>The only time it pays to buy a name brand computer is if you are a total >non-techie and haven't a clue what one end of a screwdriver is. Generally >what you get in a name brand is a little fuzzy security blanket without >knowing that since your computer can't be upgraded very much or at all you >will need to replace it in a couple of years if you are doing serious work. >Nice thing about a real clone is that every part in it complies with some >standard so when new technology comes out all you have to do is swap out >something for a newer better part.
Nowadays, the term "clone" is somewhat ambitious for PCs. When IBM released 8088 in early 80's, everything else was considered the clones. But this is not the case anymore today. There are many companies which have come up with some standards and then every manufacturer just followed those standards. When the IBM TV ad said "do you realy want a clone?", I couldn't help but thinking this ad was misleading somehow. However, I do agree that big name computers (like Compaq, IBM, HP etc) are often less flexible. >Same thing in lenses except that in the case of factory ones the only bad >thing is price (although every makers has some turkey's in their lineup >they >have less that the 3rd party ones). I really don't see how the PC industry can be compared to the photographic industry. Each camera manufacturer has her own design/standard and not interchangable between brands (except Ricoh, Vivitar, Casina). This is not the case with PCs. >When considering a 3rd party lens you need to separate the good from the >junk. Sigma lenses were made in the Sun Optical factory prior to a >merger/buyout in the late 70's. With the introduction of the QD line in the >late 70's Sigma's build quality was close to as good as any camera maker 70's? I started using Sigma lenses in mid-80's until mid-90's. I had both zoom and prime lenses, all manual focus. Mechanically, all of them were crap. None of them were even close to the usual built quality of Nikkors or Pentax lenses which were 10-20 yrs older. Not only Sigma used crappy materials, but their fundamental designs were poor. That's why Sigma lenses do not last. >line. Of course the performance wasn't quite as good as the best of the >factory lenses but the price performance ratio was good. Sigma has made >some >crappy consumer lenses with OK performance but cheap construction, but they >seem to have gotten over that stage that happened in the mid 90's. In my >collection is a late 70's Sigma QD 135/1.8 in Pentax K mount. While not as >good as a Pentax A* 135/1.8 you can get this lens often for around $300-350 >in Mint to Excellent condition, which is much less than the cost of a >Pentax. Has the same kind of all metal construction as the Pentax lens >although of course it doesn't have the real SMC coatings. I always feel the term "price performance ratio" is a very poor indicator. No doubt cheap products often score well in this aspect. But then "durability" or "reliability" could never be accurately measured in any tests, until you have used them long enough. When Sigma lenses worth almost nothing on the secondhand markets, there must be a reason. regards, Alan Chan _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
