Prev: A little nostalgia this morning thinking of old dad
Next: There's an app for that: NNTP news reader for Android
From: David J Taylor on 8 Jul 2010 02:29
"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> In article <vfo936l9trq00loh7lfla87fl1iiekab30(a)4ax.com>, John Navas
>> <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> >Even at base ISO, there will be either visible noise or the visible
>>> >smudging effects of noise reduction. There will be serious levels of
>>> >rectilinear distortion and chromatic aberration thanks to the desire
>>> >of the marketing department for ever greater zoom rations.
>>> >The Laws of Physics dictate that, ...
>>> Simply not true.
>> it is true, as has been shown to you countless times.
> Come on guys. Let's have another old fashioned pissing contest.
Little point in trying to educate those with a closed mind, Peter, however
bright they are.
From: Bruce on 8 Jul 2010 04:52
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:37:30 -0500, Jeff Jones
>That beats 100 ISO film all to hell. Considering too that in visual terms,
>3 megapixels was already proved to rival the images from 35mm Velvia many
You have a vivid imagination.
From: Jeff Jones on 8 Jul 2010 06:17
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:52:46 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:37:30 -0500, Jeff Jones
>>That beats 100 ISO film all to hell. Considering too that in visual terms,
>>3 megapixels was already proved to rival the images from 35mm Velvia many
>You have a vivid imagination.
You have a lack of intellect and lack of research.
Another case closed on a DSLR TROLL.
From: John Navas on 8 Jul 2010 09:44
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 07:29:52 +0100, in
<i13r91$rv6$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "David J Taylor"
>Little point in trying to educate those with a closed mind, Peter, however
>bright they are.
As we said as kids, "It takes one to know one."
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
From: John Navas on 8 Jul 2010 09:55
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:51:44 +0100, in
>On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 17:04:29 -0500, LOL! <lol(a)lol.org> wrote:
>>Then why do you demonize those that find smaller sensor cameras far far far
>>superior for the kinds of photography that they do?
>People who claim that small sensor cameras are "far far far superior"
>demonise themselves without any help from me. It just isn't true.
It actually is true for the kind of photography I and others do.
Else they would not be so popular and successful.
>Apart from macro work, where I agree that the much more extensive
>depth of field can be of value (it isn't always) the small sensor
>cameras have performance that is inferior in every single respect.
All that really says is that you don't know how to use them properly.
>We both know there are people who are prepared to accept low standards
>in return for cheapness and compactness and who are prepared to accept
>less control over their output through their laziness and ignorance.
>Once again, they demonise themselves without any help from me.
To insult them so much you must be very threatened by them.
>Unlike you, I am not a zealot who tries to convince others (and
>yourself) that my choices are the only ones available. I don't try to
>force my choices down other people's throats. That's probably because
>I sell my work and have successfully used a variety of equipment -
>small sensor cameras included - to generate an income.
What you actually do, as you've done here, is constantly bash compact
cameras and the people who use them. We don't bash you and your camera
(easy as that would be to do). Why can't you afford us the same respect
and courtesy? Are you really so insecure?
>It is important for people to realise the implications of the choices
It's actually important for people (especially you) to realize that
their own personal biases and limitations do not apply to others.
>When people take a creative or technical interest in photography, the
>severe limitations of small sensor cameras come into play. The
>inability to control depth of field, except in close-up work, the
>appalling noise, even at base ISO, the appalling noise reduction that
>blurs detail, the over-sharpening that creates weird and undesirable
>effects, the chromatic aberration and severe distortion of cheap 30X
>zoom lenses, all of these aspects mean that small sensor cameras are
>severely crippled. Yes, someone with skill can work around some or
>all of these fundamental flaws and still produce a pleasant image, but
>only in a very restricted range of circumstances.
Total baloney that just shows you have no idea how to use such equipment
effectively, and that you presume to project your own limitations onto
>But what would you expect from a camera and lens combination that
>costs less than a quarter of the price of a pro zoom lens?
Price is irrelevant. All that matters is results.
>In photography, you don't always get what you paid for. But you
>almost never get what you didn't pay for. And small sensor cameras
>are a prime example of a collection of features that don't perform,
>because everything about them is so cheap.
Patently not true. You just don't know how to use such equipment
effectively. Others have no such limitations.
>But as I said above, they are good enough for the vast majority of
>camera owners who are lazy, ignorant, cheap or simply don't care.
By your insults you totally discredit your position.
"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman