«

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:19:46 -0800, SMS, finding yet another field
to play "expert" wrote:

> I'm looking to upgrade from my Canon G6, which I love, to a digital SLR.
> But before I spend a lot of money, I wondered if there are any
> alternatives that would give me a longer zoom range, better images in
> low light, and faster response when I press the shutter release button.
>
> Mike in San Jose
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Mike, good questions. There are alternatives to a D-SLR that will give
> you a longer zoom range, namely the "super-zoom" point and shoot
> cameras. The new Canon PowerShot SX10 IS is one example of a super-zoom,
> with its 28-560mm lens. But I'm sure that you were aware of these
> cameras, so I assume that your concern is whether or not these
> super-zoom models solve the issues that you have with your G6 in terms
> of low light capability and response time. Unfortunately, they do not.
>
> If you want better low light performance you'll need to upgrade to a
> digital SLR. The much larger sensor of the digital SLR means larger
> pixels, which improve the low-light performance.

No, while a DSLR is a solution for *you*, it's not what Mike asked
for. Funny, isn't it, that soon after you got on this "DSLR Über
Alles" kick, a letter appears that gives you another opportunity to
spread your opinion du jour. Everything that Mike wanted is
available in Fuji's S100fs. Much wider zoom range, much better low
light performance, faster response when the shutter is pressed and
very good to excellent IQ, also besting the G6. If Canon made it you
almost certainly would have recommended it, especially since it uses
Li-Ion batteries, your personal "must have" feature. Eh, SMS?

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:46:28 -0800, John Navas wrote:

> reasoning with him is a waste of time. I know -- I tried. All I got
> for my trouble was to become another mission for him.

Oh, I know that all too well. A while back he was actively
pushing a custom list, ostensibly to be used to create an anti-troll
kill filter. Many trolls were included, but the main purpose really
seemed to be to include the critics that debunked SMS's bogus info.

George Kerby wrote:

> You have SO many friends and followers over there doncha?!?

Actually, while it's mildly amusing at alt.cellular.cingular, at least
the charter actually applies to that group. It's when he posts the
alt.cellular.cingular charter to groups that it doesn't apply to when
people attack him the most.

At least he's now limited his posts to the cellular group to repeatedly
spamming the charter and the nonsense about the Motorola travel charger.
He left the cellular groups in shame after he was proven wrong on a
plethora of subjects.

John Navas wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 14:47:47 -0500, Stephen Bishop
> <> wrote in
> <>:
>
>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 12:18:54 -0800, John Navas
>> <> wrote:
>
>>> Probably much the same answer as to the question, what the heck is so
>>> special about a compact digital camera that differing opinions about it
>>> can generate such angst among usenet users?
>> Nothing, at least from my point of view. I have nothing against
>> those cameras, as they have a place.
>
> Just like house [nword deleted].
>
>> [straw man argument deleted]

Still following the "mutilate the evidence" routine?
You've demonstrated that you aren't interested in discussing the pros
and cons of digital cameras, only that yours is magically the best.