Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > When will these people get it? Telephotos can't shrink

Reply
Thread Tools

When will these people get it? Telephotos can't shrink

 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-23-2012
Trevor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message


>> Because Rebel users aren't allowed to take more than 50,000
>> frames anyway?


> Of course they can, but how many do is the question?


Some.


>>> Still using an obsolete camera when FAR better
>>> ones are available, just because I'd paid too much and it wasn't worn
>>> out,
>>> WOULD be a problem for me!


>> You're not enough of a photographer to outgrow a Rebel camera,
>> even if *you* overpaid. Any newer camera[1] wouldn't let you make
>> any better photos. And the same is true for most DSLR owners.
>> So "FAR better" is an illusion.


> My clients disagree, I couldn't sell photo's made with an original Rebel to

^^^^^^^
a photo's what?[1]
> anyone these days!


Well, the original Rebel would be the "EOS REBEL SII QD" aka
"EOS 1000FN QD", a 1992 analog camera. That *you* couldn't sell
any photos made with any camera (including "an original Rebel")
is not my problem.


>> If you want better results, go photograph more and learn from it.
>> Go look at other peoples' photos and find out what works.


> Not yours then obviously!


True, you couldn't learn anything from photos with less than
20 megapixels.


>>And if
>> you really want to spend money instead of learning skill, your
>> best bet is to buy a tripod.


> I own three thanks all the same.


Let me guess --- one of them is even gold plated.


>> And you may wish to buy good lenses, once you learned to properly
>> focus, then you'll reach a better resolution and get better
>> bokeh etc.


> I'm happy with most of mine, although I do admit Canon put an L on some
> lenses that are below par IMO. But some without it are good too.


Good, if you're happy, then certainly the lenses aren't the
problem.


>> Only if your camera is *proven* to limit you severely and you
>> have learned all the techniques that can overcome the limits and
>> they are not sucessful a 'better' camera makes sense.


> For your 6x4" prints and screen viewing, a better camera will probably never
> make sense.


True. Except for AF, high ISO, etc. etc. etc.
And for the completely unimportant fact that I do larger than 6x4.


>>> MY lack of imagination?


>> Yep. One who can only imagine ever getting 50,000 frames by
>> shooting at 10fps has no imagination. Just shooting 100 days a
>> year (i.e. twice a week, say Saturday and Sunday) and shooting
>> different situation at, say, fast sports with, say, 3-5fps yields
>> 50,000 exposures in a year or two.


> Right, 3-5 fps all the time.


Right, 3.5 fps sometimes.

> I shot motor cycle racing for years without
> needing >3fps very often. Useful at times, but not for EVERY shot.


Yours is the only right way, of course. I forgot.


>> On weekends where I shoot a lot, 3,000 frames is usual.


> And how many of those do you sell?


You measure personal enjoyment and art in sales?


> Telling us you blaze away 3,000 in the
> hope of getting a good shot is hardly impressive!


Too bad your reading skills are completely broken.

I do what any good photographer does in situation where he's not
the one in control: Take many good photographs from the subjects,
then select the best of those.


>>> How many Rebel owners do you know who have had the shutter
>>> replaced? I don't know any.


>> You don't know any Rebel owners, full stop.


> My old obsolete 300D is equivalent to your Rebel.


"my Rebel"? Which one would that be?

> Once again you simply make
> wild speculation based on nothing at all.


Wow, so you have a sample size of ONE. You're real good in
statistics.


>> [1] And an up-to-date Rebel isn't obsolete in any way.


> Which is my point, you need to replace that original Rebel with a nice new
> up to date one, (or something better) rather than wanting it to last for
> "150,000 frames" before updating it.


First, the original Rebel is a film camera.
Second, how do you degrade your cameras so that their image
quality gets noticeably worse and worse from year to year?


-Wolfgang

[1] An apostrophe doesn't mean "watch out, here comes a
plural s".
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-26-2012

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Because Rebel users aren't allowed to take more than 50,000
>>> frames anyway?

>
>> Of course they can, but how many do is the question?

>
> Some.


You know ANY that have replaced the shutter rather than the complete camera?
I sure don't!

>
> Well, the original Rebel would be the "EOS REBEL SII QD" aka
> "EOS 1000FN QD", a 1992 analog camera.


OK smart arse, an original DIGITAL Rebel. We don't even use the name here so
**** off if I'm unaware of it's film heritage.

