Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > compact vs slr

Reply
Thread Tools

compact vs slr

 
 
frederick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2007
A.Neuman wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:16:07 +1200, frederick <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> A.Neuman wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:34:55 +0200, Populares <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Large repost but try to do a portrait with comapct.
>>> Thanks for this reply. It proves I am dealing with a moron who can't even read,
>>> much less comprehend what was just told to him. There's no sense in trying to
>>> have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, it just wouldn't be fair to
>>> either party.
>>>

>> You would do yourself a favour by reading some of the posts
>>from more experienced people posting to these forums, or
>> finding another source of reliable information and studying
>> it. You are 100% wrong.

>
> I refer you to this comment:
>
>> Don't let the prolific posters who are only trying to justify why they
>> wasted so much money on their dSLR systems try to fool you with
>> their red-herring run-arounds.

>
> If even 7 billion people are running like chickens with their heads cut off
> believing, doing, and telling others a foolish thing it REMAINS a foolish thing.
>
> It's nice to see how easily you are manipulated by them to join their mindless
> ranks.



You do realise that such a strong belief that you are right
and everyone else is wrong is symptomatic of a mental disorder?
See a psychiatrist - but do it quick before scientologists
and others from tin hat brigades pounce on you.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
A.Neuman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2007
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:27:49 +1200, frederick <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>A.Neuman wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:16:07 +1200, frederick <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> A.Neuman wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:34:55 +0200, Populares <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Large repost but try to do a portrait with comapct.
>>>> Thanks for this reply. It proves I am dealing with a moron who can't even read,
>>>> much less comprehend what was just told to him. There's no sense in trying to
>>>> have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, it just wouldn't be fair to
>>>> either party.
>>>>
>>> You would do yourself a favour by reading some of the posts
>>>from more experienced people posting to these forums, or
>>> finding another source of reliable information and studying
>>> it. You are 100% wrong.

>>
>> I refer you to this comment:
>>
>>> Don't let the prolific posters who are only trying to justify why they
>>> wasted so much money on their dSLR systems try to fool you with
>>> their red-herring run-arounds.

>>
>> If even 7 billion people are running like chickens with their heads cut off
>> believing, doing, and telling others a foolish thing it REMAINS a foolish thing.
>>
>> It's nice to see how easily you are manipulated by them to join their mindless
>> ranks.

>
>
>You do realise that such a strong belief that you are right
>and everyone else is wrong is symptomatic of a mental disorder?
>See a psychiatrist - but do it quick before scientologists
>and others from tin hat brigades pounce on you.


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/103/2...00e38976_o.jpg

OH NO! Shallow DOF from an inexpensive P&S camera?!? EEEK!!! It must be broken!
Quick! Get it repaired or the dSLR crowd will think you are insane!!

frederick, you now go in the ****ed-up-moron-filter.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2007
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:11:53 GMT, A.Neuman wrote:

>> You would do yourself a favour by reading some of the posts
> > from more experienced people posting to these forums, or
>> finding another source of reliable information and studying
>> it. You are 100% wrong.

>
> I refer you to this comment:
>
>> Don't let the prolific posters who are only trying to justify why they
>> wasted so much money on their dSLR systems try to fool you with
>> their red-herring run-arounds.

>
> If even 7 billion people are running like chickens with their heads
> cut off believing, doing, and telling others a foolish thing it
> REMAINS a foolish thing.


And that's also true if a single idiot runs around telling others
foolish things. You may not be an idiot, but you do a serviceable
job of playing one.


> The only 2 advantages to the dSLR are high-ISO capability and choice
> of prohibitively expensive lenses.
>
> (Which I find odd, because the very same lens designs and materials use
> to cost 1/10th or less of what they do today.


I find it odd that you find that odd, since when I bought my first
DSLR, gasoline could be bought for less than 25 cents per gallon.
Before that, Coke, Pepsi and other soft drinks could be bought for 5
or 10 cents per bottle. Prices change, but once an idiot, always an
idiot, I suppose.


> Some P&S cameras are just as good at high-ISOs. (dSLR score 0)


If by that you mean that the recent P&S cameras with the best high
ISO performance do as well as the recent DSLRs with the worst high
ISO performance, you're probably wrong. And the P&S with the best
high ISO performance has many limitations, such as no viewfinder
other than its LCD display. Score: DSLR 1, Idiot 0.


