Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Hardware Worship Religion

Reply
Thread Tools

Hardware Worship Religion

 
 
sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-28-2008
Time and time again I see post after post of someone arguing
that this or that camera - lens etc. is so much better than all the
others because of some specific technical difference.

That is all well and good, but how many consider that the
difference is usually meaningless to most users. Further they seldom
bother checking to see if there is any meaningful differences in real
world results. Meaningful means a difference that would be noticed in
the final intended use.

It seems to me it is only the final product that is important.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-28-2008
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Time and time again I see post after post of someone arguing
> that this or that camera - lens etc. is so much better than all the
> others because of some specific technical difference.
>
> That is all well and good, but how many consider that the
> difference is usually meaningless to most users. Further they seldom
> bother checking to see if there is any meaningful differences in real
> world results. Meaningful means a difference that would be noticed in
> the final intended use.
>
> It seems to me it is only the final product that is important.


So no-one is allowed to take a technical interest to increase their
understanding and discuss it here? Look at the threads where I've
commented about the relevancy or otherwise if viewing images at 1:1 on the
screen.

You obviously wouldn't approve of people whose interest in vintage cards,
because the cars aren't used for journeys!

Room for both, don't you think?

David

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Chris H
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-28-2008
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) writes
> Time and time again I see post after post of someone arguing
>that this or that camera - lens etc. is so much better than all the
>others because of some specific technical difference.


Not at all.. I like Nikon because God uses one
(that and the fact that Canon users are going to hell for being heretics
and in league with the devil.)

> That is all well and good, but how many consider that the
>difference is usually meaningless to most users. Further they seldom
>bother checking to see if there is any meaningful differences in real
>world results. Meaningful means a difference that would be noticed in
>the final intended use.


That's torn it... you have brought reality in to it!

You have to remember that there are people where who seem to have a far
higher colour and resolution perception than mere mortals.......



--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



 
Reply With Quote
 
RustY ©
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-28-2008

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> .......... meaningless to most users.


Too True.......




 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-28-2008
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:53:52 -0000, Alan Smithee wrote:

>>>The part I can't understand though (and the part I think you were
>>>referring
>>>to) is why some people get so defensive over certain brands. Mind you, I
>>>don't think there are many hardcore fanboys in here, just one hardcore P&S
>>>fan.

>
>> Thus displaying your own bias.

>
> On the contrary.


John (a moderately hardcore P&S camera user, IIRC) probably
thought you were referring to a real person. I assume that your
target was instead the sock puppet anti-DSLR troll, that's posted
mostly drivel under hundreds of different names by now. He may also
be overly sensitive to accusations of brand bias, as seen in some of
his recent comments aggressively defending MS and Norton products.

 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-28-2008
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 14:43:46 -0800, John Navas wrote:

>> John (a moderately hardcore P&S camera user, IIRC) probably
>> thought you were referring to a real person. I assume that your
>> target was instead the sock puppet anti-DSLR troll, that's posted
>> mostly drivel under hundreds of different names by now. He may also
>> be overly sensitive to accusations of brand bias, as seen in some of
>> his recent comments aggressively defending MS and Norton products.

>
> The display of bias is in accusing just the "P&S" side of the debate
> (using the term loosely) of being hardcore, as well as the use of the
> term itself. There is (too much) advocacy and bashing on both sides.
> It would be nice to have a truce, but it ain't gonna happen here.


If (as I suspect) Alan was referring to the troll, who is nothing
if not hardcore, then your "Thus displaying your own bias." reply
was unfortunate and wrong. But I agree that there's bias here, and
more often than not it's pro-DSLR / anti-P&S, and this group is
further divided into brand chauvinist fanatics, as opposed to the
larger numbers that are just normal fans of their own brands and
accept that cameras from other manufacturers are just as worthy for
most purposes. The fanatics can also be more finely divided, and
one such subgroup would be the Canon fanatics that greatly enjoy
ridiculing Nikon's products. I'm sure that they don't believe much
of what they say, and the hyperbolic disparagement is intentional,
done more to tease the owners of the attacked products, akin to
playing "the dozens". In my schooldays (whether in class or in the
schoolyard) these insult competitions were known as ranking or
sounding. If one insult resulted in a funnier, more insulting
reply, someone listening in the background would often shout "Ooh,
sound on the rebound!" It's not always lighthearted sport.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dozens

 
Reply With Quote
 
RustY ©
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-29-2008

"Mr. Strat" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:281220082053528975%(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>.............The camera in my cell
> phone, for example, will just about beat the performance of any digital
> camera that Sigma has ever made.


