Magazines, websites getting desperate
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: tcroyer on 3 Jul 2010 20:09 "Robert Coe" <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote in message news:5gdq269bjofe8rtmk1dd9otbhfbflnpqna(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 15:10:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > : No new camera releases means fewer readers so they've taken to > : reviewing....P&S's!! First Dpreview with that 12 pieces of junk > : review and the Amateur Photographer wasting pages on a Fuji Superzoom > : with a TINY sensor (what else is new?). C'mon Nikon, Canon, Pentax, > : Sony, Oly-forget it, I forgot, Olympus bailed out of DSLRs. > > Rich, my daughter gets far better pictures with her P%Ses (a long line of > them: with three kids (4, 6, and 8) to keep up with, she tends to drop her > cameras a lot) than we've ever seen you get with whatever cameras you > favor. > My wife and I (and I guess most of the denizens of these newsgroups) have > permanently switched to DSLRs. But that doesn't mean that a decent P&S (of > which there are many) doesn't have its place. In many circumstances > they're > exactly the right choice. The P&S Troll (for example) keeps trying to > posit a > war between DSLR and P&S users, but it's useful to remember that he's > insane. > No such affliction has your good self in its grip, right? > > Bob I agree with Bob very much. At the risk of paraphrasing an old saw: "The best camera is the one you have with you when photo opportunity arises." I have a dSLR, a P&S, and a superzoom intermediate. To be sure, the dSLR will produce finer quality images and it has a great deal of capability that the other cameras don't have (especially with its additional lenses). But it's also expensive (I wouldn't put it at risk without a really good reason) and, with all its gear, is heavy. I use it when I can set up and when I can concentrate on subject and imaging (landscapes, portraits, and macro shots). The other two cameras act as "grab and go" cameras. I don't like to be with out a camera whereever I am, but I have to consider size and camera presence when I'm out. The P&S is almost a pocket camera; it doesn't intimidate anyone. The intermediate is a bit bigger, but it can, if called on, accommodate auxillary lenses to do long distance (albeit somewhat limited in quality), and, at the other focal end, macro shots. The latter two cameras allow me to explore and sample a lot of situations (including snapshots) that I can then re-shoot with the dSLR. All in all, I take a lot of shots with all three cameras. By the way, the dSLR is a Sony Alpha 380 (I seldom print any photo larger than 8 1/2 X 11); the intermediate is an Olympus SP550UZ bought on eBay, and the P&S is a Kodak Z915. By the way, if I had unlimited funds, I'd drop the Sony (as much as I like it) and move to a Mamiya DM40 or a Hasselblad HD4D-40. Years ago, I had a Mamiya M645 and I love the intermediate format. But my wife would crack me over head with it if I spent that kind of money on a camera (leaving me without either head or camers). I also have a Leica Z2X that gets considerable use.
From: tony cooper on 3 Jul 2010 20:41 On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 16:23:52 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.petre(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 2, 7:42�am, Vance <vance.l...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 1, 10:32�pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <o...(a)trollouters.org> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 02 Jul 2010 05:25:38 GMT, Stuffed Crust <pi...(a)spam.shaftnet.org> wrote: >> >> > >In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Barry <bfeinst...(a)spamblocked.com> wrote: >> > >> Why does it bother you so much that the majority of photographers, amateur >> > >> and pro, find P&S cameras more interesting, more capable, more >> > >> cost-effective, more portable, more adaptable, more publicly accepted, and >> > >> more important than DSLRs today? >> >> > >Bzzt, wrong. >> >> > >The majority of photographers now use cell phone cameras. �More >> > >cost-effective, portable, adaptable, and definitely more publically >> > >accepted. >> >> > >As you like to point out, sales figures don't lie. >> >> > > - Solomon >> >> > Counting the sales of cell-phones as cameras is like counting the sales of >> > microwave-ovens as clocks. >> >> A point for the Troll! �Always give credit where and when due. >> >> Vance > >But my phone cost me less than my P&S. Is that really correct? The cost of your phone was subsidized by the requirement to subscribe to a provider. The real cost of your phone is the amount you paid for the phone itself *plus* the monthly connect fees for the term of your contract. Your P&S was a one-time cost. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: John Navas on 3 Jul 2010 21:57 On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 20:41:21 -0400, in <m0mv26dqgsohl1hkoga5r55de2sn56ne7c(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 16:23:52 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.petre(a)gmail.com> >wrote: >>But my phone cost me less than my P&S. > >Is that really correct? The cost of your phone was subsidized by the >requirement to subscribe to a provider. The real cost of your phone >is the amount you paid for the phone itself *plus* the monthly connect >fees for the term of your contract. Your P&S was a one-time cost. But it's nonetheless a sunk cost, and the incremental cost of the camera is close to zero. That said, I paid $180 for my Android phone with no contract or subsidy, considerably more for my compact digital camera. -- 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: John Navas on 3 Jul 2010 21:59 On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 20:09:58 -0400, in <V-KdnTeBFMbETLLRnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, "tcroyer" <tom(a)solidus-ts.com> wrote: >I agree with Bob very much. > >At the risk of paraphrasing an old saw: "The best camera is the one you have >with you when photo opportunity arises." Amen. -- Best regards, John "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you will see every problem as a nail." -Abraham Maslow
From: Peter on 3 Jul 2010 22:18
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:m0mv26dqgsohl1hkoga5r55de2sn56ne7c(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 16:23:52 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.petre(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>On Jul 2, 7:42 am, Vance <vance.l...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Jul 1, 10:32 pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <o...(a)trollouters.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > On 02 Jul 2010 05:25:38 GMT, Stuffed Crust <pi...(a)spam.shaftnet.org> >>> > wrote: >>> >>> > >In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Barry <bfeinst...(a)spamblocked.com> >>> > >wrote: >>> > >> Why does it bother you so much that the majority of photographers, >>> > >> amateur >>> > >> and pro, find P&S cameras more interesting, more capable, more >>> > >> cost-effective, more portable, more adaptable, more publicly >>> > >> accepted, and >>> > >> more important than DSLRs today? >>> >>> > >Bzzt, wrong. >>> >>> > >The majority of photographers now use cell phone cameras. More >>> > >cost-effective, portable, adaptable, and definitely more publically >>> > >accepted. >>> >>> > >As you like to point out, sales figures don't lie. >>> >>> > > - Solomon >>> >>> > Counting the sales of cell-phones as cameras is like counting the >>> > sales of >>> > microwave-ovens as clocks. >>> >>> A point for the Troll! Always give credit where and when due. >>> >>> Vance >> >>But my phone cost me less than my P&S. > > Is that really correct? The cost of your phone was subsidized by the > requirement to subscribe to a provider. The real cost of your phone > is the amount you paid for the phone itself *plus* the monthly connect > fees for the term of your contract. Your P&S was a one-time cost. > You would be correct if you were analyzing the total cost of telephone service, including the phone. to figure the true cost of just the phone, factor in the cost of the service, if no subsidy was given. In a supermarket are placement incentives income or a cost reduction. -- Peter |