> The imagined dSLR hold on superiority is lame indeed. Add in
> the cost of a dSLR and the choice is a no-brainer -- except for
> the brainless of course.


Except that my DSLR cost less than many P&S cameras. Cheaper than
some even if you include a lens. And of course it used all of my
old lenses. The WA and TELE lens adapters bought for my P&S cameras
are unlikely to work properly with most new P&S cameras. They also
interfere with using the flash. Score: DSLR 2, Idiot 0. But of
course we can't really hold this against a lame, brainless sock
puppet. Especially one that's so clueless that he's immediately
recognized by his favorite motto "What, me worry?". And he
really has little to worry about, since he has earned a niche in :

the all new . . .

> **** CHDK / Photoline 32 / anti-DSLR Sock Puppet Troll List ****
>
> A.Neuman, Allan D., Baumbadier, BigBrother, Brad M, Bucky,
> CharleiD, CoffeeTalk, CoolGuy, Craig Stevens, D. Farmington,
> Dartagnon, DaveB, DOCJohnson, D-Rexter, Danny V., EdBancroft,
> DSLRs SUCK!, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed), FeastForThought, Fed-Up-With-Corel,
> FixItMan, FrankLM, Gaile S., GilfordBrimly, Glen Bankwood,
> GnomeAlaska, GoKiting, GreggAkin, GregoryH., Henry Hank, HatTrick,
> HokusPokus, IdiotDetector, ImpressMe, Jack Johnson, JoeBS, Lurk,
> John Kaiber, M. Goode, MoronDetector, NameHere, NameThere,
> New2_S3, (E-Mail Removed), OptionsRus, OTPolice, RealityCheck,
> ReplyingToStupid, Rob Akins, RockyZ, SayWhat, SelfImporantName,
> SelfImportantName, Siskel, SmartGuy, Soujourner, spamless, SpamAlert!,
> TryinToHelp, Wayne J.L., WillyWonka, X-Man and Yeti.


 
Reply With Quote
 
A.Neuman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2007
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 20:59:58 -0400, ASAAR <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

<desperate attention-seeking moronic drivel snipped>

Just another one for the "useless & mindless club" asswipe-filter.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Matalog
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2007

"A.Neuman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:40:06 -0700, Denis <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Can you get a compact as good as a SLR

>
> I presume you meant dSLR? If not, then you'll have to go back several
> years to
> revisit the digital vs. 35mm-film wars. Suffice to say that most digital
> cameras
> more than 5 megapixels today are capable of putting out images every bit
> as good
> as 35mm film, if not better.
>
> Now if you meant to say dSLR, then:
>
> Go to dpreview.com and check out their technical data of resolution test
> charts
> between P&S compacts and dSLR cameras of equivalent megapixels.
>
> The answer to your question is an easy yes.
>
> Most of them also have extra features that no dSLR can ever have,


Which?



features which
> more than makes up for any high-ISO quality that they might lack from
> smaller
> sensor sizes. Some of the Fuji P&S cameras excel in high-ISO settings
> rivaling
> many dSLR's only claims to superiority in that department


No they don't, not atall.


>
> The only 2 advantages to the dSLR are high-ISO capability and choice of
> prohibitively expensive lenses.


You seem to have forgot speed at which the camera processes the images, my
old fuji could manage a RAW file every 18 seconds (and it was a good fuji
cam) now my new DSLR manages 3 RAW's per second for 9 or 10 images in a row
(and it is the lowest of Canon's line). Also, not all lenses are expensive,
but most are better than super-zoom lenses of compact fame (and the fact
that you can get a lens to do what you want for anything you want goes a
long way). DSLR's also generally have a much bigger sensor, meaning that
you can take images at a higher ISO without as much noise as a compact and
you can acquire better images. Faster Frames Per Second, much longer
battery life, much more apertures available, an inconsiderable amount of
viewfinder quality difference (simply amazing on a DSLR), better menu
control and customisability all make DLSR's a mcuh better choice, for those
who can afford to take the step UP.


>
> (Which I find odd, because the very same lens designs and materials use to
> cost
> 1/10th or less of what they do today.


