Commenting On Unused Equipment

"Curiouser and Curiouser" <> wrote in message
news:...
> 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,

Nit if you know what you're doing.

> getting dust and
> condensation on the sensor. Or even worse,
What makes you think yuo can;t have those problems with P&S.

> 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.

So why doesn;t this happen with P&S or is it you've not experienced it.
I work in electronics and the temperatures that components work in is
pretty much the same unless you go for military spec stuff.


> 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.

Not really sure if any of that is true,.

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

Depth of fild doesn;t depend on the size of the camera housing.

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

That's convinet isn;t it,.

>
> 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,

That's because they have little else in their lives.


> 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.

That's true but it's not the DSLRs problem is it.

>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.

depends what they are saying doesn;t it, if I'm interested in the camera
technology
they'd be more useful than a photographer who might only know about taking
photos.


> 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.

yep fair point.

>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.

Yes and it is amusing, it's like some peolpe take advice on sex from the
Pope.

whisky-dave

"John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
news:hc5r1a$b9d$...
> Miles Bader wrote:
>> 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...
>
> Or a handful of posters are unskilled at avoiding the bait.....
> cough, splutter.......

Perhaps he is just a master-baiter and that's all he's good at

whisky-dave

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:46:24 -0700, John Navas
<> wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:19:18 -0400, tony cooper
><> wrote in
><>:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:18:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser
>><> wrote:
>
>>It seems our P&S (excuse me, John, "compact zuperzooms") adherents are
>>shy about displaying their creations. Probably just a humanitarian
>>gesture on their part because they don't want to blow us away.
>
>Photo websites and contests are in fact full of images from compact
>digital cameras, ranging from bad to good, just like images from dSLR
>cameras.

I'm sure they are. However, I clearly stated that I was commenting
about the Shoot-In where critical comments are often made about what
is uploaded.

The P&S shooter can upload to Flickr "critique forums", and that sort
of "contest" venue, where the standard critique comment is "Great
shot!". A really bad, out-of-focus, badly composed, over-processed
shot earns a "Nice try!".

A great shot can be taken with a P&S camera. However, serious
photographers who get more than the accidental once-in-a-blue-moon
great shots aren't using P&Ss.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:08:16 -0400, tony cooper
<> wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:46:24 -0700, John Navas
><> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:19:18 -0400, tony cooper
>><> wrote in
>><>:
>>
>>>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:18:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser
>>><> wrote:
>>
>>>It seems our P&S (excuse me, John, "compact zuperzooms") adherents are
>>>shy about displaying their creations. Probably just a humanitarian
>>>gesture on their part because they don't want to blow us away.
>>
>>Photo websites and contests are in fact full of images from compact
>>digital cameras, ranging from bad to good, just like images from dSLR
>>cameras.
>
>I'm sure they are. However, I clearly stated that I was commenting
>about the Shoot-In where critical comments are often made about what
>is uploaded.
>
>The P&S shooter can upload to Flickr "critique forums", and that sort
>of "contest" venue, where the standard critique comment is "Great
>shot!". A really bad, out-of-focus, badly composed, over-processed
>shot earns a "Nice try!".
>
>A great shot can be taken with a P&S camera. However, serious
>photographers who get more than the accidental once-in-a-blue-moon
>great shots aren't using P&Ss.

I'm a well accomplished professional. 50,000 photos on some years is not
out of the question, >75% of that being of marketable quality. I now use
high-end P&S cameras exclusively. Your comment is the psychotic fabrication
of an insecure DSLR-Troll. Just as this thread has proved. Many
professionals now use P&S cameras, if not their mainstay, then a large
majority of their work.

Just because you claim the converse to be true doesn't make it so.

Now the question remains, to stay on topic, why do you feel the need to
fabricate these wild imaginings of yours and not only present them as facts
but actually believe these fabrications yourself? Are you just that out of
touch with reality? Is it that simple?

Curiouser and Curiouser

On 10/27/09 14:50 , nospam wrote:
> In article< >, John Navas
> <> wrote:
>
>>> A great shot can be taken with a P&S camera. However, serious
>>> photographers who get more than the accidental once-in-a-blue-moon
>>> great shots aren't using P&Ss.
>>
>> Childishly pejorative as usual, and simply not true.
>
> it's exactly true.
>
> how many wedding photographers show up with a canon s90? how many
> sports photographers take photos of the super bowl or world series with
> a panasonic?



I did a shoot in July for the Pediatric Brain Tumor Foundation,
where one of the 'official' photographers was shooting a P&S.

My brother shot a wedding with a Fuji P&S, leaving his 35mm SLR
in the bag.

It doesn't happen often. But it does happen.

D. Peter Maus

In article <hc7jc2$ae7$>, D. Peter Maus
<> wrote:

> I did a shoot in July for the Pediatric Brain Tumor Foundation,
> where one of the 'official' photographers was shooting a P&S.

why the quotes? was he hired to do it, or was he someone on staff that
happened to volunteer?

> My brother shot a wedding with a Fuji P&S, leaving his 35mm SLR
> in the bag.

was he actually the official photographer or just a friend or relative
helping out? some couples can't afford a good wedding photographer.

