«

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 05:17:13 -0500, Terry D. <td@.org> wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:30:52 -0400, tony cooper
><> wrote:
>
>>Tonight my wife hosted a dinner party for a group of women, so I left
>>the house for the evening. I left her my dslr at her request.
>>
>>I went to my grandson's wrestling practice. My almost-five-year-old
>>grandson and my just-turned-six-year-old grandson have practice
>>Tuesdays and Thursday. I took my wife's Canon P&S and tried some
>>shots.
>>
>>Disclaimer: It's a $120 entry level camera, not a "zooperzoom
>>compact". Works fine for her for family snaps, though.
>>
>>I took about 15 shots and gave up in disgust. Shutter lag? This
>>thing couldn't freeze-frame an arthritic snail moving across flypaper.
>>
>>Recovery time? After a flash shot, this thing took longer to recover
>>than an 80 year-old after sex with a Tennessee cheerleader.
>>
>>The color was good despite shooting under fluorescent light. All the
>>smears of moving arms and legs were the right color.
>>
>>I did look rather silly putting it up to my eye when I started to
>>frame a shot. There's no optical viewfinder. Took me a while to
>>figure out that the glow under my nose was the view.
>>
>>
>
>"Works fine for her family snaps, though." Yet in your *experienced* hands
>you couldn't even figure out how to find nor use an LCD viewfinder.
>
>YO! It's the whole back of the camera! Missed seeing that, did you? LOL
>
>I so pity your wife. Nobody deserves to be around anything as stupid,
>inept, and uncoordinated as something like you.
>
>Did you get a special health-home-life insurance policy with the special
>"injuries sustained if chewing-gum and walking at the same time" clause
>added on? If not, you really should consider it.
>
>Send your wife my sincerest expression of pity for what she must have had
>to endure while married to you.

While - in real life - I think that both dslrs and p&s have their
place, I enjoy poking this ant hill at times. Watching the ferocious
little creatures swarm out to attack is a cruel but amusing sport.

I've never quite been able to grasp why people are so damn *serious*
about the dslr vs p&s issue. In my mind, you buy and use what you
think will work best for you and what is affordable to you. What
other people use is entirely irrelevant.

John Navas is using exactly the right camera for his main body of
shooting. Bret is using the exactly the right camera for what he
likes to shoot. I'm using exactly the right camera for what I like to
shoot. The troll-of-many-names, if he ever does buy a camera and try
to photograph something, should buy what he thinks will work for him.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:27:35 -0000, "whisky-dave"
<whisky-> wrote:

>
>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> Tonight my wife hosted a dinner party for a group of women, so I left
>> the house for the evening. I left her my dslr at her request.
>>
>> I went to my grandson's wrestling practice.
>
>Is that real wrestling or the soap style ?
>
>>My almost-five-year-old
>> grandson and my just-turned-six-year-old grandson have practice
>> Tuesdays and Thursday. I took my wife's Canon P&S and tried some
>> shots.
>>
>> Disclaimer: It's a $120 entry level camera, not a "zooperzoom
>> compact". Works fine for her for family snaps, though.
>>
>> I took about 15 shots and gave up in disgust. Shutter lag? This
>> thing couldn't freeze-frame an arthritic snail moving across flypaper.
>
>I've always thought shutter lag was the delay in the camera between
>activating the shutter release and the image being captured.
>I don;t understand the reference to freezing the subject matter which I've
>always
>seen as being based on the actual shutter speed (or flash duration).

You're right. I used the wrong term. The problem I'm referring to is
that the shutter releases too late to capture what I tried to capture.
I'd frame a shot where the person's face was towards me, and the shot
would capture the head turned away because of the shutter lag.
>
>> Recovery time? After a flash shot, this thing took longer to recover
>> than an 80 year-old after sex with a Tennessee cheerleader.
>
>being from the UK I don;t really understand the Tennessee reference
>are those cheerleaders any different from other areas.

They're not, but Bret has posted several photographs of Tennessee
cheerleaders, so it was a group-specific reference.

>In the UK we have local yobs at our sports events and it to can depend on
>where they are from as to how they'll behave.

