Magazines, websites getting desperate
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: DanP on 4 Jul 2010 07:37 On Jul 4, 1:41 am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 16:23:52 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.pe...(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 I have bought my HTC G1 (Dream) without a contract for £150 and I top up my credit when it runs out. For the Canon SX100 I have paid £250. I admit I have paid top price for the SX100, SX120 costs £175 now. What differentiates between phones and P&S is IQ, a rather uncomfortable issue for the troll. DanP
From: tony cooper on 4 Jul 2010 08:27 On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 23:03:59 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >It has proved handy to have Skype available via WiFi approximately 4 >times when I didn't have my laptop nearby, when not at home. For what purpose? I use Skype to talk to my brother in Denmark. It's great when calling overseas at no charge. I make all US calls for free on my regular phone (Verizon). -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Robert Coe on 4 Jul 2010 09:06 On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 01:24:18 -0500, Rich <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote: : Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote in : news:21us26pf4a41ltp0onamtcfnrlv65dquk9(a)4ax.com: : > Rich, my daughter is 41 years old. When she moved out to get married, : > there was no such thing as a consumer-oriented digital camera. Does : > that affect your argument any? : : 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. Indeed, that's why my wife and I switched (although we surely would have anyway, sooner or later). It was infuriating to point your P&S at a grandchild in an interesting pose and come away with nothing remotely resembling the intended shot. My daughter's report on her latest Canon (which I've not yet seen) is that its shutter lag is a big improvement over its predecessors but still not perfect. She's very impressed by its low-light performance. A possibly crucial point is that her youngest kid is now four years old, so it's at least theoretically possible to get them all to hold still at the same time. Bob
From: Savageduck on 4 Jul 2010 09:14 On 2010-07-04 05:27:00 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said: > On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 23:03:59 -0700, Savageduck > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > >> It has proved handy to have Skype available via WiFi approximately 4 >> times when I didn't have my laptop nearby, when not at home. > > For what purpose? I use Skype to talk to my brother in Denmark. It's > great when calling overseas at no charge. I make all US calls for > free on my regular phone (Verizon). Mostly overseas calls. Strangely enough I have regular (some of them daily) conversations with friends & family using Skype in the UK, Spain, Brazil, South Africa, Australia, NZ, & Mauritius. I also use Skype for some of my domestic calls. The remainder of my US calls are made using Verizon. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Robert Coe on 4 Jul 2010 09:15
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:32:20 -0500, Outing Trolls is FUN! <otif(a)trollouters.org> wrote: : On 02 Jul 2010 05:25:38 GMT, Stuffed Crust <pizza(a)spam.shaftnet.org> wrote: : : >In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Barry <bfeinstein(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. Write this date down, folks! The Troll actually posted a sensible, witty statement. Do we dare to hope this will continue? Naaaah ... :^| Bob |