Commenting On Unused Equipment

I sometimes wonder why people feel the need to make authoritative comments
on equipment they've never used, never touched, and never even considered
as part of their camera gear.

There have been outlandish claims being made. Mostly by dSLR proponents
over what can and cannot be done with the myriad P&S cameras available for
the last decade. Yet, when pressed for clarity, you find out they've never
even been near the cameras they are commenting on so strongly, assuredly,
and adamantly with their self-appointed authoritative and seemingly (to
themselves) concrete stance. They will loudly and incessantly claim that
some camera does not have a feature, when in fact a large range of cameras,
sometimes all of those styles of cameras do indeed have that feature or
capability. They would instantly know this if they would only go out and
test it for themselves with real cameras. But no, to them they have
imagined something about some equipment that they've never touched which is
nothing but a total fabrication in their own minds. Believing their
imaginations as if it is some kind of fact. Like any psychotic religious
zealot would.

What causes them to do this? I've never commented on nor given advice about
anything in life other than that with which I have had first-hand knowledge
and experience of my own in that field. If I haven't personally tested
something for myself, then I am in no position to make comments about it.
Even reading about something doesn't mean what I am reading is true
representation of whatever might be in question. I MUST test things for
myself before I feel I can comment on anything with any sense of authority
whatsoever. I also never strongly rely on some "credible"(?) 3rd-party's
review of photography equipment. I learned long ago after having purchased
equipment that even those well-meaning reviewers failed to understand how
to use a camera, a feature of that camera, or other equipment properly. Or
their simplified testing methods to begin with had huge faults in them.
(GIGO) Which I only discovered later when my findings didn't match their
findings, and I started to wonder why. Their testing methods were to blame.

So what causes this need for people to pretend to be authorities on things
that they have no real knowledge about?

Are they just psychotic trolls? And I'm not using the term "psychotic"
pejoratively. I believe they really are psychotic if they can so adamantly
believe what they say, when in fact, reality and genuine experience proves
them out to be in complete error. If so, if that's all they are, psychotic
trolls, they seem to be wall-to-wall in these newsgroups. Far more in
abundance than those who have genuine experience and knowledge about the
subjects at hand.

Curiouser and Curiouser

"Curiouser and Curiouser" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> I sometimes wonder why people feel the need to make authoritative
> comments
> on equipment they've never used, never touched, and never even
> considered
> as part of their camera gear.

snip of a good post.....

Answer....

Ego, need to participate and maybe even a few really do have hands-on
experience (in their minds.....

Now I'll go put on my flame-proof britches.


Bob S.

BobS

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:26:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser
<> wrote:

>
>I sometimes wonder why people feel the need to make authoritative comments
>on equipment they've never used, never touched, and never even considered
>as part of their camera gear.

I'd reply, but first I'd have to care. I don't. Not about dslr vs
p&s, not about Canon vs Nikon, not about film vs digital, and not
about Sigma vs whatever.

I have a camera that I like. I have had days where I've spent hours
taking photographs, come home with 400 or so images, and not kept one
of them. I've never felt it was the camera's fault.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:26:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser
<> wrote:

>I sometimes wonder why people feel the need to make authoritative comments
>on equipment they've never used, never touched, and never even considered
>as part of their camera gear.

You tell us. Why do you praise P&S cameras to high heaven while
denigrating DSLRs you've never used, touched, nor even considered?

We know why, of course: you're the infamous P&S Troll. We simply don't
know specifically why you are a troll, or why you chose to target this
group in particular. Nor do we care, actually.

John A.

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:02:31 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2009-10-26 19:52:48 -0700, Michael <> said:
>
>> On 2009-10-26 22:33:32 -0400, John A. <> said:
>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:26:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I sometimes wonder why people feel the need to make authoritative comments
>>>> on equipment they've never used, never touched, and never even considered
>>>> as part of their camera gear.
>>>
>>> You tell us. Why do you praise P&S cameras to high heaven while
>>> denigrating DSLRs you've never used, touched, nor even considered?
>>>
>>> We know why, of course: you're the infamous P&S Troll. We simply don't
>>> know specifically why you are a troll, or why you chose to target this
>>> group in particular. Nor do we care, actually.
>>
>> I was wondering how many responses I'd read before someone recognized
>> our infamous friend.
>
>It's all in the words.

I'd wonder how many of those DSLR psychotics would reply, never realizing
that I HAVE used DSLRs, sold them all when I found out P&S cameras were
better. So I *DO* have first-hand knowledge of what I speak about. How do
you think I know of so many of the glaring faults wrapped in the DSLR
design concept? Found the faults by using the cameras.

You will also note, that I *NEVER* go out of my way to slam any camera
unless some psychotic troll is inventing stories about P&S cameras they've
never used. I don't slam DSLRs, I only defend P&S cameras against the wild
imaginings of insecure and psychotic DSLR-Trolls. It's that simple.

I'm so far ahead of you psychotic, useless, ignorant, and inexperienced
trolls in experience and knowledge about photography and the required
equipment that you don't even have a clue.

