Picking Lice With The 70-200 VR2!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Review sites DESPERATE for SOMETHING to test
Next: Amazon and Apple, two vile companies probed for price fixing
From: Peter on 4 Aug 2010 13:27 "SneakyP" <48umofa02(a)WHITELISTONLYsneakemail.com> wrote in message news:Xns9DCA11A9FD0AC48umofa02sneakemailc(a)127.0.0.1... > > > In like fashion, a stereo system for the home was "audiophile" when the > tweeter did not "hiss" or the bass end sound mushy/boomy. Of course it > depended upon dividing the signal path into two or more units like > pre-amplifier to the amplifier connection, which could be in an > all-in-one unit on the cheaper sets. Not to mention speakers OMG -0 the > price range really does matter in that "you get what you pay for" in > that weakest link of the sound reproduction area. > > Let's say, a good accurate sound system investment for home enjoyment > would range anywhere from ten to 80 thousand dollars, to get even close > to "realistic" audio as meant to be heard from the sound studio's > perspective. It just gets out of hand, and the costs can be likened to > increased price brings decreased improvements. When I last wanted a new audio system I auditioned the speakers by listening to a known sound source, until I couldn't hear the difference. > > It's a camera forum, I know. The similarities in the cost of these two > hobbies are comparable, however, in that it's going to be "when does > this increase in quality end and at what price does it take to get > there?" > Similar principle, with an adjustment for growth. -- Peter
From: Peter on 4 Aug 2010 13:31 "otter" <bighorn_bill(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:81e22ec0-0a07-4eee-b72c-7110396cee3a(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... >Although that seems like a lot of money to most of us, for many people >it is not. If you look at what gets spent on cars, houses, boats, >motorcycles, etc., clearly many people could afford a $10K camera if >they really really wanted it. Don't be so sure. Many who spend a lot on overhead are spending over their head. -- Peter
From: Pete on 4 Aug 2010 13:42 On 2010-08-04 15:41:56 +0100, Superzooms Still Win said: > On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 15:20:48 +0100, Pete > <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: > >> On 2010-08-04 14:00:22 +0100, Superzooms Still Win said: >> >>> On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 05:40:13 -0700 (PDT), otter <bighorn_bill(a)hotmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Although that seems like a lot of money to most of us, for many people >>>> it is not. If you look at what gets spent on cars, houses, boats, >>>> motorcycles, etc., clearly many people could afford a $10K camera if >>>> they really really wanted it. >>> >>> "A fool and his money are soon parted." -- Thomas Tusser >>> >>> There's a sucker born every minute." -- P. T. Barnum >>> >>> The trouble with Larry/Rita's reasoning as an investment, is that now many >>> inexpensive superzoom and compact cameras for $350 or less easily rival any >>> images that come from such expensive gear based on last-century designs. >>> All that investment will become worthless. Doubling the value of the two >>> phrases above, now applicable to both seller and buyer. >>> >>> His/Her feeble attempts to try to increase the value of that gear for >>> resale on E-Bait by posting his/her sorry excuses for photos taken with it, >>> only making matters rapidly worse. Like I've always said, anyone using a >>> DSLR for any reason has never proved to be very intelligent. >> >> "Attempting to prove one's intelligence serves only to demonstrate a >> lack of it." -- Pete > > "Attempting to be witty without one lick of wisdom nor wit serves only to > demonstrate being less than a halfwit." -- Common Sense 101 I am less than a halfwit yet I'm able to realize that only less than a quarter-wit would not want the 70-200 VR2 with a full frame DSLR behind it, then go so far as to ridicule the kit and its owner. Playing with expensive toys is great. Cheap toys, like yourself, can also be fun to play with occasionally. -- Pete
From: Charles E Hardwidge on 4 Aug 2010 13:48 "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message news:4c59a411$0$5518$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... > "otter" <bighorn_bill(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:81e22ec0-0a07-4eee-b72c-7110396cee3a(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > >>Although that seems like a lot of money to most of us, for many people >>it is not. If you look at what gets spent on cars, houses, boats, >>motorcycles, etc., clearly many people could afford a $10K camera if >>they really really wanted it. > > Don't be so sure. > Many who spend a lot on overhead are spending over their head. I've found that to be broadly true. Many higher income types tend to have a bad hair day when economic conditions hit a downturn or they find themselves competing for jobs outside of their insulated niche. At the lower end a lot of those shiny pimped out muscle cars are an outward status symbol while the house is bare and other priorities are in perma-stasis. -- Charles E Hardwidge
From: George Kerby on 4 Aug 2010 14:30
