, thus endangering american lives and may have cost us a F-117). I believe they challenge america to enhance their power, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, I don't like back-stabbing. If France believe they should act as a counter-weight to American power, then don't pretend to be our friend and share our interests. I think this is something all reasonable people can agree with.

matt said:

Since you are a chinese american, i guess you did'nt work too hard
to speak two languages.Maybe you just don't have the ability to
learn..........languages ! ;-)

Click to expand...

Didn't work too hard to master a completely new foreigh language? Have you ever immigrated to a new country with a completely different language that you've never studied? It took me a little over a year to be able to communicate well in english, so I think I'm pretty good at studying languages.

Anyway, back to camera discussions.

Of course I am, and I'm proud of every one of those.

By the way, a SUV just saved my life. I slid into a ditch and got stuck in the snow storm that hit the east coast over the weekend. I had no food, not much gas left, and can't see anyone around for miles. Just when I was getting scared, an SUV drove by, stopped, and backed up to offer me assistance. We couldn't get my car unstuck, but the guy gave me a lift all the way home in complete opposite directions he was going, bless his heart. I think I'm gonna get me one of them SUVs. God bless America and all her wonderful people.

Chris Charlton said:

Chris Charlton said:

canoniscool said:

Who cares...it's in french...that makes it second rate.

Click to expand...

And you're American, which means you're fat and drive an SUV.....

Click to expand...

Oh and I forgot to add, you are also uncultured, rude, loud, stupid
and poorly educated.....

Chris Charlton said:

Chris Charlton said:

Remi L. said:

Harlod said:

Chasseur d'Images = National Enquirer.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--

Click to expand...

--

Click to expand...

Nicolas Meunier said:

By the way North Korea claims to have nuclear weapons (a mass
destruction weapon if you don't know) and says he's ready to use
it...so why is US acting like their is no problem in this case???

Click to expand...

Precisely because we believe North Korea already has nukes and are willing to use them, that we act so cautiously. There are 20 million South Koreans in Seoul who would not take so kindly being on the receiving end of those nice weapons you described should we miscalculate. North Korea is also exactly the example we dont want Saddam to follow. A nuclear Iraq or even a chemical and biological Iraq would be able to do whatever it wants in the Middle East because the World would be hesitant to challenge it.

Nicolas Meunier said:

In one hand a country with no real evidence he has mass destruction
weapon and you want to kill his population...and in an other hand,
you have a country, who claims to have the ultimate weapon and
clearly says, he is ready to use it...and you do nothing. I don't
think your interest here is peace on earth??? ...or I missed
something...

Click to expand...

Choosing to read only half the story huh? Maybe if you weren't so blinded by your hatred for America, you would know that the previous UN inspections (prior to 1998) logged thousands of tons of chemical and biological weapons that are still unaccounted for. Iraq said they have no more of those. Fine, prove that you destroyed it. Show the inspectors the documents, and the sites where they were destroyed. Let the chemists and the biologist test them. That is what is called for by UN Resolution 1441(did i get the number right?). That is what is meant by full compliance and intent to disarm. They (Saddam's gang) are not doing that are they?

Let me put it another way, Saddam is not on trial for possessing weapons of mass destructions. He has already being found guilty of possessing and using weapons of mass destruction by the UN and coalition that kicked him out of Kuwait and by the previous inspection regime. It is his responsibility to show that he has reformed by proving that he has gotten rid of those nasty weapons. The inspectors are not there to find the WMD by looking for a needle in the haystack. They are there to verify that Saddam has disarmed. They can't do that if Saddam doesn't help them do it. That is America's position and it is quite logical. The anti-war camp, led by France and Germany cannot challenge that logic, therefore they must resort to emotional arguments of "high morals" that "War is bad". We all want peace, it is good for prosperity (not to mention my stocks prices), but a peace without security, a peace without justice is not a viable peace.

I wish the Bush team would do a better job explaining this line of reasoning to the world, and I wish the anti-war camp would put aside their personal dislike for Bush and listen to reasons rather than emotions. Only then can Saddam see that we are serious.

Thomas Wu said:

I wish the Bush team would do a better job explaining this line of
reasoning to the world, and I wish the anti-war camp would put
aside their personal dislike for Bush and listen to reasons rather
than emotions. Only then can Saddam see that we are serious.

Click to expand...

well said Canoniscool - but i sadly have to disagree with one point. A better explanation wouldn't change these people's point of view at all. They hated Bush before any of this came up. The words that Bush is using now are the exact same words that Clinton said about Hussein 5 years ago. But Clinton was satisfied with bombing a couple of aspirin factories and leaving Sadam in power. Had Clinton gone to war VERY few of these people would have protested. There are few people that are actually against war regardless of the situation, while misguided I can at least give them credit for consistency. If Bush were to decide tomorrow that there would be no invasion and that all sanctions were to be lifted most of these VERY SAME so called "peace demonstrators" would paint new signs that accused Bush of being a coward and not finishing the job. Most of them don't care about the lives of the Iraqis or the strength of our relationships with our allies... their only agenda is getting a democrat in the White House again.

By the way Nicholas - I asked you a yes/no question earlier - You had just written:

Thomas Wu said:

When I see today "the evidence" of the USA...I can't stop thinking
of this girl, who said in front of the UN in 1990, that IRAQ was
killing babies in KOWEIT...but in fact this girl was not in KOWEIT
at this time and was in fact the daugter of the KOWEIT ambassador
in the US...so the "main evidence" to convince the UN to attack
IRAQ in 1990 was a complete lye.

Click to expand...

And I asked this question:

Do you think Iraq invaded Kuwait 12 years ago or not? Your argument sure sounds like the only reason we invaded was because a "girl" told us to. I think when we got to Kuwait what we found was an agressor army trying to steal a country. I don't know who this girl is but I've gone under the foolish assumption that Iraq really did try to occupy Kuwait.

Was our response to the Iraqi invasion 12 years ago correct or not?

Still waiting...

"Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without an accordion!" (Ross Perot said it...)

The Complete Military History of France:

Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."

Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.

Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

The Dutch War - Tied

War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War - Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.

American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."

French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

World War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

War in Indochina - Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu

Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

War on Terrorism - France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.

The question for any country silly enough to count on the French should not be "Can we count on the French?", but rather "How long until France collapses?"

FLAME ON!