Canony (psujące się) vs Nikony (sprawne) na ciężkiej wyprawie...

[miszaqq]

moze ktos doczytal do konca gdzie pisze jak wol:

"Pros and ardent amateurs use their equipment in all sorts of conditions, sometimes harshly, and sometimes not. But gear does fail. Sometimes its the elements, sometimes abuse, and yes, sometimes poor craftsmanship and materials. But no one should draw any unwarrented conclusions from this report. There just arent enough facts available, and the sample was highly scewed statistically."

oraz

"2: If there had been 45 Nikon and 5 Canons in use, rather than the other way round, I think it likely that the shoe would have been on the other foot."

[akustyk]

moze ktos doczytal do konca gdzie pisze jak wol:

"Pros and ardent amateurs use their equipment in all sorts of conditions, sometimes harshly, and sometimes not. But gear does fail. Sometimes its the elements, sometimes abuse, and yes, sometimes poor craftsmanship and materials. But no one should draw any unwarrented conclusions from this report. There just arent enough facts available, and the sample was highly scewed statistically."

oraz

"2: If there had been 45 Nikon and 5 Canons in use, rather than the other way round, I think it likely that the shoe would have been on the other foot."

tlumaczenie na Polski:
"1. Michael Reichman nie sugeruje w ten sposob, ze Canon jest do d... a Nikon uber alles, bo na podstwie probki 50 elementow to nawet na mechanicznym nikt statystyki nie uprawia"

"2. posiadacze Canona moga sobie wyobrazic, ze gdyby sprzet Nikona nie byl tak malo popularny wsrod pro, to tez by sie psul. i spac spokojnie przy swoim oltarzyku z bialych penisow z czerwonymi paskami".

nie no... tak serio... a co mial napisac? poza prostym zabezpieczeniem tylka, zeby go Canon czy inna firma nie scigala za sianie defetyzmu. bo jednak 90% czytajacych takie rzeczy ma zbyt malo rozumu, zeby poslugiwac sie samodzielnie mozgiem i jednak potrzebuje komentarza autora, zeby wiedziec co powinna myslec.