Commenting On Unused Equipment
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: John McWilliams on 26 Oct 2009 23:56 Miles Bader wrote: > Michael <adunc79617(a)mypacks.net> writes: >>> We know why, of course: you're the infamous P&S Troll. We simply don't >>> know specifically why you are a troll, or why you chose to target this >>> group in particular. Nor do we care, actually. >> I was wondering how many responses I'd read before someone recognized >> our infamous friend. > > Using one of his standard trolling techniques too. He may be an idiot > when it comes to photography, but he's actually pretty skillful at > trolling... Or a handful of posters are unskilled at avoiding the bait..... cough, splutter....... -- john mcwilliams
From: BobS on 27 Oct 2009 00:17 > I'd wonder how many of those DSLR psychotics would reply, never > realizing > that I HAVE used DSLRs, sold them all when I found out P&S cameras > were > better. So I *DO* have first-hand knowledge of what I speak about. > How do > you think I know of so many of the glaring faults wrapped in the DSLR > design concept? Found the faults by using the cameras. > Not picking a fight or feeding a troll.... But since you brought it up, can you tell us what experience you have with DSLRs such as make and model. That way, one could better judge how up to date your views are and how broad your experience level is with various makes. Many significant changes have been made in P&S cameras (I have 3 recent vintage) and DSLRs (6) with the oldest being about 40 years old (K1000) and the latest over a year old (K20D). I've shot a number of Nikons (F1 to D60) over the years, a few Cannon's and sampled probably most other brands (from Ashai to Rollies) in my early years when I worked in a photo lab. So my particular experience is probably about average with other amateurs in my age group and while I may not have experience with the exact model being discussed, I may weigh in and provide a generalized opinion if I feel it would help answer a question. Just like others do. But what I think to be a valid comment - may well be considered useless by someone else since they have no idea of my credibility - and neither do you. You may not like some responses and think they are useless but you have no idea of what experience the person responding really has. So you take a comment at face value from Usenet, toss in some common sense and add it to part of your research as possibly being of some value and go with it - or not. Your choice. You may be the world's leading expert on P&S cameras but I don't know that and from what I've read of your past P&S posts, you make some valid points and some are really stretching it in my opinion. All types of cameras serve a useful purpose - to someone. You happen to like P&S, that's great - so do I, when it suits my needs which is only about 1% of the time. Bob S.
From: Curiouser and Curiouser on 27 Oct 2009 01:18 On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:17:51 -0400, "BobS" <no-spam(a)noplace.com> wrote: > >But since you brought it up, can you tell us what experience you have >with DSLRs such as make and model. That way, one could better judge how >up to date your views are and how broad your experience level is with >various makes. I could, but that wouldn't matter. The problem is in their design. All of them. Problems that do not exist on any P&S cameras. Dependent on having to change lenses in situations where you must have a wide-range of focal-lengths, causing missed shots, getting dust and condensation on the sensor. Or even worse, when the camera is below freezing temperatures and when temporarily going indoors will cause the condensation to freeze the camera into a lump of uselessness. No high-speed flash sync without having to resort to special flash units that do not really compensate for the focal-plane shutters' slow speed of travel, it only makes it possible to use flash with higher shutter speeds. It's not a cure, only a patch on a situation caused worse by the patch. Too shallow DOF for usable and useful available-light macro-photography. Etc., etc., etc., etc.... The list of drawbacks caused by the DSLR design is long. Not worth posting again here. This thread was to try to find out why the DSLR-Trolls and others slam equipment and things that they have zero first-hand knowledge about, and then try to act like they are in any way, shape or form, some kind of authority on the subject. They buy one DSLR camera, don't even learn how to use it properly, and then think they have the expertise to comment on every camera ever made. Even worse, are those role-playing trolls who only download camera manuals, never having touched a real camera (i.e. "nospam", "SMS", "Wolfgang", "George Kerby", "RichA", etc., etc.), and then try to appear as if they know the least bit about photography at all. If nothing else, at least making them aware that everyone who sees their posts can easily discern that that's exactly what they are doing. They are labeling their own selves as psychotic trolls just with their own posts. Anyone who has used the cameras and equipment that they haven't used can easily and clearly see that.
From: Mike Russell on 27 Oct 2009 01:38 On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:18:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser wrote: > Problems that do not exist on any P&S cameras. Want to know one problem that doesn't exist with DSLR's: *you*. -- Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
From: Mike Russell on 27 Oct 2009 01:43
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:27:13 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser wrote: > I'd wonder how many of those DSLR psychotics would reply, never realizing You got me good, I gotta admit. With that. I'm out for now - back in a few months when hopefully you turn your energies some other direction, and something resembling a discussion is possible. I tried. -- Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com |