> It doesn't happen often. But it does happen.

i'm sure it happens, but the numbers are *very* few.

nospam

On 10/27/09 15:06 , nospam wrote:
> In article<hc7jc2$ae7$>, D. Peter Maus
> <> wrote:
>
>> I did a shoot in July for the Pediatric Brain Tumor Foundation,
>> where one of the 'official' photographers was shooting a P&S.
>
> why the quotes? was he hired to do it, or was he someone on staff that
> happened to volunteer?


Like all of us, he was hired to do it. But it was a pro bono job.


>
>> My brother shot a wedding with a Fuji P&S, leaving his 35mm SLR
>> in the bag.
>
> was he actually the official photographer or just a friend or relative
> helping out? some couples can't afford a good wedding photographer.


He was the official photographer. Charged them mid 5 figures
for it, too.

D. Peter Maus

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:23:22 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser
<> wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:08:16 -0400, tony cooper
><> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:46:24 -0700, John Navas
>><> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:19:18 -0400, tony cooper
>>><> wrote in
>>><>:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:18:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser
>>>><> wrote:
>>>
>>>>It seems our P&S (excuse me, John, "compact zuperzooms") adherents are
>>>>shy about displaying their creations. Probably just a humanitarian
>>>>gesture on their part because they don't want to blow us away.
>>>
>>>Photo websites and contests are in fact full of images from compact
>>>digital cameras, ranging from bad to good, just like images from dSLR
>>>cameras.
>>
>>I'm sure they are. However, I clearly stated that I was commenting
>>about the Shoot-In where critical comments are often made about what
>>is uploaded.
>>
>>The P&S shooter can upload to Flickr "critique forums", and that sort
>>of "contest" venue, where the standard critique comment is "Great
>>shot!". A really bad, out-of-focus, badly composed, over-processed
>>shot earns a "Nice try!".
>>
>>A great shot can be taken with a P&S camera. However, serious
>>photographers who get more than the accidental once-in-a-blue-moon
>>great shots aren't using P&Ss.
>
>I'm a well accomplished professional.

No one here believes that. If you want to cite an exception to my
statement, provide a reference to a person who really is a
professional photographer.

You can *say* you are anyone you want, but that doesn't mean we
believe you.


>50,000 photos on some years is not
>out of the question, >75% of that being of marketable quality. I now use
>high-end P&S cameras exclusively. Your comment is the psychotic fabrication
>of an insecure DSLR-Troll. Just as this thread has proved. Many
>professionals now use P&S cameras, if not their mainstay, then a large
>majority of their work.
>
>Just because you claim the converse to be true doesn't make it so.
>
>Now the question remains, to stay on topic, why do you feel the need to
>fabricate these wild imaginings of yours and not only present them as facts
>but actually believe these fabrications yourself? Are you just that out of
>touch with reality? Is it that simple?

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:44:38 -0700, John Navas
<> wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:08:16 -0400, tony cooper
><> wrote in
><>:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:46:24 -0700, John Navas
>><> wrote:
>
>>>Photo websites and contests are in fact full of images from compact
>>>digital cameras, ranging from bad to good, just like images from dSLR
>>>cameras.
>>
>>I'm sure they are. However, I clearly stated that I was commenting
>>about the Shoot-In where critical comments are often made about what
>>is uploaded.
>
>I guess the key word there is "critical", and I think it telling you're
>limiting yourself to a single forum to make a global pejorative comment.

Yes, I am limiting myself to a single forum. Never claimed otherwise.

The people that participate in this newsgroup, and the related
newsgroups, who continue to bleat about the marvelous qualities of P&S
cameras never seem to enter photographs in the Shoot-In for review by
the people of this group.

>>The P&S shooter can upload to Flickr "critique forums", and that sort
>>of "contest" venue, where the standard critique comment is "Great
>>shot!". A really bad, out-of-focus, badly composed, over-processed
>>shot earns a "Nice try!".
>
>That's not representative either, of course, and likewise telling.
>
>>A great shot can be taken with a P&S camera. However, serious
>>photographers who get more than the accidental once-in-a-blue-moon
>>great shots aren't using P&Ss.
>
>Childishly pejorative as usual

But non-refutable. You'd be stepping all over yourself furnishing
cites if you had examples to the contrary.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:30:08 -0400, tony cooper
<> wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:23:22 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser
><> wrote:
>
>>
>>I'm a well accomplished professional.
>
>No one here believes that. If you want to cite an exception to my
>statement, provide a reference to a person who really is a
>professional photographer.
>
>You can *say* you are anyone you want, but that doesn't mean we
>believe you.
>

Are you aware that you and others of your ilk, now having proved yourselves
beyond a shadow of all doubts to be nothing but inexperienced and ignorant
trolls, that I might not care what you believe?

Stay on topic, you ignorant and inexperienced know-nothing thread hijacking
troll.

Catch-22. If you did that you wouldn't be a troll. Continue doing that,
going off topic, and you have precisely proved my point.

Sucks to be as stupid as you, doesn't it.

Curiouser and Curiouser