Prev: Historical Center at night
Next: Forget Dpreview's B.S., "diplomatic language" NEX 16mm lens is not good
From: nospam on 2 Jul 2010 14:04
In article <379s269laiagl32do7qp0co9q0fvufs2t6(a)4ax.com>, John Navas
> >> Sorry, David, but your lack of ability to use power zoom effectively is
> >> no excuse for your disrespect of others who have no such limitations.
> >> I see you haven't changed, and that trying to have a constructive
> >> discussion with you is a waste of time and effort.
> >It's not me, John, it's you.
> Whatever you say, David.
you can't admit you're wrong, can you?
> That you lack the ability to use power zoom effectively when others
> don't have such limitations is a comment on you, not the technology.
and you lack the ability to use twist-ring zoom effectively when others
don't have such limitations is a comment on you, not the technology.
it works both ways.
> >I am happy to continue to discuss points with others, but I am unwilling
> >to continue responding to your personal attacks. It's a pity, because
> >you do sometimes have good points to make, but when your responses
> >continue to veer off topic and attack the person rather than the point, I,
> >and I suspect, many others, will simply turn off.
> Knock yourself out. I'm likewise quite tired of your mindless bashing
> of cameras you're never actually used.
and others are tired of your mindless bashing those who have different
needs and preferences and chose different cameras and lenses, while
pimping your beloved p&s.
From: Ted Banks on 2 Jul 2010 15:24
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 16:57:29 +0100, "David J Taylor"
>"John Navas" <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>> Sorry, David, but your lack of ability to use power zoom effectively is
>> no excuse for your disrespect of others who have no such limitations.
>> I see you haven't changed, and that trying to have a constructive
>> discussion with you is a waste of time and effort.
>> Best regards,
>It's not me, John, it's you. Look at the comments from other posters.
>For example, rather than discuss my point about the comparative speed of
>push-button and twist zoom, you have instead chosen to attack me. What
>use is that?
>I am happy to continue to discuss points with others, but I am unwilling
>to continue responding to your personal attacks. It's a pity, because
>you do sometimes have good points to make, but when your responses
>continue to veer off topic and attack the person rather than the point, I,
>and I suspect, many others, will simply turn off.
Why would anyone want to discuss these things with you? Since you lack the
skill to use any camera properly, and then INSIST that others can't just
because you can't, there's no winning with you. Don't you get that? I guess
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 3 Jul 2010 18:57
John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
> If discourtesy and disrespect are your idea of "reasoned discussion"
> then we must be speaking different languages.
He might be getting that idea from assuming you practice "reasoned
> I've done my best to be polite and respectful of you in this discussion,
No, you have not.
You've done your best to make unsubstantiated claims that your
camera can walk on water whereas it's sister models cannot.
Just for example, you insist that your 2-speed-zoom is as fast
as ring twist zoom. Are you prepared to post the time your zoom
takes from end to end --- measured, not invented time? Nope.
And you know why, because even at fast and inacurate speeds
your camera can't match any not grossly misdesigned ring twist
infinitely-many-speeds immediate-control zoom.
> your lack of ability to use the controls on my camera notwithstanding,
You really ask that we take over your body to get access to
your camera to use the controls of *your* camera?
Or are you just "polite and respectful" ad hominem?
> but your continued discourtesy and mischaracterizations are making that
> more and more difficult.
He disagrees with you and has valid arguments, which makes your
condescending attitude and incorrect statements more and more
difficult? Why do you continue on that course, then?
> "Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
> and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman
Well, Navas, you do have experience in beating ... do you
want to prove the first part?
"Many of the kinder souls here are throwing clues his way, but he seems
to have this weird idea that instead of catching them, he's supposed to
be hitting them back over the net." (Lionel)
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 3 Jul 2010 18:33
John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
> <4c2b52c7$0$22118$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS
[super zoom P&S]
> Actually works quite well up to ISO 400, decent at ISO 800,
> and the fast lens makes it comparable to twice the ISO in a dSLR.
By the same standards a DSLR is quite well at ISO 6400 and decent
at 12800 (underexpose RAW and push in post process if your camera
doesn't offer the settings).
So your decent at 800 and a fast lens comes to ISO 1600 in a
DSLR --- according to you --- and is beaten hands down. Oh,
you show me a 300mm f/2 lens or a 1200mm f/4 lens on a super
zoom P&S, just to prove your "fast lens" argument. Remember,
adapters don't count: you can mount them to DSLR lenses just as
well (and they work just as well).
>>lack of an optical viewfinder,
> Actually an advantage.
Especially if it's so dark your screen will blind you or when
the sun blanks out the screen. Add screen lag, sensor lag and
>>and compromise lenses are the
> Actually sensational, on par with prime non-zoom dSLR lenses.
(only badly scratched, decentered, misfocussing DSLR lenses
>>It gets worse if you have to start using lens
>>adapters on top of the already compromised lens.
> Actually works quite well.
Same as your ISO --- what you call quite well is best reserved
for special circumstances.
> "Being ignorant is not so much a shame,
> as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin
Yes, Navas, you are unwilling to learn.
Or are you learning to emulate the P&S troll?
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 3 Jul 2010 18:38
C.P Robbins <cprobbins(a)cprobbins3.org> wrote:
> Be honest now. Anyone can type: front back focusing problem dslr, into a
> google search and get MANY MILLIONS of hits. :-)
less than 100.000, according to google, and most of them from
sources like your post --- a mostly imaginary problem.
Try >P&S bad image quality<, which gets more hits.
> And that's only how many
> report the problem, not the total number of shots their phase-detection
> focusing actually ruined for them.
You don't understand how google works ... or you are a liar.