And so do houses, but what relevance dodes this have? (but 1/10th must be
going back at least 50 years, as far as lenses are concerned)

They charge whatever price that fools are
> willing to pay for them. Those are the same kind of people that think if
> two
> lenses are sold at $300 and another at $1500, the $1500 one *must* be the
> better
> lens.


Stupid, stupid.

Little do they know. They're the same kind of people who think that
> spending $700 on a graphic editor means it must be better than a $70
> editor.
> Again, living proof of "Fools and their money are soon parted.")


Quoting famous quotes doesn't that you know what you are talking about. Here
is definite proof of that!

>
> Super-zoom P&S = no need to change any lenses. (dSLR score balls)


and no good lenses


>
> Some P&S cameras are just as good at high-ISOs. (dSLR score balls)


some? Name "some" of them.


>
> The multitude of drawbacks to a dSLR are too long to list here.


The only drawbacks that exist are price and flash sync speed.


>
> The imagined dSLR hold on superiority is lame indeed.


Stupid.

Add in the cost of a dSLR
> and the choice is a no-brainer -- except for the brainless of course.



That would be YOU. Don't bother wasting your time and the time of others
that may read your stupid comments and you should accept the fact that
DSLR's are better, even if you can't afford one.




 
Reply With Quote
 
A.Neuman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2007
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 01:29:34 GMT, "Matalog" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>The only drawbacks that exist are price and flash sync speed.


You forgot some of them (but then clueless idiots are like that).

Noisy shutter and mirror that scares wildlife and alerts others
Slow flash sync at last century speeds
Dust on the sensor and mirror requiring servicing and extreme care
Ungainly weight and equipment needed to use one
Huge size making candid photography impossible
Focal-plane shutter symmetry distortions of anything that moves
No programmable exposure sequences
Overpriced lenses with less resolution than most P&S camera lenses
Needing 3 to 5 overpriced lenses to match just one P&S super-zoom
Exorbitant costs
Being denied access to events because of appearances
Outlandish repair costs and equipment downtimes
Huge shooting delays when changing lenses to find the right one
Condensation on the sensor and mirror when temps change
Easily scratched mirror
Short shutter and mirror mechanism life-span
No internal EVF so any live-preview LCD is washed out by lights
Inaccurate framing in the OVF
No DOF and Hyperfocal readings in OVF
No exact focal-length readings relayed to the user when using zoom
The wrong exposure readings if you don't block the OVF from stray light
Limited length burst modes with HUGE delays when writing to media
Black-bodies-only ensuring excess thermal absorption to increase noise
No video and audio recording capabilities

This list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on .....

 
Reply With Quote
 
Idiot Detector
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2007
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 20:59:58 -0400, ASAAR <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I find it odd that you find that odd, since when I bought my first
>DSLR, gasoline could be bought for less than 25 cents per gallon.
>Before that, Coke, Pepsi and other soft drinks could be bought for 5
>or 10 cents per bottle. Prices change, but once an idiot, always an
>idiot, I suppose.
>


You bought your first DSLR in the 1950's? Wow! I bet you even own a time-machine
to go with that tinfoil-cap of yours.

What the ****?!? Is this whole damned newsgroup filled to the brim with idiots
and morons? Sure seems that way. What a pity that someone had enough sympathy
and patience of the gods to show them how to use a computer and keyboard at one
time. Now we all suffer for it.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Matalog
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2007

"A.Neuman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 01:29:34 GMT, "Matalog" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>The only drawbacks that exist are price and flash sync speed.

>
> You forgot some of them (but then clueless idiots are like that)


Oh, wait, you seem to have just copied this from so many DSLR hating posts I
have read in the past.


..
>
> Noisy shutter and mirror that scares wildlife and alerts others


Do you really shoot wildlife shots? It doesn't scare them, more, grabs
their attention.

> Slow flash sync at last century speed


As I stated before.


> Dust on the sensor and mirror requiring servicing and extreme care


Extreme? Not quite.

> Ungainly weight and equipment needed to use one


No, unless you have a forearm deficiency

> Huge size making candid photography impossible


Don't be stupid, maybe you mean Hidden candid hotography or Voyeur?

