Magazines, websites getting desperate
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: nospam on 4 Jul 2010 12:58 In article <lj91369eiig8qnm0tq4cc12rtfe9adravi(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >Sorry, it was long so I didn't read it carefully enough. But I should > >have. I congratulate your daughter on getting pictures of kids with her > >P&S's since it is without doubt the number one reason I've seen people > >use (who have kids) as to why they move to DSLRs, to take pictures of > >kids, in motion. > > Then they've been sold a bill of goods, because dSLRs are no more (and > arguably less) well suited to that then compact digitals. wrong. in many ways, they are much, much better.
From: nospam on 4 Jul 2010 13:00 In article <j6f136har93nto2e3jn3dhcud79urmqnbh(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >: Then they've been sold a bill of goods, because dSLRs are no more (and > >: arguably less) well suited to that then compact digitals. > > > >John, I believe you know a fair amount about a lot of things. But you > >couldn't > >be more wrong about that. > > In your opinion and style. Not in mine. if you stopped there, that would be fine. > Yes, I have used both a great > deal, and do have the experience to back that up. what makes you think he hasn't used both and lacks experience? > And it's a bit > arrogant to call somebody "wrong" just because they don't agree with > you. except that's exactly what you do.
From: John McWilliams on 4 Jul 2010 13:29 John Navas wrote: > And it's a bit arrogant to call somebody "wrong" just because they don't agree with you. Amen to that! May we all be so guided. Unless "we" are "Ray" and also throw in nasty words. -- john mcwilliams
From: tony cooper on 4 Jul 2010 13:31 On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 11:50:23 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: >On 7/4/2010 1:33 AM, tony cooper wrote: >> On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 21:33:17 -0700, nospam<nospam(a)nospam.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> In article<8i2036daaj5pqc78j3abbrpu1n9kjpuhje(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper >>> <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >>>>> That said, I paid $180 for my Android phone with no contract or subsidy, >>>>> considerably more for my compact digital camera. >>>> >>>> Your phone is no more than a paperweight if you do not have - and pay >>>> for - a carrier. You will pay someone something to use that phone. >>>> Every month. >>> >>> it depends on the phone. some are very functional without service, they >>> just can't make or receive calls. >> >> I would consider a phone that doesn't make or to receive calls to be >> somewhat limited in function. >>> >> Of course, my phone - an old Nokia - *only* receives and places calls. >> No camera, no internet connections, no gps. I don't think it has >> games, but I've never checked. Just checked. Nope, it doesn't. It >> sends texts, supposedly, but I've never done it. > >On this business of paying something every month, first, you should be >able to use it for 911 calls even if there is no paid up plan in place, >and second, there are prepaid phones where you pay x bucks up front and >you're good to go until you've used up X, with no monthly fees. But, even with a pre-paid system, you're still paying for the use of the phone. >I use the cell phone so seldom that I'm thinking about going that way. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: nospam on 4 Jul 2010 13:57
In article <o9h136hjnjh1896v50jsgtqvrknbglvfj6(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >On this business of paying something every month, first, you should be > >able to use it for 911 calls even if there is no paid up plan in place, > >and second, there are prepaid phones where you pay x bucks up front and > >you're good to go until you've used up X, with no monthly fees. > > But, even with a pre-paid system, you're still paying for the use of > the phone. but only for what you use, and smartphones are very functional without paying anything to anyone. |