From: Alan Lichtenstein on
Bruce wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:55:27 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl(a)>
> wrote:
>>Bruce wrote:
>>>On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 12:57:13 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl(a)>
>>>>You wouldn't buy the camera anyway, because it's a compact dSLR. I
>>>>bought my wife an Olympus SP590-UZ, and it has only one slot.
>>>The Olympus SP590-UZ is **NOT** a DSLR.
>>Olympus characterizes the camera as simply a digital camera. Since it
>>has virtually all the features of an SLR, adding that designation, as
>>per the quote below hardly seems out of place. I won't split hairs
>>with you. If you want to simply call it a compact SLR, or simply an
>>Advanced Compact, as the literature appears to indicate. that's fine
>>with me. However, you should be aware that these cameras have a good
>>number of the features that full size DSLR's have. I won't get involved
>>in a discussion designed to split hairs regarding the nomenclature
>>designation, because that's a pointless discussion which centers on
> It isn't a reflex camera. It has no reflex mirror, and no reflex
> viewfinder.
> It is therefore not - by any stretch of anyone's imagination - an SLR.
> This isn't just semantics. It is about the fundamental principle of
> what type of camera it is. No matter how many times you claim that it
> is an SLR (single lens reflex) camera, it is *not* and never will be.
> You're showing your ignorance, and you know it. Don't!
You're right. I spoke too hastily.
From: ray on
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 10:42:29 -0700, John Navas wrote:

> On 6 Jul 2010 17:17:47 GMT, in <89h6prF852U29(a)>, ray
> <ray(a)> wrote:
>>On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:32:56 -0700, John Navas wrote:
>>> Documenting, releasing, and supporting specs *increases* costs.
>>Perhaps you could explain that to me. specs HAVE to be documented.
> There's a big difference between internal documentation and external
> documentation.

For putting the information out, why does there need to be?

>>Releasing involves publishing on a web page - for which the return is
>>less that you have to develop.
> Releasing involves quality control and legal costs.

Doesn't need to: "Here is a copy of our internal documentation - use at
your own risk and discretion."

> Then there are support costs, usually the biggest costs of all. The
> lower the documentation and release investments, the greater the support
> costs tend to be.
> I speak from actual experience -- it's not cheap.

From: ray on
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 16:14:24 -0400, krishnananda wrote:

> In article <89gu75F852U27(a)>, ray <ray(a)>
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:27:43 -0400, krishnananda wrote:
>> > In article <i0v17o$pee$1(a)qmul>,
>> > "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "ray" <ray(a)> wrote in message
>> >> news:89f1q4F852U22(a)
>> >> > On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 21:43:15 +0200, Ofnuts wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > See other reply. Canon makes things other than cameras - e.g.
>> >> > printers. Until they show a little Linux support, I prefer to
>> >> > ignore all their offerings. I don't expect you or anyone else to
>> >> > be with me - but that is my reason.
>> >>
>> >> I can almost understand your stance, it's similar to some friends I
>> >> have that are vegetarian and refuse to go in to McDonalds .
>> >>
>> >> But I'm curious about one thing is it that Canon OS doesn't support
>> >> Linux or is it that Linux don't support Canon ?
>> >
>> > Perhaps users of FreeBSD, OpenSolaris, NetBSD, and other *server*
>> > operating systems should also boycott Canon, Nikon, and other vendors
>> > of *consumer-level* software?
>> >
>> > For the 5 people using Linux as their desktop OS, well Linux itself
>> > was always roll your own. Don't like Canon? Write your own software.
>> Folk have indeed written software to handle, for example, Canon raw
>> file types. What they can't do is write software for 'winprinters' and
>> other Canon products - at least without proper documentation.
>> No comment on your ignorance about number of Linux users.
> Oh, my mistake. The _6_ people who use Linux as a desktop etc. etc.
> Canon won't even release their latest RAW file specs to Adobe let alone
> the innards of something called a "WIN-printer". I'll go out on a limb
> and guess that there will never be a Mac driver for a WINprinter and I
> don't care. I don't find it necessary to boycott Canon or whine
> interminably about how everyone picks on my computer's operating system.

Not whining at all. Also not trying to convert anyone. I was asked why I
eschew Canon and I replied - no more, no less.

> Get over it. Their legal department probably had mass apoplexy at the
> thought of all those pissed off Linux users suing Canon over some
> teenager's "open source" software that is supposed to work perfectly on
> all computers and all Canon devices but crashes instead.
> Remember, the corollary to free software is the deep-pockets rule of
> lawsuits.

I'm not asking that Canon develop Linux drivers - simply allow others to
write them. They don't, so I don't.
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on
Alan Lichtenstein <arl(a)> wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> <f8e236ltmp1dj2pcb9t24bd4kf2uq37bp5(a)>, tony cooper

>>>Based on your recent exchanges about cameras, you are only qualified
>>>to offer an opinion about the exact make and model camera that you
>>>own. You should not make recommendations for "any camera".

>> It does, as should be clear if you actually read what I write,
>> instead of dashing off a silly off-point response.

> He may have a point.

Irrelevant, Navas insists that others only talk about the
very cameras they own --- or worse, he's basing comments on
his personal camera and only those who have that very camera
(not just the same model) may object.

So we now hold him to his own standards

> San Disk Extreme Pro is rated at 90 mb/s. Whether you see a difference
> may indeed depend on whether or not your camera's buffer can react that
> fast.

The buffer is RAM and is much faster than 90MB/s. The question
is if the interface to the card is up to those speeds.

From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on
nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <nbm6g7-ua5.ln1(a)>, Wolfgang
> Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02(a)> wrote:

>> Except for the read-only tab (which is of little use in
>> cameras) there is nothing an SD card can do better, and lots
>> it can do worse. Try handling SD cards in thick gloves, just
>> for fun.

> sd cards are immune to bent pins since there aren't any pins to bend in
> either the card or the card cage.

SD cards are not immune to bad contacts.
There are tiny springs in the SD card slot ... if they go bad,
you loose the slot completely. If a CF cards springs go bad,
use a different CF card and all is well.

> yea i know, you've been using cf for
> decades and never had a bent pin.

I also don't ram in CF cards sidewise and pound them in with
a hammer.

> go ask a camera repair shop how often
> it occurs. it's funny how the first thing they do when a customer has a
> problem with a camera is look into the slot. you don't see them doing
> that with sd.

No, with SD card the first thing they check is testing the
device with the proper SDxx-variant and size of the week.
I've had enough devices that can only eat plain SD up to 1GB
or maybe 2GB. The only problem I ever ran into too large CF
cards were that the card got reformatted to a smaller size
in the offending camera.

> sd cards are more resistant to moisture than cf since there are no
> holes along the bottom.

You aren't supposed to put them in the washing machine
without their protective shells. The same goes for CF. And
I'd like a source for your claim.

> sd card cages are physically smaller which means smaller and lighter
> cameras (which a lot of people want)

High-End DSLRs are not small and light for good reasons.

> or more room for other stuff in a
> same size camera (which other people prefer).

So SD cards get used in point&shoot and ultracompacts.

> they're also less
> expensive which means the cameras can be less expensive as well (or the
> same price with more features).

Please provide a source for that claim.

> sd cards are vastly more popular, which means prices are lower,
> especially when they go on sale. i rarely see cf cards on sale, but i
> often see sd cards practically given away for free.

Sure, 1 GB SD cards. Try to get 64 GB or larger SDxxs.
Especially for large card sizes or high speeds, CF is
cheaper ... and SDxx cannot match them in size or speed at
the high end, either.