> Focal-plane shutter symmetry distortions of anything that moves


Accepted since cavemen had DSLR's

> No programmable exposure sequences


Serious?

> Overpriced lenses with less resolution than most P&S camera lenses


Not true, by any means.

> Needing 3 to 5 overpriced lenses to match just one P&S super-zoom


Again, not true. You just haven't done any research, have you.

> Exorbitant costs


Which country do you live? And do you really know the meaning of
exorbitant?

> Being denied access to events because of appearances


Your definitely crazy, right? No, you may have just jumped on the band
wagon? Wait, I don't care.

> Outlandish repair costs and equipment downtimes


Outlandish? Who made this original list that you creeps keep copying?

> Huge shooting delays when changing lenses to find the right one


Yes, HUGE. Maybe if you happen to lose all dexterity.

> Condensation on the sensor and mirror when temps change


Possible. But then, how quick can you drive to the north pole?

> Easily scratched mirror


If you are stupid enough to probe inside with hard objects.

> Short shutter and mirror mechanism life-span


Short? How do you know this? If you happen to believe this, why do you
mystifingly fail to believe what any DSLR user will telll you, that DSLR's
are much better.

> No internal EVF so any live-preview LCD is washed out by lights


What lights are you talking about?

> Inaccurate framing in the OVF


After one photo you can tell the difference, if any.

> No DOF and Hyperfocal readings in OVF


What does the depth of field preview button do then?

> No exact focal-length readings relayed to the user when using zoom


For non 35mm CCD cameras only, easily worked out if you have the WIT to do
so.


> The wrong exposure readings if you don't block the OVF from stray light


Do you know what stray light means?

> Limited length burst modes with HUGE delays when writing to media


Are you trying to tell me that compacts have better writing times with the
same file sizes?


> Black-bodies-only ensuring excess thermal absorption to increase noise


So, there only exists black DSLR's?

> No video and audio recording capabilities


And it's such a shame. No, wait, we are talking about a still camera, not a
video camera or a dictaphone.


>
> This list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on .....



No, it doesn't, the list didn't even go...








>



 
Reply With Quote
 
acl
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2007
On Aug 26, 5:45 am, Idiot Detector <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> What the ****?!? Is this whole damned newsgroup filled to the brim with idiots
> and morons?


Yep: like the rest of the world

 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2007
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 01:45:53 GMT, Idiot Detector wrote:

>> I find it odd that you find that odd, since when I bought my first
>> DSLR, gasoline could be bought for less than 25 cents per gallon.
>> Before that, Coke, Pepsi and other soft drinks could be bought for 5
>> or 10 cents per bottle. Prices change, but once an idiot, always an
>> idiot, I suppose.

>
> You bought your first DSLR in the 1950's? Wow! I bet you even own a
> time-machine to go with that tinfoil-cap of yours.


Nope. Seems like the challenged sock puppets don't know much
about prices over the years. The "DSLR" was a typo. It was
actually a Nikon F SLR bought in the early 60's. Less than 10 years
later I found a gas station in Pittsburgh selling gasoline for 22.9
cents/gallon, but most prices were several cents higher, up to the
mid 30's.


> What the ****?!? Is this whole damned newsgroup filled to the brim
> with idiots and morons? Sure seems that way.


You're right for a change, but it only seems that way. There's
really not a lot of idiots and morons, since it only takes an idiot
or two to create the many of sock puppets.

Q. How many sock puppets does it take to create a reply?
A. None. It's the pathetic anonymous troll invisibly pulling the
strings that's responsible for the mounds of drivel.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SLR and not SLR Jul Digital Photography 18 02-07-2006 04:02 AM
SLR and SLR like cameras alertjean@rediffmail.com Digital Photography 9 08-31-2005 06:19 AM
Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n and DCS Pro SLR/c digital SLRs have been discontinued... Newsgroups Digital Photography 2 06-01-2005 03:08 PM
Digital Photography RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr vs rec.photo.digital.slr-systems? Lionel Digital Photography 16 09-17-2004 12:48 PM
Canon wins Award for Best Professional D-SLR, best Prosumer D-SLR (EOS 1Ds, EOS-10D) George Preddy Digital Photography 3 05-24-2004 03:29 AM



Advertisments