On 8/4/10 11:20 AM, in article 4d4j56db8af3ltri0ehnohkv79n91d9c97(a)4ax.com, "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:15:56 -0500, George Kerby > <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 8/3/10 8:45 PM, in article nggh569tc4mkdbga87odtj5ui7sokmgqeg(a)4ax.com, >> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 13:02:48 -0700, Savageduck >>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2010-08-03 11:36:58 -0700, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> said: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 8/3/10 10:21 AM, in article >>>>> 2010080308215079149-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck" >>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2010-08-03 08:13:13 -0700, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> >>>>>> said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8/2/10 8:21 PM, in article >>>>>>> d9e7839f-2682-4eaf-bab0-fad5f2f66c2d(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com, >>>>>>> "Nervous >>>>>>> Nick" <nervous.nick(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Aug 2, 6:43�pm, Larry Thong <larry_th...(a)shitstring.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Baboons do it in the zoo, they even do it in the wild. �It must be a >>>>>>>>> fun >>>>>>>>> activity as it seems to be spreading. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Lice.jpg> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why did you choose to share this photo? Were you jonesing for a >>>>>>>> reason to use a double exclamation point? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just when we thought Rita was gaining control of the medications, he >>>>>>> veers >>>>>>> off again. Oh well... >>>>>> >>>>>> ...but all things considered it is not a bad candid capture, clearly >>>>>> >>>>>> demonstrating just how good the 70-200 f/2.8 can be. >>>>>> >>>>>> The baiting, tongue in cheek subject lines continue to be a groan. >>>>> >>>>> Not just a 'groan', a completely derailed train of thought that most >>>>> likely >>>>> came from the influence of mis-managed pharmaceuticals. >>>>> >>>>> Tell me, looking at that photograph, the thought of baboons picking lice >>>>> would be *your* primary choice for a cut line? >>>> >>>> No, but I understood the source of the metaphor she conjured up, and I >>>> have seen scenes where primate behavior evokes a certain easily >>>> anthropomorphized tender interaction. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thought not. Most normal folks as well. Maybe Rita speaks from personal >>>>> experiences? Dunno... >>>> >>>> Who knows? I never perceived any need for medication, only an >>>> underlying odd humor. >>>> Rita's subject lines have always been strangely provocative, and we all >>>> seem to get drawn in and tangled up, regardless of how strange, or >>>> however good, bad, corny, or in bad taste her images might be. >>>> I always thought the big mystery to be the obsession with high ticket >>>> equipment, and no apparent need for it. That, and the source of income >>>> to support what appears to nothing more than a hobby. I have yet to see >>>> anything from her of the same quality Bret has given us, or some of the >>>> work submitted to the SI (present company not included.) >>> >>> I have no problem with her subject lines. They are sometimes amusing. >>> I can't really see how they are at all harmful even to the >>> humor-impaired. >>> >>> Those who don't like Rita/Larry will find fault with anything. That's >>> their problem. >>> >>> His/her photographs run from barely adequate to reasonably good, and >>> "reasonably good" is better than many do. Certainly better than the >>> moths and vines that someone else seems to think are worth offering. >>> >>> It's a hobby, Duck. You don't have to be able to do National >>> Geographic level stuff to satisfy hobby urges. I don't understand why >>> people want to take away someone else's pleasure in pursuing their >>> hobby. >>> >>> Your curiosity about the money he/she spends on equipment is somewhat >>> naive. Go to any golf course and see if the golfers with the highest >>> priced equipment are the best golfers. Watch to see if the owners of >>> Corvettes and high-end BMWs and Mercedes are better drivers. Last >>> time I went scuba diving there was a guy on the charter boat with a >>> wrist computer that cost more than all of my equipment combined, and >>> he couldn't get down to bottom at 60 feet using an anchor line because >>> he held his breath and kept too much air in his BCD. He got back on >>> the boat and left his dive buddy to go alone. >> >> Obviously "Resort Trained". He needs to be certified by PADI or The Y. >> Someone on the boat should have asked for his card beforehand... > > He was certified. He couldn't have rented a tank from the dive shop > that owned the boat without being certified. Being certified doesn't > mean being comfortable diving. I didn't chat with the guy, but this > was probably his first dive below 30 feet and going down an anchor > line. Maybe even his first dive after his open water final dive for > certification. All of his equipment was new and expensive. I got both cards with certification in the late 80's. I don't know if it was a PADI or a Y requirement for a 60' open water dive, but I had to do so in a local lake and pass written exam before I got paper to get tanks filled. He clearly had no business having that card and leaving his buddy to go it alone, although he probably had a divemaster buddy up, I would think. When I was getting started, computers were just becoming popular, but we still had to do the tables. > > I don't know what the Y offers, but certification in this area is only > by PADI or NAUI. The classes may be at a YMCA pool, though. > >>> The attitude of every hobbyist is "More, and better, equipment will >>> make me better". >>> |