Buying new digital camera

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Jake29, Jun 29, 2013.

  1. Sandman <> wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:


    >> > That's just backwards. Not one single person in the camera department in
    >> > the superstores has undergone any form of salesman training.

    >>
    >> Yes, noone ever trains their salesmen ever in sales techniques.


    > Exactly.


    >> If they manage to get some training in their own time, they
    >> are immediately fired.


    > Eh, ok?


    >> And of course Sandman has tested every salesman in every
    >> superstore everywhere in the sun system.


    > Nope. Why would you think that?


    So who did the testing of all these salesmen if you didn't?

    Or are you withdrawing your claim of "Not one single person
    in the camera department in the superstores has undergone any
    form of salesman training."?

    > Are you trolling? Making absurd
    > statements with the motive of discrediting my claim? Wouldn't a
    > counter-claim be more effective? It may reflect better on you at least.


    No, that would just be pointless arguing with you. Better to
    take your claims at face value and find out where that leads.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jul 6, 2013
    1. Advertising

  2. Jake29

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    "J. Clarke" <> wrote:

    > > > In 2013 a Brownie will still take adequate pictures of the kids'
    > > > Halloween costumes and the like. Most people who buy cameras don't
    > > > really want more than that.

    > >
    > > As I've explained, this isn't true.

    >
    > In your circle of acquaintances maybe.


    No.

    > > > Which is not being met?

    > >
    > > "It does what they want it to do".

    >
    > What, specifically, that they want it to do, does it not do?


    It differs from case to case, for obvious reasons.

    > > Yes, Rolls Royce had poor performing engines, considering the immense
    > > weight of the cars. They were adequate since they did propel the car
    > > forwards, but far from satisfactory for someone that wanted more than
    > > just mere propulsion. Luckily for Rolls Royce, most of their customers
    > > weren't looking for great acceleration or top speed.

    >
    > And thus the engines were adequate.


    As opposed to perfect.

    > > > Have you considere that you are working from a biased sample?

    > >
    > > Not really.

    >
    > Then consider it.


    Done.

    > > Have you used instagram? It is fairly known for its ability to add
    > > artistic filters to your photos to make them look more exciting than
    > > they really are. Some 99% of instagram photos have filters added to this
    > > effect.

    >
    > Nope, I have no interest in "instagram".


    So you have no knowledge about it, yet won't trust the word of someone
    who has. Curious.

    > And adding filters does not mean that one is looking to be the next
    > Ansel Adams.


    Non sequitur.

    > > That adequate isn't perfect.

    >
    > Oh, I see.


    I doubt it.

    > Well, there is no camera on the market today that is
    > "perfect".


    According to what criteria?

    > If perfection is the only acceptable standard for you you
    > are doomed to a life of disappointment and I pity you.


    If this is your level of reading comprehension, I pity you.

    > > That users could find the perfect camera by either doing proper
    > > research or buying from a knowledgable store (i.e. not a
    > > superstore).

    >
    > Since, according to you, there is a "perfect camera", why don't you save
    > us all a bunch of time by telling us what it is?


    Are you this groups most underperforming troll as of yet?

    > > I am saying that $X buys you adequate and $Y buys you perfect while both
    > > being in the same budget scope. You would find the perfect camera for $Y
    > > if you do proper research or deal with the right camera store.

    >
    > So let's see, your budget is 150 bucks and you are going to find a
    > perfect camera in that budget? Good luck.


    Again, I can't make comments on a budget you made up.

    > > My god you're obtuse. Why won't you read what I write?

    >
    > I did.


    No.

    > > *rolleye* Marketing for a store that's closed?? What's the purpose?

    >
    > So ever store in the world is closed now?


    So English is what, fourth or fifth language to you?

    <snip rest of repetitive trolling>

    Let me know if you every have anything worthwhile to add to an adult
    discussion in the future.



    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, Jul 6, 2013
    1. Advertising

  3. Jake29

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:

    > > Nope. Why would you think that?

    >
    > So who did the testing of all these salesmen if you didn't?
    >
    > Or are you withdrawing your claim of "Not one single person
    > in the camera department in the superstores has undergone any
    > form of salesman training."?


    It's called an exaggeration. I'm sorry for the confusion.

    > > Are you trolling? Making absurd
    > > statements with the motive of discrediting my claim? Wouldn't a
    > > counter-claim be more effective? It may reflect better on you at least.

    >
    > No, that would just be pointless arguing with you. Better to
    > take your claims at face value and find out where that leads.


    Trolling, then.

    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, Jul 6, 2013
  4. Jake29

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > In article <>,
    > "J. Clarke" <> wrote:
    >
    > > > > In 2013 a Brownie will still take adequate pictures of the kids'
    > > > > Halloween costumes and the like. Most people who buy cameras don't
    > > > > really want more than that.
    > > >
    > > > As I've explained, this isn't true.

