I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Immigration: The shocking truth about the immigrants who openedthe floodgates
Next: The real cost of being sued by Getty
From: nospam on 28 Oct 2009 11:28 In article <p5lge51pl9heqk3jk204e2kjhnu5obm6ct(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >What I find unpalatable is dishonesty, and your dishonesty here is in > >suggesting that all dSLRs are "too expensive" while offering $400 P&S > >alternatives ... which costs just as much as a basic dSLR today. > > Nope. As I detailed recently here, the price point for even a basic, > much less capable dSLR alternative is well over $1,000, with even the > $3,000 level still not measuring up. nonsense, no matter how many times you repeat it.
From: -hh on 28 Oct 2009 13:01 John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > -hh <recscuba_goo...(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: > >John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> Are you so threatened by better and more capable compact digital > >> cameras that you're only willing to focus on the poorer ones? > > >What I find unpalatable is dishonesty, and your dishonesty here is in > >suggesting that all dSLRs are "too expensive" while offering $400 P&S > >alternatives ... which costs just as much as a basic dSLR today. > > Nope. As I detailed recently here, the price point for even a basic, > much less capable dSLR alternative is well over $1,000, with even the > $3,000 level still not measuring up. The fact remains that dSLRs prices start at $400. Of course they don't have a direct 'SuperZoom' focal capability at this price point (which you & the troll worship), for which you try to jack up the price. The fallacy with your approach is that they uncertainly do have other characteristics that are recognized as advantageous which your P&Ss lack, for which you've not given them an ounce of credit ... all you've done is to try to deny and trivialize that these characteristics exist. The fact remains that there is no single product that is best at everything, and an informed consumer will make a reasoned trade-off determination based on their needs. You can offer your personal *opinon* as to how you prioritize these various capabilities, but that's just your opinion...its ultimately always up to the person who's opening up his wallet to decide for himself. > >> FYI, while Class 6 is the fastest official class, that speed is _much_ > >> less than the performance of the Extreme III. > > >Nevertheless, there was no perceptable improvement in I/O with the > >Class 6 card versus the completely unrated card that the camera > >shipped with. This suggests that the I/O bottleneck isn't from the > >card's rating. > > If so, then the particular camera (your choice) is the problem, not the > class of camera. Choose a better one. But when the specific camera is representative of the entire class, then the generalization can ... and should ... be made. So please do try to proving that this generalization is wrong by citing a reasonable number of P&S's that are clearly in the same features and price segment as the A590 IS that have a demonstrably higher I/O rate (by benchmarks, consider this to be 2x to 3x higher) than what I reported observing. > (In the interests of a better Usenet, I'm simply ignoring your childish > and rude personal attacks.) Sure you aren't. This is YA Navas Ad Homenium "Shoot the Messenger" attempt as a means of trying to distract readers from how you're consistently avoiding taking responsibility for what you've written. -hh
From: -hh on 28 Oct 2009 13:10 The cowardly troll writes: > .. > I'd hate to see -hh's photography. At least I'm willing to show mine. What's your lame excuse? -hh
From: John Navas on 28 Oct 2009 14:06 On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:01:43 -0700 (PDT), -hh <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote in <5b20e682-f171-418a-8260-68d56ca2f6d5(a)g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>: >John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> Nope. �As I detailed recently here, the price point for even a basic, >> much less capable dSLR alternative is well over $1,000, with even the >> $3,000 level still not measuring up. > >The fact remains that dSLRs prices start at $400. Nope. >> If so, then the particular camera (your choice) is the problem, not the >> class of camera. �Choose a better one. > >But when the specific camera is representative of the entire class, >then the generalization can ... and should ... be made. It's not. (In the interests of a better Usenet, I'm ignoring your ongoing personal attacks.) -- Best regards, 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: -hh on 28 Oct 2009 16:43
The cowardly troll writes: > -hh writes: > > The cowardly troll writes: > >> .. > >> I'd hate to see -hh's photography. > > >At least I'm willing to show mine. > >What's your lame excuse? > > I've shown my photography plenty of times. Cite, please. BTW, do be sure to specifically include where you've previously also provided the URLs of those professional websites that you claimed to have once had, but have claimed to have shut down. > When I do it shuts up people like you ... Well then here's your opportunity to try. All you have to do is to follow up on your lame, idle threats of bravado. My posting history does actually show that I have "manned up" and apologized when I've been convinced that I've been wrong. It hasn't happened too often, but it has happened. > Every P&S shot that I've posted ... ....totals all bravado with zero credibility then they lack live links to images that still have their EXIF intact. > Probably run away screaming, vowing to never read this > newsgroup again. Hmm... now there's an idea. > Nah, they're not deserving ... But of course you'll bail out, for the real reason that you don't have anything to show. Naturally, for you to try to make it seem like others aren't "worthy" is just a very predictable gambit by which you to try to save face for having nothing. > You're as slow with what's really going on as you are about comprehending > how to use any camera at all. Not at all surprising. Actually, what's slow is your comprehension that you're very easily set up. For example, you just might want to go check back on the very website that you cited for read/write speeds to see if it lists the I/O performance of Canon OEM-bundled SD cards, because it is thus quite possible that your own citation discredits your "what if the OEM didn't provide a cheap card?" defense. Let us all know if you've already forgotten the URL you provided...its easy to repost it for you :-) -hh |