I'm not sure, from your comment, that you understand what a (American)
cheerleader is. You wouldn't compare them to yobs who cheer for a
particular footie club. Bowser entered a shot in the Shoot-In that
shows American high school cheerleaders:
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/118704509

American grade schools, high schools, universities, and professional
teams will have a team of cheerleaders like this to lead the cheers at
games. In schools, they are students who try out for, and make, the
cheerleading team. In professional sports, they are paid employees of
the team.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:17:33 -0400, tony cooper
<> wrote:

>
>You're right. I used the wrong term. The problem I'm referring to is
>that the shutter releases too late to capture what I tried to capture.
>I'd frame a shot where the person's face was towards me, and the shot
>would capture the head turned away because of the shutter lag.

No, it happened because you're too amazingly stupid to know how to use any
camera properly. Frame and set focus with a half-press, at the right moment
you fully press the shutter for nearly instantaneous shutter-release.

Are you this amazingly stupid that you don't even know the most simple
basics?

Yes, you are, you've proved it to the world. Time and time again.

Why do you insist on proving to the world just how pathetically stupid,
awkward, clumsy, and talentless you are? Is this something that you've been
discussing with your therapist? To find out why you do it relentlessly your
whole life?

tony cooper wrote:
>
> While - in real life - I think that both dslrs and p&s have
> their
> place, I enjoy poking this ant hill at times. Watching the
> ferocious
> little creatures swarm out to attack is a cruel but amusing
> sport.
>
> I've never quite been able to grasp why people are so damn
> *serious*
> about the dslr vs p&s issue. In my mind, you buy and use what
> you
> think will work best for you and what is affordable to you.
> What
> other people use is entirely irrelevant.
>
That's the way it should be, but isn't, at least with a lot of
people. What provokes the "so damn *serious*" attitudes of some
people is the incessant "poking of this ant hill" by people like
you, mostly from the smugly superior pro-DSLR crowd.

I use both P&Ses and DSLRs and I certainly don't agree with all
of the exaggerated claims by "the P&S troll", but such claims
must certainly be reactions to the constant put-downs heaped on
P&S-only owners.

For example, your original post could have been much more
enjoyable if it had been composed as a humorous straighforward
account of your lack of experience with P&Ses rather than a
denigration of the shortcomings of a P&S in certain situations.

Dave Cohen wrote:
>
> Paul Heslop wrote:
> > Ray Fischer wrote:
> >> Ignorant Trolls <> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:30:52 -0400, tony cooper
> >>> <> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I did look rather silly putting it up to my eye when I started to
> >>>> frame a shot. There's no optical viewfinder. Took me a while to
> >>>> figure out that the glow under my nose was the view.
> >>>>
> >>> You've just revealed your level of comprehension and keen level of
> >> You've just revealed that you're a trolling asshole.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ray Fischer
> >>
> >
> > in his defence it does seem the OP was determined to find fault.
> >
>
> I thought he was right on, why did the op post in the first place. I
> mean, does he use his car for furniture removal or road construction
> perhaps.

exactly. It struck me as a deliberate troll. he may think it is funny,
and I suppose in a way it is, but if there is truth in it then it
points more to his own shortcomings than to anyone who owns a P&S

--
Paul (we break easy)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

tony cooper wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 02:57:34 -0700 (PDT), DanP <>
> wrote:
>
> >So, will you buy your wife a nice DSLR?
> >
> Absolutely not. She is under the impression that my photographs are
> good because I have exceptional skills and talent. I would not want
> to disabuse her of that perception. I get little enough respect as it
> is.
>
> I think she just keeps me around because I can reach the high shelves
> and take good pictures of the grandchildren. Give her a step-ladder
> and a dslr and I'm no longer needed.
>
if your attitude to her is similar to your attitude in general maybe
she will buy both and send you packing?

--
Paul (we break easy)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:59:23 -0500, Oy! The Stupidity!
<> wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:17:33 -0400, tony cooper
><> wrote:
>
>>
>>You're right. I used the wrong term. The problem I'm referring to is
>>that the shutter releases too late to capture what I tried to capture.
>>I'd frame a shot where the person's face was towards me, and the shot
>>would capture the head turned away because of the shutter lag.

This technique works particularly well on runners, cyclists and flying
birds.
>
>No, it happened because you're too amazingly stupid to know how to use any
>camera properly. Frame and set focus with a half-press, at the right moment
>you fully press the shutter for nearly instantaneous shutter-release.
>
>Are you this amazingly stupid that you don't even know the most simple
>basics?
>
>Yes, you are, you've proved it to the world. Time and time again.
>
>Why do you insist on proving to the world just how pathetically stupid,
>awkward, clumsy, and talentless you are? Is this something that you've been
>discussing with your therapist? To find out why you do it relentlessly your
>whole life?