    > >
    > > In your circle of acquaintances maybe.

    >
    > No.
    >
    > > > > Which is not being met?
    > > >
    > > > "It does what they want it to do".

    > >
    > > What, specifically, that they want it to do, does it not do?

    >
    > It differs from case to case, for obvious reasons.
    >
    > > > Yes, Rolls Royce had poor performing engines, considering the immense
    > > > weight of the cars. They were adequate since they did propel the car
    > > > forwards, but far from satisfactory for someone that wanted more than
    > > > just mere propulsion. Luckily for Rolls Royce, most of their customers
    > > > weren't looking for great acceleration or top speed.

    > >
    > > And thus the engines were adequate.

    >
    > As opposed to perfect.
    >
    > > > > Have you considere that you are working from a biased sample?
    > > >
    > > > Not really.

    > >
    > > Then consider it.

    >
    > Done.
    >
    > > > Have you used instagram? It is fairly known for its ability to add
    > > > artistic filters to your photos to make them look more exciting than
    > > > they really are. Some 99% of instagram photos have filters added to this
    > > > effect.

    > >
    > > Nope, I have no interest in "instagram".

    >
    > So you have no knowledge about it, yet won't trust the word of someone
    > who has. Curious.
    >
    > > And adding filters does not mean that one is looking to be the next
    > > Ansel Adams.

    >
    > Non sequitur.
    >
    > > > That adequate isn't perfect.

    > >
    > > Oh, I see.

    >
    > I doubt it.
    >
    > > Well, there is no camera on the market today that is
    > > "perfect".

    >
    > According to what criteria?
    >
    > > If perfection is the only acceptable standard for you you
    > > are doomed to a life of disappointment and I pity you.

    >
    > If this is your level of reading comprehension, I pity you.
    >
    > > > That users could find the perfect camera by either doing proper
    > > > research or buying from a knowledgable store (i.e. not a
    > > > superstore).

    > >
    > > Since, according to you, there is a "perfect camera", why don't you save
    > > us all a bunch of time by telling us what it is?

    >
    > Are you this groups most underperforming troll as of yet?
    >
    > > > I am saying that $X buys you adequate and $Y buys you perfect while both
    > > > being in the same budget scope. You would find the perfect camera for $Y
    > > > if you do proper research or deal with the right camera store.

    > >
    > > So let's see, your budget is 150 bucks and you are going to find a
    > > perfect camera in that budget? Good luck.

    >
    > Again, I can't make comments on a budget you made up.
    >
    > > > My god you're obtuse. Why won't you read what I write?

    > >
    > > I did.

    >
    > No.
    >
    > > > *rolleye* Marketing for a store that's closed?? What's the purpose?

    > >
    > > So ever store in the world is closed now?

    >
    > So English is what, fourth or fifth language to you?
    >
    > <snip rest of repetitive trolling>
    >
    > Let me know if you every have anything worthwhile to add to an adult
    > discussion in the future.


    I see. When pressed to support your argument, you resort to name
    calling, snarky remarks, and ultimately taking your ball and going home,
    and then you accuse others of trolling.
     
    J. Clarke, Jul 7, 2013
  5. Jake29

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sat, 6 Jul 2013 22:26:11 -0400, "J. Clarke" <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > says...
    >>
    >> In article <>,
    >> "J. Clarke" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> > > > In 2013 a Brownie will still take adequate pictures of the kids'
    >> > > > Halloween costumes and the like. Most people who buy cameras don't
    >> > > > really want more than that.
    >> > >
    >> > > As I've explained, this isn't true.
    >> >
    >> > In your circle of acquaintances maybe.

    >>
    >> No.
    >>
    >> > > > Which is not being met?
    >> > >
    >> > > "It does what they want it to do".
    >> >
    >> > What, specifically, that they want it to do, does it not do?

    >>
    >> It differs from case to case, for obvious reasons.
    >>
    >> > > Yes, Rolls Royce had poor performing engines, considering the immense
    >> > > weight of the cars. They were adequate since they did propel the car
    >> > > forwards, but far from satisfactory for someone that wanted more than
    >> > > just mere propulsion. Luckily for Rolls Royce, most of their customers
    >> > > weren't looking for great acceleration or top speed.
    >> >
    >> > And thus the engines were adequate.

    >>
    >> As opposed to perfect.
    >>
    >> > > > Have you considere that you are working from a biased sample?
    >> > >
    >> > > Not really.
    >> >
    >> > Then consider it.

    >>
    >> Done.
    >>
    >> > > Have you used instagram? It is fairly known for its ability to add
    >> > > artistic filters to your photos to make them look more exciting than
    >> > > they really are. Some 99% of instagram photos have filters added to this
    >> > > effect.
    >> >
    >> > Nope, I have no interest in "instagram".

