Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > P&S CRAP nothing more now than marketing "contests" between makers

Reply
Thread Tools

P&S CRAP nothing more now than marketing "contests" between makers

 
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-08-2008
Disgusting. Look at the sensor size, then look at the pixel count.

Nikon P6000 camera boasts GPS and RAW -
specifications as supplied by Nikon:

Effective pixels: 13.5 million
Image sensor: 1/1.7-in. CCD; total pixels: approx. 13.93 million

Shooters, do yourself a favour, ignore this piece of junk, GET a DSLR,
a cheap, entry-level model like Canon's D1000, Olympus's E-420.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ransley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-08-2008
On Aug 7, 9:17*pm, Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Disgusting. *Look at the sensor size, then look at the pixel count.
>
> Nikon P6000 camera boasts GPS and RAW -
> * specifications as supplied by Nikon:
>
> Effective pixels: 13.5 million
> Image sensor: 1/1.7-in. CCD; total pixels: approx. 13.93 million
>
> Shooters, do yourself a favour, ignore this piece of junk, GET a DSLR,
> a cheap, entry-level model like Canon's D1000, Olympus's E-420.


Grow the f up and wait for a review. I bet you said this same crap at
7mp.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-08-2008
Rich wrote:
> Disgusting. Look at the sensor size, then look at the pixel count.
>
> Nikon P6000 camera boasts GPS and RAW -
> specifications as supplied by Nikon:
>
> Effective pixels: 13.5 million
> Image sensor: 1/1.7-in. CCD; total pixels: approx. 13.93 million
>
> Shooters, do yourself a favour, ignore this piece of junk, GET a DSLR,
> a cheap, entry-level model like Canon's D1000, Olympus's E-420.


This is true. It's all marketing of megapixels and zoom range. Actual
photo quality is irrelevant, as are other important features.
 
Reply With Quote
 
ransley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-08-2008
On Aug 7, 10:28*pm, "Richard" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "ransley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Aug 7, 9:17 pm, Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > Disgusting. Look at the sensor size, then look at the pixel count.

>
> > Nikon P6000 camera boasts GPS and RAW -
> > specifications as supplied by Nikon:

>
> > Effective pixels: 13.5 million
> > Image sensor: 1/1.7-in. CCD; total pixels: approx. 13.93 million

>
> > Shooters, do yourself a favour, ignore this piece of junk, GET a DSLR,
> > a cheap, entry-level model like Canon's D1000, Olympus's E-420.
> >Grow the f up and wait for a review. I bet you said this same crap at
> >7mp.

>
> Why? *Do you think Nikon has figured out what no other makers have, how to
> bend physics?


Nikon just doesnt make crap, so wait and taste the milk before
shooting the cow.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Fred
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-08-2008
"Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote his usual crap
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

Did you wet your diaper again? Ah diddums.


 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2008
Richard wrote:
[]
> All current P&S's produce sub-par images. No major breakthrough has
> come from the sensors (I'd know long before the camera makers used
> them) therefore a review is a waste of time, unless other things than
> imaging quality matter as much to some people.


I would have thought that "par" was the average of what current cameras
produce.

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
ray
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2008
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:17:39 -0700, Rich wrote:

> Disgusting. Look at the sensor size, then look at the pixel count.
>
> Nikon P6000 camera boasts GPS and RAW -
> specifications as supplied by Nikon:
>
> Effective pixels: 13.5 million
> Image sensor: 1/1.7-in. CCD; total pixels: approx. 13.93 million
>
> Shooters, do yourself a favour, ignore this piece of junk, GET a DSLR, a
> cheap, entry-level model like Canon's D1000, Olympus's E-420.


I have a great idea! Since you seem to not like P&Ss, I suggest you don't
use one! Now you can stop your rants.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2008
On Aug 10, 10:30*am, ray <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:17:39 -0700, Rich wrote:
> > Disgusting. *Look at the sensor size, then look at the pixel count.

>
> > Nikon P6000 camera boasts GPS and RAW -
> > * specifications as supplied by Nikon:

>
> > Effective pixels: 13.5 million
> > Image sensor: 1/1.7-in. CCD; total pixels: approx. 13.93 million

>
> > Shooters, do yourself a favour, ignore this piece of junk, GET a DSLR, a
> > cheap, entry-level model like Canon's D1000, Olympus's E-420.

>
> I have a great idea! Since you seem to not like P&Ss, I suggest you don't
> use one! Now you can stop your rants.


So you are free to suggest P&S models for people to buy, but others
aren't free to point out why that's a bad idea?
Why is the image quality of a P&S any less important than its
portability, what colour it is, etc?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2008
On Aug 10, 2:24*am, "David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)-
this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
> Richard wrote:
>
> []
>
> > All current P&S's produce sub-par images. *No major breakthrough has
> > come from the sensors (I'd know long before the camera makers used
> > them) therefore a review is a waste of time, unless other things than
> > imaging quality matter as much to some people.

>
> I would have thought that "par" was the average of what current cameras
> produce.
>
> David


You're right. Par for P&S's would be like par for the weekend golfer
versus the pro.
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2008
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 13:36:18 -0700 (PDT), Rich <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Aug 10, 2:24*am, "David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)-
>this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>> Richard wrote:
>>
>> []
>>
>> > All current P&S's produce sub-par images. *No major breakthrough has
>> > come from the sensors (I'd know long before the camera makers used
>> > them) therefore a review is a waste of time, unless other things than
>> > imaging quality matter as much to some people.

>>
>> I would have thought that "par" was the average of what current cameras
>> produce.
>>
>> David

>
>You're right. Par for P&S's would be like par for the weekend golfer
>versus the pro.


Par is based on the individual course. While par is usually around 72
strokes for a "standard" 18-hole course, it does vary from course to
course.

Par is the same for both the pros and the weekend hackers on a given
course.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
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
Google Chrome - Crap or Crap?? Wog George Computer Support 4 01-04-2009 09:24 PM
Sorry I ment RE: 'Oh Crap! Oh Crap! Oh Crap! Recycle bin says are you sure you want to delete "windows". Help please!' Computer Support 2 01-23-2007 02:19 PM
'Oh Crap! Oh Crap! Oh Crap! Recycle bin says are you sure you want to delete "windows". Help please!' Computer Support 4 01-23-2007 02:07 PM
'Oh Crap! Oh Crap! Oh Crap! Recycle bin says are you sure you want to delete "windows". Help please!' Computer Support 0 01-23-2007 03:46 AM
P2P Software Makers now Liable. Tony NZ Computing 9 06-29-2005 07:37 AM



Advertisments