How to tell a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a pro
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Winter is near
Next: CMOS sensors worthless for video?
From: nospam on 4 Jul 2010 12:56 In article <2010070411224616635-availableonrequest(a)aserverinvalid>, Pete <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: > >> You and many others are capable of getting adequate performance from > >> less well engineered products, > > > > Pejoratives again. > > I actually get excellent performance from very well engineered products. > > Interpreting "adequate performance" as a pejorative is just being > silly. you may have missed it when he played the pejorative card after someone called his camera a point and shoot. it was pointed out to him that pretty much everyone calls non-dslrs point and shoot cameras, including stores who sell them and even the manufacturers of the cameras themselves. it's common usage of the term. none of that mattered to him. he called it a pejorative, which meant it gave him an exit strategy. it's one of his usual tactics.
From: Pete on 5 Jul 2010 04:55 On 2010-07-04 17:56:25 +0100, nospam said: > Pete wrote: > >>>> You and many others are capable of getting adequate performance from >>>> less well engineered products, >>> >>> Pejoratives again. >>> I actually get excellent performance from very well engineered products. >> >> Interpreting "adequate performance" as a pejorative is just being >> silly. > > you may have missed it when he played the pejorative card after someone > called his camera a point and shoot. > > it was pointed out to him that pretty much everyone calls non-dslrs > point and shoot cameras, including stores who sell them and even the > manufacturers of the cameras themselves. it's common usage of the term. > > none of that mattered to him. he called it a pejorative, which meant it > gave him an exit strategy. it's one of his usual tactics. Thanks, I hadn't realized that. -- Pete
From: whisky-dave on 5 Jul 2010 08:56 "John Navas" <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:ortr26hgfvm6l2u3dgpjb4nd7o69nub6mn(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 14:01:24 +0100, in <i0knuu$58d$1(a)qmul>, "whisky-dave" > <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > >>"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message >>news:4c2cb9f6$0$22125$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >> >>>> BTW, there's a web site in the UK that lists the lag of many P&S >>>> cameras, "http://www.cameras.co.uk/html/shutter-lag-comparisons.cfm". >>> >>> Oops, hit send too soon. >>> >>> Also, Imaging Resource always prominently displays both the shutter lag >>> and the AF lag of the cameras they test. >> >>Do you happen to know the lag on a purely mechanical camera >>say a SLR from the 70s like my old Practica L or even my first truely >>'electronic' canon A1 . > > No. I say that with confidence, because he clearly doesn't know the lag > on *any* camera. What do you mean by the lag of a camera, don;t you realise there's many areas where lag can be accumulated. For me there are many areas of lag, one I eliminated wass by not usiong a lens cap when I was ready to take photos, another was focusing before I take the shot, rather than just before I take the shot.
From: John Navas on 5 Jul 2010 10:08 On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 13:56:03 +0100, in <i0skot$u67$1(a)qmul>, "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: >"John Navas" <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message >news:ortr26hgfvm6l2u3dgpjb4nd7o69nub6mn(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 14:01:24 +0100, in <i0knuu$58d$1(a)qmul>, "whisky-dave" >> <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: >> >>>"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message >>>news:4c2cb9f6$0$22125$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >>>> Also, Imaging Resource always prominently displays both the shutter lag >>>> and the AF lag of the cameras they test. >>> >>>Do you happen to know the lag on a purely mechanical camera >>>say a SLR from the 70s like my old Practica L or even my first truely >>>'electronic' canon A1 . >> >> No. I say that with confidence, because he clearly doesn't know the lag >> on *any* camera. > >What do you mean by the lag of a camera, don;t you realise there's many >areas where lag can be accumulated. For course. Much depends on how the camera is configured, and on the skill of the user. >For me there are many areas of lag, one I eliminated wass by not usiong a >lens cap when I was ready to take photos, another was focusing before I take >the shot, rather than just before I take the shot. Sure. I likewise configure my camera appropriately when shooting fast action, with settings I've stored in a custom configuration that can be set with a twist of the mode dial. That's Fast Focus mode for most cases, although I sometimes switch to Continuous Focus or Manual Focus (pre-focus) when it makes more sense to do so. This is the kind of thing known only to people who have actually used a given camera enough to know how to use it well. Those like Steven who rely only on what they read on the Internet are thus easily mistaken about the true capabilities of a camera, as is painfully obvious from all the mistakes he posts to Usenet. But even just a half-press of the shutter button in preparation for a shot will pre-focus any decent camera, avoiding any focus lag when the shot is taken, which even Steven should know, so there really is no excuse for his statements. -- John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: John Navas on 5 Jul 2010 10:10
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 09:55:41 +0100, in <20100705095541246-availableonrequest(a)aserverinvalid>, Pete <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >On 2010-07-04 17:56:25 +0100, nospam said: > >> Pete wrote: >> >>>>> You and many others are capable of getting adequate performance from >>>>> less well engineered products, >>>> >>>> Pejoratives again. >>>> I actually get excellent performance from very well engineered products. >>> >>> Interpreting "adequate performance" as a pejorative is just being >>> silly. >> >> you may have missed it when he played the pejorative card after someone >> called his camera a point and shoot. >> >> it was pointed out to him that pretty much everyone calls non-dslrs >> point and shoot cameras, including stores who sell them and even the >> manufacturers of the cameras themselves. it's common usage of the term. >> >> none of that mattered to him. he called it a pejorative, which meant it >> gave him an exit strategy. it's one of his usual tactics. > >Thanks, I hadn't realized that. "Point and shoot" is a pejorative when applied to high-end bridge cameras here, and "pretty much everyone" is a wild exaggeration, as I'm sure you know. -- John Old saying in litigation: When you have the facts on your side, pound on the facts. When the law is on your side, pound on the law. When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound on the table (and your opponent). |