From: Joel Connor on 5 Jul 2010 16:11
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 15:39:27 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net>
>"John Navas" <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>> On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 08:08:02 +0100, in
>> <i0mnkj$j1f$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "David J Taylor"
>> <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>>"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> unless the dslr isn't in a bag and the compact is in a pocket. if
>>>> someone is on a shoot, they'd likely have the dslr out and ready.
>>>Better add the extra time pushing those P&S zoom-in and zoom-out buttons
>>>alternately to get the framing approximately right as well....
>> Sure, for those like you who don't know how to use them effectively
>> (and presume to characterize cameras they're never actually used).
>> But no problem for those of us who do.
>Tell me, John, how do you use those pushbuttons "effectively" enough to come
>anywhere near the speed and accuracy of a manual zoom ring? Since I often
>use compact cameras as well as DSLRs, I would love to know the proper
It would be interesting to compare the list of names in this thread with
those posting in the thread about CF vs. SD cards, and those who hate more
compact SD cards because of their fat, uncoordinated, and fumbling fingers.
Much could be discovered by doing so.
From: Neil Harrington on 5 Jul 2010 16:18
"John McWilliams" <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> nospam wrote:
>> In article <jqp336pm2j077tides4a13jl308lgrcohm(a)4ax.com>, John Navas
>> <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>> none of that mattered to him. he called it a pejorative, which meant
>>>>> 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.
>> wrong, no matter how hard you try to rationalize it.
>> you must be really threatened.
>> b&h photo, one of the largest if not *the* largest worldwide seller of
>> photo equipment, classifies digital cameras into three categories,
>> point & shoot, slr and mirrorless system cameras for the latest large
>> sensor compacts, a category that didn't exist until recently.
>> olympus calls their own cameras 'feature rich point and shoot cameras.'
>> it's hardly pejorative when the maker themselves use the term.
> You're right, but it's perjorative to John. I've been writing "compact"
> for a while. It doesn't hurt.
I agree. It's unfortunate that someone writing advertising copy for Olympus
uses the term "point-and-shoot," but I suppose that just shows yet again how
terminology misusage becomes popular and then practically standard usage
through the magic of the Internet and especially Usenet, where I suspect
most such misusage originates.
After all, the term "point-and-shoot" started with simple, auto-everything
35mm cameras which usually had no exposure controls at all, apart from
turning flash on or off and perhaps a +1.5 stop option for backlighting.
With such cameras "point and shoot" was appropriate since that was really
just about all the user could do.
Most compact and ultracompact digital cameras today offer far more exposure
options than most sophisticated 35mm cameras did a generation or so ago,
even if they do not provide direct user control over aperture and shutter
speed -- which are not very useful with such small-sensor cameras anyway.
The term "point-and-shoot" *is* pejorative and inappropriate for most
compact cameras today, IMO.
From: Ghetta Klew on 5 Jul 2010 17:16
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 15:51:22 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net>
>"John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>> On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 17:22:42 +0100, in
>> <i0no4k$bp0$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "David J Taylor"
>> <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>>"John Navas" <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>>> Your blaming of equipment for your own shortcomings is the problem.
>>>.. and just how does an objective measurement of zoom times using two
>> What objective measurement of zoom times?
>> The only thing that matters is how well _you_ can zoom a given lens.
>> I find the FZ28 zoom to be sufficiently fast and accurate for my needs.
>> You've never used it so you don't really know, but you guess it wouldn't
>> work well for you.
>I have the FZ35 which seems almost identical to the FZ28. I like the camera
>a lot, within its limitations, but it's just nonsensical to compare its
>zooming qualities with the ease, speed and accuracy of a manual zoom lens on
>The only compact digital cameras I own that have really nice handling zooms
>are those in the old Minolta DiMAGE 7 family (and similar, e.g. A200). And
>that's because they have manual zoom lenses.
These damn new autymobiles! If only they drove like my horse & buggy! At
least I can keep going by just feeding the horse some grass on the side of
the road. I'm never stranded due to having to find a petrel station before
I run out. And what's with those new-fangled rubbery wheels they have? You
run over a sharp rock and can't patch it, you're stranded again!
Just because you're too feeble and set in your ways to learn and adapt to
new methods doesn't mean that the new ways are the problem.
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 5 Jul 2010 17:19
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 13:02:37 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote:
<more deranged imaginings from a pretend-photographer troll successfully
From: SMS on 5 Jul 2010 17:30
On 05/07/10 1:18 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
> I agree. It's unfortunate that someone writing advertising copy for Olympus
> uses the term "point-and-shoot," but I suppose that just shows yet again how
> terminology misusage becomes popular and then practically standard usage
> through the magic of the Internet and especially Usenet, where I suspect
> most such misusage originates.
It's not "unfortunate" it's what some marketing manager at Olympus
believed would be the best in terms of generating sales. They a) don't
want to scare off buyers that previously owned a non-ultra zoom, and b)
don't want buyers that are expecting the functionality and performance
of a D-SLR to mistakenly believe that the ultra-zooms are a D-SLR
> The term "point-and-shoot" *is* pejorative and inappropriate for most
> compact cameras today, IMO.
Perhaps, but the goal here is to sell more cameras. There is a belief by
many consumers that D-SLRs are too complicated (even though of course it
can be set for automatic everything if desired).