How true - How true........ And its mostly due to the plastic lens being
better than Sigma glass.




 
Reply With Quote
 
sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-29-2008
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:31:04 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<(E-Mail Removed)-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:

>(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> Time and time again I see post after post of someone arguing
>> that this or that camera - lens etc. is so much better than all the
>> others because of some specific technical difference.
>>
>> That is all well and good, but how many consider that the
>> difference is usually meaningless to most users. Further they seldom
>> bother checking to see if there is any meaningful differences in real
>> world results. Meaningful means a difference that would be noticed in
>> the final intended use.
>>
>> It seems to me it is only the final product that is important.

>
>So no-one is allowed to take a technical interest to increase their
>understanding and discuss it here? Look at the threads where I've
>commented about the relevancy or otherwise if viewing images at 1:1 on the
>screen.
>
>You obviously wouldn't approve of people whose interest in vintage cards,
>because the cars aren't used for journeys!
>
>Room for both, don't you think?
>
>David


Certainly there is not only room for both, but IMO there
should be a fusion of both. My original observation was that there
are many people who appear, from what they post here, to be far more
obsessed with the hardware than in the art of photography.

In real life, I see far more need for learning to use the
tools at hand, then trying to find new tools when you don't understand
how to best use what you have.

In the" real world" I refereed to few people ever learn to use
the tools they have. I am no exception to that rule. The stress
placed on hardware, I believe leads most people to believe that the
answer to how to get better results is better hardware, while in
reality new hardware may make the situation worse.

This is nothing new with digital. It was every bit the same
with film photography.

When working in retail photography many years ago, I saw the
results of many of my customers and it was not surprising to see
someone with an Instamatic 104 do better than someone with a Lecia.
 
Reply With Quote
 
sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-29-2008
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:25:01 -0000, "Alan Smithee" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:


>
>
>I think that it's inevitable that people will research items before choosing
>an item to buy, ..


All very true. The artist is interested in his brushes and
the photographer is interested in his camera. That has not changed.

However I still see what appears to be far more interest in
the camera than in the art. Maybe part of that is due to the
difficulty of defining art or measuring how good the art is, but it is
a lot easier to measure this or that mechanical feature.
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-29-2008
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
[]
> Certainly there is not only room for both, but IMO there
> should be a fusion of both. My original observation was that there
> are many people who appear, from what they post here, to be far more
> obsessed with the hardware than in the art of photography.


I think that immediately springs from the name of the group - it's
concerned with those aspects which are "digital", and not those which are
artistic. Perhaps if more people took an interest in the technical
aspects of the appliances we use every day - TV, mobile phones, even
cars - we would have a better-informed society?

> In real life, I see far more need for learning to use the
> tools at hand, then trying to find new tools when you don't understand
> how to best use what you have.


Agreed.

> In the" real world" I refereed to few people ever learn to use
> the tools they have. I am no exception to that rule. The stress
> placed on hardware, I believe leads most people to believe that the
> answer to how to get better results is better hardware, while in
> reality new hardware may make the situation worse.


Agreed. But I also blame the instruction manuals a little, as they are
not as helpful as they could be. Oh, and perhaps I blame scene modes as
well! <G>

> This is nothing new with digital. It was every bit the same
> with film photography.
>
> When working in retail photography many years ago, I saw the
> results of many of my customers and it was not surprising to see
> someone with an Instamatic 104 do better than someone with a Lecia.


Oh, yes, having an "eye" for a photo is a great gift.

Perhaps the rec.photo.technique hierarchy contains the artistic
discussions missing here?

David

 
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
Must We Worship nais-saudi Python 3 07-16-2010 06:23 AM
Python Worship Nick Python 2 12-01-2006 06:00 AM
Re: Religion vs. Faith Mik the cyst-crusher Computer Support 2 03-30-2005 03:47 PM
?? CONSISTENT CRIMES OF THE EVIL ANGLO-SAXON RACE AND RELIGION CHURCH MOLESTED CHILDS C Programming 0 05-07-2004 07:16 PM
UNIFIED THEORY OF RELIGION Nomen Nescio Digital Photography 19 09-14-2003 08:14 PM



Advertisments