>>> If you want better results, go photograph more and learn from it.
>>> Go look at other peoples' photos and find out what works.

>
>> Not yours then obviously!

>
> True,


Agreed.

>
>>>And if
>>> you really want to spend money instead of learning skill, your
>>> best bet is to buy a tripod.

>
>> I own three thanks all the same.

>
> Let me guess --- one of them is even gold plated.


Nope, but carbon fibre is nearly as expensive it seems


>>> And you may wish to buy good lenses,

>
>> I'm happy with most of mine, although I do admit Canon put an L on some
>> lenses that are below par IMO. But some without it are good too.

>
> Good, if you're happy, then certainly the lenses aren't the
> problem.


Glad you admit you were wrong for once.



>>> Yep. One who can only imagine ever getting 50,000 frames by
>>> shooting at 10fps has no imagination. Just shooting 100 days a
>>> year (i.e. twice a week, say Saturday and Sunday) and shooting
>>> different situation at, say, fast sports with, say, 3-5fps yields
>>> 50,000 exposures in a year or two.

>
>> Right, 3-5 fps all the time.

>
> Right, 3.5 fps sometimes.


Often enough to shoot 50,000 frames before wanting an updated camera rather
than a new shutter, is more than "sometimes" IMO!


>>> On weekends where I shoot a lot, 3,000 frames is usual.

>
>> And how many of those do you sell?

>
> You measure personal enjoyment and art in sales?


So your personal enjoyment is shooting 3,000 pictures in a weekend rather
than a few good ones? At least consider that might not be the norm for most
amateurs.

>> Telling us you blaze away 3,000 in the
>> hope of getting a good shot is hardly impressive!

>
> Too bad your reading skills are completely broken.


Too bad you provided no data to the contrary.

> I do what any good photographer does in situation where he's not
> the one in control: Take many good photographs from the subjects,
> then select the best of those.


Fine, but I know few amateurs that take 3,000 photo's in a weekend, or
50,000 frames from one camera in two years. You could at least consider your
practice may not be the norm for most amateurs.

>>>> How many Rebel owners do you know who have had the shutter
>>>> replaced? I don't know any.

>
>>> You don't know any Rebel owners, full stop.

>
>> My old obsolete 300D is equivalent to your Rebel.

>
> "my Rebel"? Which one would that be?


Any digital one you care to name. Do you in fact know ANY amateurs who have
EVER replaced the shutter in ANY model of the Canon digital Rebel series, or
is your whole argument complete and utter nonsense as most here would
rightly assume?
And dragging in the film versions just shows desperation to make some stupid
point for reasons known only to you, and which no-one else cares about,
especially me!

Trevor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-29-2012
Trevor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> Because Rebel users aren't allowed to take more than 50,000
>>>> frames anyway?


>>> Of course they can, but how many do is the question?


>> Some.


> You know ANY that have replaced the shutter rather than the complete camera?
> I sure don't!


I don't know ANY of a great number of people and things, yet
I am quite sure they exist. Otherwise most towns, quite a
few countries and even some continents would have gone "poof"
some time ago now.


>> Well, the original Rebel would be the "EOS REBEL SII QD" aka
>> "EOS 1000FN QD", a 1992 analog camera.


> OK smart arse, an original DIGITAL Rebel. We don't even use the name here so
> **** off if I'm unaware of it's film heritage.


OK, smart arse, the only ones who use the name Rebel are the sames
who use "EOS REBEL SII QD". And you are the one who says "Rebel".
The rest of the world says 300D (and the Japanese say Kiss).


>>>> If you want better results, go photograph more and learn from it.
>>>> Go look at other peoples' photos and find out what works.


>>> Not yours then obviously!


>> True, you couldn't learn anything from photos with less
>> than 20 megapixels.


> Agreed.


Nor could you learn something from photos with 20 megapixels
or more.

And the next time you quote snippets out of context, I'll not
only re-insert the quoted material.


>>>>And if
>>>> you really want to spend money instead of learning skill, your
>>>> best bet is to buy a tripod.


>>> I own three thanks all the same.


>> Let me guess --- one of them is even gold plated.


> Nope, but carbon fibre is nearly as expensive it seems


Not even nearly.

So, do your tripods help you any?


>>>> And you may wish to buy good lenses,


>>> I'm happy with most of mine, although I do admit Canon put an L on some
>>> lenses that are below par IMO. But some without it are good too.