    >>
    >> So you have no knowledge about it, yet won't trust the word of someone
    >> who has. Curious.
    >>
    >> > And adding filters does not mean that one is looking to be the next
    >> > Ansel Adams.

    >>
    >> Non sequitur.
    >>
    >> > > That adequate isn't perfect.
    >> >
    >> > Oh, I see.

    >>
    >> I doubt it.
    >>
    >> > Well, there is no camera on the market today that is
    >> > "perfect".

    >>
    >> According to what criteria?
    >>
    >> > If perfection is the only acceptable standard for you you
    >> > are doomed to a life of disappointment and I pity you.

    >>
    >> If this is your level of reading comprehension, I pity you.
    >>
    >> > > That users could find the perfect camera by either doing proper
    >> > > research or buying from a knowledgable store (i.e. not a
    >> > > superstore).
    >> >
    >> > Since, according to you, there is a "perfect camera", why don't you save
    >> > us all a bunch of time by telling us what it is?

    >>
    >> Are you this groups most underperforming troll as of yet?
    >>
    >> > > I am saying that $X buys you adequate and $Y buys you perfect while both
    >> > > being in the same budget scope. You would find the perfect camera for $Y
    >> > > if you do proper research or deal with the right camera store.
    >> >
    >> > So let's see, your budget is 150 bucks and you are going to find a
    >> > perfect camera in that budget? Good luck.

    >>
    >> Again, I can't make comments on a budget you made up.
    >>
    >> > > My god you're obtuse. Why won't you read what I write?
    >> >
    >> > I did.

    >>
    >> No.
    >>
    >> > > *rolleye* Marketing for a store that's closed?? What's the purpose?
    >> >
    >> > So ever store in the world is closed now?

    >>
    >> So English is what, fourth or fifth language to you?
    >>
    >> <snip rest of repetitive trolling>
    >>
    >> Let me know if you every have anything worthwhile to add to an adult
    >> discussion in the future.

    >
    >I see. When pressed to support your argument, you resort to name
    >calling, snarky remarks, and ultimately taking your ball and going home,
    >and then you accuse others of trolling.
    >

    You left out a step. If you don't agree with him, your comment is
    "irrelevant".

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, Jul 7, 2013
  6. Jake29

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    "J. Clarke" <> wrote:

    > > Let me know if you every have anything worthwhile to add to an adult
    > > discussion in the future.

    >
    > I see. When pressed to support your argument


    What argument? You haven't even read what I have written. You haven't
    "pressed" me to support any argument, you have only made irrelevant
    comments not related to anything I've written.

    > you resort to name calling, snarky remarks, and ultimately taking
    > your ball and going home, and then you accuse others of trolling.


    I correctly pointed out that you were trolling. I admit to being
    frustrated by the fact that you had me fooled for a couple of posts and
    I actually took the time to respond to your posts when in fact all you
    did was ignore what I wrote and then reply with irrelevant
    misinterpretations and misinformation, repetitively.

    I have little patience with you trolls in this group, since I'm here to
    talk about photography, and sometimes it's too late to see that I've
    been dragged into the mud by people that want to argue things that are
    based on nothing I've written or said.

    There really should be a rec.photo.advocacy group where you trolls can
    hang out and leave us actual posters alone in the real groups. Why don't
    you post in rec.photo.misc at least?



    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, Jul 7, 2013
  7. Jake29

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Saturday, 6 July 2013 21:34:15 UTC+1, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > Tony Cooper <> wrote:
    >
    > > On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 14:53:34 +0200, Sandman <> wrote:

    >
    > >>In article <>,

    >
    > >> Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    > >>> > That's just backwards. Not one single person in the camera department in

    >
    > >>> > the superstores has undergone any form of salesman training.

    >
    >
    >
    > >>> Yes, noone ever trains their salesmen ever in sales techniques.

    >
    >
    >
    > >>Exactly.

    >
    >
    >
    > > If ever there was a case for emoticons, silly as they may be, this is

    >
    > > it.

    >
    >
    >
    > Sarcasm that the censor understands is too obvious.


    Ah, but what size FF, APS-H or APS-C, 4/3s or 1/1/7 we need to know :)
     
    Whisky-dave, Jul 8, 2013
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Chris

    Buying a digital camera

    Chris, May 11, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    693
    Chris
    May 19, 2004
  2. Richard

    Buying a 3 megapixel digital camera

    Richard, Aug 16, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    528
    Ian S
    Aug 17, 2003
  3. Missie

    buying a new digital camera ?

    Missie, Aug 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    404
    Edric Ta
    Aug 20, 2003
  4. vidhu

    buying a new digital camera

    vidhu, Sep 1, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    545
    Lucas Tam
    Sep 2, 2003
  5. Andy Munnis

    Guidance on a buying a new digital camera

    Andy Munnis, Oct 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    814
    Michael Geary
    Oct 6, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page