Never slam a P&S again and I'll have no reason to compare their superior
reason for being over that of useless DSLRs. Useless in comparison of
course. Even a lowly DSLR can provide excellent images in the hands of
someone who knows what they are doing. If you're willing to put up with
their myriad and vast drawbacks that is.

Curiouser and Curiouser

Michael <> writes:
>> We know why, of course: you're the infamous P&S Troll. We simply don't
>> know specifically why you are a troll, or why you chose to target this
>> group in particular. Nor do we care, actually.
>
> I was wondering how many responses I'd read before someone recognized
> our infamous friend.

Using one of his standard trolling techniques too. He may be an idiot
when it comes to photography, but he's actually pretty skillful at
trolling...

-Miles

--
Politeness, n. The most acceptable hypocrisy.

Miles Bader

> I'd wonder how many of those DSLR psychotics would reply, never
> realizing
> that I HAVE used DSLRs, sold them all when I found out P&S cameras
> were
> better. So I *DO* have first-hand knowledge of what I speak about.
> How do
> you think I know of so many of the glaring faults wrapped in the DSLR
> design concept? Found the faults by using the cameras.
>

Not picking a fight or feeding a troll....

But since you brought it up, can you tell us what experience you have
with DSLRs such as make and model. That way, one could better judge how
up to date your views are and how broad your experience level is with
various makes.

Many significant changes have been made in P&S cameras (I have 3 recent
vintage) and DSLRs (6) with the oldest being about 40 years old (K1000)
and the latest over a year old (K20D). I've shot a number of Nikons (F1
to D60) over the years, a few Cannon's and sampled probably most other
brands (from Ashai to Rollies) in my early years when I worked in a
photo lab.

So my particular experience is probably about average with other
amateurs in my age group and while I may not have experience with the
exact model being discussed, I may weigh in and provide a generalized
opinion if I feel it would help answer a question. Just like others
do. But what I think to be a valid comment - may well be considered
useless by someone else since they have no idea of my credibility - and
neither do you.

You may not like some responses and think they are useless but you have
no idea of what experience the person responding really has. So you
take a comment at face value from Usenet, toss in some common sense and
add it to part of your research as possibly being of some value and go
with it - or not. Your choice.

You may be the world's leading expert on P&S cameras but I don't know
that and from what I've read of your past P&S posts, you make some
valid points and some are really stretching it in my opinion.

All types of cameras serve a useful purpose - to someone. You happen to
like P&S, that's great - so do I, when it suits my needs which is only
about 1% of the time.

Bob S.

BobS

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:17:51 -0400, "BobS" <no-> wrote:

>
>But since you brought it up, can you tell us what experience you have
>with DSLRs such as make and model. That way, one could better judge how
>up to date your views are and how broad your experience level is with
>various makes.

I could, but that wouldn't matter. The problem is in their design. All of
them. Problems that do not exist on any P&S cameras.

Dependent on having to change lenses in situations where you must have a
wide-range of focal-lengths, causing missed shots, getting dust and
condensation on the sensor. Or even worse, when the camera is below
freezing temperatures and when temporarily going indoors will cause the
condensation to freeze the camera into a lump of uselessness.

No high-speed flash sync without having to resort to special flash units
that do not really compensate for the focal-plane shutters' slow speed of
travel, it only makes it possible to use flash with higher shutter speeds.
It's not a cure, only a patch on a situation caused worse by the patch.

Too shallow DOF for usable and useful available-light macro-photography.

Etc., etc., etc., etc....

The list of drawbacks caused by the DSLR design is long. Not worth posting
again here.

This thread was to try to find out why the DSLR-Trolls and others slam
equipment and things that they have zero first-hand knowledge about, and
then try to act like they are in any way, shape or form, some kind of
authority on the subject. They buy one DSLR camera, don't even learn how to
use it properly, and then think they have the expertise to comment on every
camera ever made. Even worse, are those role-playing trolls who only
download camera manuals, never having touched a real camera (i.e. "nospam",
"SMS", "Wolfgang", "George Kerby", "RichA", etc., etc.), and then try to
appear as if they know the least bit about photography at all.

If nothing else, at least making them aware that everyone who sees their
posts can easily discern that that's exactly what they are doing. They are
labeling their own selves as psychotic trolls just with their own posts.
Anyone who has used the cameras and equipment that they haven't used can
easily and clearly see that.

Curiouser and Curiouser

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:38:09 -0700, Mike Russell
<> wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:18:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser wrote:
>
>> Problems that do not exist on any P&S cameras.
>
>Want to know one problem that doesn't exist with DSLR's: *you*.

Outing yourself as just another of the many psychotic DSLR-Trolls, are you?

Yep. Thought so.

Curiouser and Curiouser

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:43:21 -0700, Mike Russell
<> wrote:

>something resembling a discussion

Translation: Any comments that blindly and foolishly agree with Mike
Russel's far lesser experience in the field of photography and related
equipment.

Curiouser and Curiouser