Eric Stevens

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:47:48 +0530, "Pointless Posts"
<> wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>>
>> While - in real life - I think that both dslrs and p&s have
>> their
>> place, I enjoy poking this ant hill at times. Watching the
>> ferocious
>> little creatures swarm out to attack is a cruel but amusing
>> sport.
>>
>> I've never quite been able to grasp why people are so damn
>> *serious*
>> about the dslr vs p&s issue. In my mind, you buy and use what
>> you
>> think will work best for you and what is affordable to you.
>> What
>> other people use is entirely irrelevant.
>>
>That's the way it should be, but isn't, at least with a lot of
>people. What provokes the "so damn *serious*" attitudes of some
>people is the incessant "poking of this ant hill" by people like
>you, mostly from the smugly superior pro-DSLR crowd.

Point of view, I guess. I see the P&S crowd as being the smugly
superior crowd and the ones that need a swift poke. They all seem to
being crowing that they can get equal or better shots from P&S cameras
without spending the money for a dslr.

They don't back it up with examples, though. John Navas has posted
some good P&S shots, but his main claim is that his camera is more
suited for the photographer who shoots from a bobbing boat in the high
seas than a dslr would be. I agree with him there. He claims his
photos are better than dslr user's photos would be under the same
conditions, but that's an unprovable point because we don't see
comparative examples.


>I use both P&Ses and DSLRs and I certainly don't agree with all
>of the exaggerated claims by "the P&S troll", but such claims
>must certainly be reactions to the constant put-downs heaped on
>P&S-only owners.
>
>For example, your original post could have been much more
>enjoyable if it had been composed as a humorous straighforward

The thing is that you can't really be straightforward and humorous if
the straightforward situation wasn't humorous. There was nothing
humorous about excessive lag time and long recovery time. So, I opted
for humorous by exaggeration. The straightforward would have just a
dull tale of missed shots due to inadequate equipment.

I could have taken some decent shots if I kept at it, but I am now so
used to what a dslr will do in those conditions that I lost patience.
Also, five dslr shots would have resulted in four or five keepers. It
would take 25 P&S shots with that cheap Canon P&S to get four or five
keepers. Or, settling for static poses.

The kids have practice twice a week. I'll go back with a dslr.

>account of your lack of experience with P&Ses rather than a
>denigration of the shortcomings of a P&S in certain situations.

I have far more experience with a P&S than I do with a dslr. I
entered the digital age using a P&S and switched over to a dslr just
over a year ago.

I also stated that I was using a $120 Canon P&S and not a middle- or
top-of-the-line P&S.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:46:08 -0400, tony cooper
<> wrote:

>
>They don't back it up with examples, though. John Navas has posted
>some good P&S shots, but his main claim is that his camera is more
>suited for the photographer who shoots from a bobbing boat in the high
>seas than a dslr would be. I agree with him there. He claims his
>photos are better than dslr user's photos would be under the same
>conditions, but that's an unprovable point because we don't see
>comparative examples.

I've backed it up with dozens of scrapshot examples (I never post my
marketable stuff). How many times have you read threads where useless
talentless hack trolls like yourself start claiming of my P&S photos, "He
edited the EXIF!", "He stole that photo on the net!", "It was taken with a
DSLR!"

You useless pathetic ****HEAD DSLR-Trolls are all alike. The moment that
someone shows superior photos taken with most any P&S camera that rival or
exceeds the conditions that you propose for a test (low light, hand-held,
fast-action in low-light, etc.) and someone like myself beats your crap
claims all to hell you go ****ing psychotic.

Sorry, I don't play your pathetic jackoff DSLR-Troll's game more than once.
You and all like you don't deserve the air you breathe. You're an offense
to biology.

Outing DSLR-Trolls is FUN! <> wrote:
>I've backed it up with dozens of scrapshot examples

That is impossible because the Usenet archives show that you (Outing
DSLR-Trolls is FUN! <>) have never ever posted
anything to RPD before.

Maybe you should stick with just one of your personalities, don't you
think?

jue