BillTracy wrote:I think everyone is wasting their time trying to reason with these people.
berend wrote:BillTracy wrote:I think everyone is wasting their time trying to reason with these people.
Sigh. I'll take the bait and respond against all of my good judgment...
sRagnar wrote:again you amaze me. as a business you should embrase the opportunity to communicate with your potential customers. Most companies have to spend a fortune to get their customers to participate and provide feedback on their business and product.
take the bait???? this is a discussion forum where you are ment to communicate with your customers and potential customers.
17866 people have experienced your inadequate communication
but then again I am not sure if you really care what any of us has to say since we have not established a "pro" status with you.
Out of the first 103 posts you posted 4, mostly off subject.And 23% not a big difference, I cant believe you chose that for your argument. As a point to your boss, your salary cut by 23% should not be an issue then.
23%. Does that really translate to "much much faster"
and how can you cut this gentleman's opinion like that, "constantly waiting on the card to shoot?" this can be a huge issue for someone trying to produce the best possible product and for someone that their livelihood can stand and fall with the right capture.
At this point I would rather draw a photo on my screen than purchase your product or be in anyway associated with you. I am sure that there are good people in your company and they need to take over the social media operation since you are really hurting the company you work for.
sRagnar wrote:again totally off subject of the cf card and just continuing to instigate further arguments.
If you want to cut down on my grammar and spelling you have to make sure that your spelling is perfect, absolutely perfect!
BillTracy wrote:Just another thing to consider. I would think that for every person who posts on this forum wanting a CF version, there are hundreds more who would also want one. Simply because not everyone in the world knows about this forum and posts about it.
berend wrote:And, as unbelievable as sRagnar and others may find it, it is very hard to "make a recommendation for a usable adapter" as we have mentioned many many times over. Many of them work properly only in one corner (UDMA), but fall over horribly in other circumstances. They have Type-I vs Type-II physical constraints that fragment the addressability of the market even further. It really is not as simple as it seems at first blush...
berend wrote:Let me ask, somewhat tongue in cheek, do you guys really believe we wouldn't do this on purpose if it were that easy? Do you really think we're that dim?
BillTracy wrote:So why not try and make an adaptor yourselves?
berend wrote:Do you really think we're that dim?
Yes! - LOL!!
brett maxwell wrote:Thank you Berend for the very honest and reasonable explanation, and please do not be discouraged by those who take things so personally.
The one part that surprises me (though only a little) is that no company has been willing and able to work with you to create a good Type 1 CF adapter (or even Type 2). I imagine such an adapter could sell quite readily for $100, and like crazy for $50.
berend wrote:Goodness knows we've tried this angle... These guys seem to think that an adapter that works in three cameras, doesn't work at all in one, and totally corrupts photos in yet another two to be "perfectly acceptable" and want to call their designs "done" and ship it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests