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: Peter on 8 Jul 2010 20:19 "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message news:4c361361$0$22131$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > On 08/07/10 10:55 AM, Bruce wrote: >> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:50:56 -0400, "Neil Harrington" >> <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >>> How is anything I said an "offensive put-down"? I just said I took the >>> FZ35 >>> because I thought it would be ideal for that situation. That's an >>> "offensive >>> put-down"? >>> >>> I think you are getting paranoid about this whole business, John. >> >> >> John Navas's problem is, and always has been, that his modest needs >> are completely satisfied by mediocre equipment. > > Nothing wrong with that actually, he's no different than most users of > digital camera equipment. > >> He simply cannot understand why some people need, or at least aspire >> to, something better. He gets irrationally angry when they point this >> out, then claims that his mediocre equipment is "excellent". > > Unfortunately his attitude extends to many other areas outside of digital > camera equipment as well. It would be one thing if anything he wrote was > grounded in reality and backed up by facts, but it rarely isn't. Instead > he feels compelled to reply to every post that points out the facts, even > when he has absolutely no knowledge of the subject being discussed. The > most amusing thing is when he posts references that completely contradict > what he's saying. > >> He has been doing it for years. No doubt he will be doing it many >> years hence. Arguing with him is pointless because his values are on >> an entirely different scale, one that peaks at "mediocre". > > Indeed, that's why a kill-file is the best solution. He thrives on the > attention he gets with his shtick. Interesting that Bruce mentions that. -- Peter
From: John Navas on 8 Jul 2010 20:20 On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:31:31 -0400, in <ldSdnSL_85LGcqjRnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >Of course. But they still are not parfocal or anywhere near it. My FZ35 >focuses very, very close at its shortest focal length. At other focal >lengths it does not focus closely at all, and since those other focal >lengths are generally better suited to close-up work than the extreme >wide-angle end, I have to use close-up lenses on it to do that sort of >thing. An advantage of the FZ35 over most other superzooms currently on the >market is that it has 46mm filter threads to accept such accessories, while >its competitors (that I've seen) do not. That is nice but still not as handy >as having a really close-focusing standard lens, such as Nikon's 18-55mm kit >lens. p.s. With what you've said here about macro and elsewhere about power zoom makes me wonder if you're likewise unfamiliar with the Tele-Zoom mode of your FZ35, which allows focusing down to 1 m at the tele end of the zoom range. -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: John Navas on 8 Jul 2010 20:25 On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 20:00:28 -0400, in <Bq6dneo6n904-6vRnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >"John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message >news:7p5c36tcvs50bg11vumc1dpr3as3f5eha5(a)4ax.com... >> We wouldn't want to miss an opportunity for pejorative bashing, now >> would we. You must be terribly insecure and threatened. > >Your continuing insistence that everyone you have any disagreement with must >be "insecure and threatened" is beginning to make you a bit of a bore, John. >Or is it projection? Do *you* feel insecure and threatened in these >discussions? I only object to bashing, pejoratives, and disparagement, which that clearly was. Cut those out and you'll get no objections from me. -- 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 8 Jul 2010 20:32 On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 20:17:38 -0400, in <4c366ae7$0$5491$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >"John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message >news:rivb36hvsa4pf8tkj2l8apm0danejbm9jc(a)4ax.com... > >> The kind of photography I do, where a single, easy to handle, superzoom >> meets my needs in ways no dSLR I know of can. I've posted many >> specifics here, and if you haven't seen them, then "Google is your >> friend." For example, when I'm shooting racing on the water, the >> handling advantages of the superzoom, the ability to easily protect it >> from the environment when not actually shooting, and the lack of need to >> change lenses, are overwhelming advantages that have allowed me to >> consistently get better images than dSLR pros working the same events. A >> case in point is the image I posted here recently of the start of the >> Clipper Round the World race. > >IMHO that was a really nice capture. Thank you. >One of the best horse racing shots I've seen was captured by a P&S. >If your camera does what you want, by all means use it. There is no reason >for you to change. However, that doesn't mean your camera would work for >others. There is also no reason to accuse anyone who finds your camera >inadaquate for their needs, of having a lack of artistic ability. I'm not. That only comes up when they claim some sort of universal disparaging truth, it doesn't work well for me so it's bad and won't work for others. If it won't work for you, and will work for someone else, then the other person must have an ability that you lack. >I have >consistently maintained that one can get great shots with less expensive >equipment. However, if my own style requires either lower noise at higher >ISO and/or the ability to work well with super low ISO, that doesn't make >your camera bad. Just mechanically unsuitable for what I like to do. Agreed. -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: John Navas on 8 Jul 2010 20:33
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 20:19:14 -0400, in <4c366b50$0$5551$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >> Indeed, that's why a kill-file is the best solution. He thrives on the >> attention he gets with his shtick. > >Interesting that Bruce mentions that. To Steven. Irony, thy name is Usenet. -- John "I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would affront your intelligence." [William F. Buckley, Jr] |