>> Good, if you're happy, then certainly the lenses aren't the
>> problem.


> Glad you admit you were wrong for once.


"may wish" != "have to"


>>>> Yep. One who can only imagine ever getting 50,000 frames by
>>>> shooting at 10fps has no imagination. Just shooting 100 days a
>>>> year (i.e. twice a week, say Saturday and Sunday) and shooting
>>>> different situation at, say, fast sports with, say, 3-5fps yields
>>>> 50,000 exposures in a year or two.


>>> Right, 3-5 fps all the time.


>> Right, 3.5 fps sometimes.


> Often enough to shoot 50,000 frames before wanting an updated camera rather
> than a new shutter, is more than "sometimes" IMO!


If the camera works and fulfills the requirements, why upgrade?
Not everyone wants to upgrade just for upgrading.
And why pay more than needed?


>>>> On weekends where I shoot a lot, 3,000 frames is usual.


>>> And how many of those do you sell?


>> You measure personal enjoyment and art in sales?


> So your personal enjoyment is shooting 3,000 pictures in a weekend rather
> than a few good ones?


No, I shoot 3000 frames, usually quite a number from the same
subject. Out of those I select the ones that are the best of
each subject, develop them and are left with several hundred
good ones.

> At least consider that might not be the norm for most
> amateurs.


Only amateurs are allowed to use low end cameras? Which law
is that?
What about a lightweight camera for semi-pros?


>>> Telling us you blaze away 3,000 in the
>>> hope of getting a good shot is hardly impressive!


>> Too bad your reading skills are completely broken.


> Too bad you provided no data to the contrary.


So you say I only get 1 good shot out of 3000 because I didn't
immediately claimed the opposite? OK, then you're in reality
a mentally handicapped yapping terrier, because you provided no
data to the contrary.


>> I do what any good photographer does in situation where he's not
>> the one in control: Take many good photographs from the subjects,
>> then select the best of those.


> Fine, but I know few amateurs that take 3,000 photo's in a weekend, or
> 50,000 frames from one camera in two years. You could at least consider your
> practice may not be the norm for most amateurs.


If programmer thought only of the majority use patterns, computers
would crash immediately once you do something out of that range.
Like ... converting RAWs. Or sharpening images. Or visiting
websites outside Google and Facebook. I am a programmer, and I
aspire to be a good one.

So pardon me for believing that while not all cameras can or
even should cater for every use, the non-norm use (like shooting
outside full auto or scene modes) should at least be thought about.


>>>>> How many Rebel owners do you know who have had the shutter
>>>>> replaced? I don't know any.


>>>> You don't know any Rebel owners, full stop.


>>> My old obsolete 300D is equivalent to your Rebel.


>> "my Rebel"? Which one would that be?


> Any digital one you care to name.


Ah, that's similar same as "my Saturn V", "my learjet" and
"my ocean liner".


> Do you in fact know ANY amateurs who have
> EVER replaced the shutter in ANY model of the Canon digital Rebel series, or
> is your whole argument complete and utter nonsense as most here would
> rightly assume?


I don't know people who lost both legs in a car crash, therefore
such people don't exist, and claiming they exist is "complete
and utter nonsense"? Fancy that.

BTW, your "as most here would rightly assume", is that based
on your hand pulling out **** out of your ass, or did you
interview just yourself?


> And dragging in the film versions just shows desperation to make some stupid
> point for reasons known only to you, and which no-one else cares about,
> especially me!


No, that's just pointing out that you don't really know what
you're talking about. If you meant the 300D, you could have
written "300D" and be done with it.


-Wolfgang
 
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
People Helping People!!!!!!!!!!!! celeste96795@aol.com Java 1 06-11-2008 05:49 PM
Some people tell that at present, most web hosting servers supportall kinds of programming language, some people tell me that many web hostingserver don't support Java, What is the truth? Erwin Moller Java 3 05-07-2008 05:09 PM
people helping people......king kong, underworld 2, mi3, movie, dvd,music, games cam slade Computer Support 1 01-19-2006 06:07 AM
DVD Shrink: After Shrink to Hard drive, what's NEXT? hiddenat@lycos.com DVD Video 11 09-21-2004 01:41 AM
DVD Shrink: After Shrink to Hard drive, what's NEXT? Thanks!!!!!! hiddenat@lycos.com DVD Video 2 09-09-2004 11:45 PM



Advertisments