On 24 Jan 2007 at 22:58, Bo-Ming Tong wrote:
> --- "James B.Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Makes you wonder whose fault it was. Lack of
> > communication or jumping the gun?
> >
> > I had a customer jump into a Paypal dispute one time
> > after not receiving work
> > from me for a whole week after buying something.
> > Only time it's ever happened
> > and was during my annual holiday. But it goes to
> > show what some people are
> > capable of.
>
> Jim,
>
> I am Bo-Ming. I found out what is going on here and
> therefore I am joining this list.
Re-joining....;))
> You hear about all the issues about mount adaptations:
> loose mounts, infinity focus, mirror clearance,
> improper
> exposure. A time consuming task to adapt a lens, and
> in
> many people's eyes not worth the trouble given the
> amount
> of tinkering and experimentation required. I have
> always
> fought this uphill publicity battle that potential
> customers keep on asking if my product will suffer the
> same fate as the manual focus adaptations.
Don't say you create autofocusing Contax lenses for EOS-bodies....;))
(we had the Contax AX for that job....:))
> > My reason for calling it his mistake is because it
> > could very well end up that
> > way. I mean, just because you can do something
> > doesn't mean you should. As I
> > said, EOS lenses work just fine as they were
> > designed to on Canon cameras and
> > they're used by top pros around the world.
>
> If you were a Contax N user, you would have felt
> exactly
> the reverse: you *should* convert these lenses to EF
> mount,
> but you *couldn't* - until now. They are all pleased
> that
> the availability of this conversion bestows new life
> into
> their beloved optics. Although this is a Canon list,
> let's try to put our feet into the shoes of Contax N
> owners.
You could always use the Zeiss N-Mirotar 210mm/f0.03 as an
example....;))
Or any of the other Mirotars, the 1000mm/f5.6 not excluded....:))
> > >I use Canon as well as other manufacturer's
> > products for what they do
> > >well, but if I find something that works better, I
> > don't use blind
> > >brand allegiance as my guide.
> >
> > I think more than brand allegiance, this is a case
> > of sheer brand snobbishness.
> > Some people actually think having a name like Contax
> > on their lenses somehow
> > makes them better, or look better, I don't know. Or
> > maybe a case of someone with
> > too much money and too much free time.
>
> Having a choice is always better than having no
> choice,
> that is hard to argue. A Contax N owner may now choose
> between buying a 6MP N Digital or switching to Canon
> 5D.
> Have you ever dreamed of a system switch like this
> before? (probably not if you have brand allegiance)
> This kind of system choice is not possible until now.
> A
> Canon user may not choose Zeiss, but the choice is
> there, and choice is good.
Ring me when you see an option to mount a Kowa 6x6 lens onto some MF
digital back (preferably the full 56x56mm)....;))
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
