Magazines, websites getting desperate

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jul 1, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    No new camera releases means fewer readers so they've taken to
    reviewing....P&S's!! First Dpreview with that 12 pieces of junk
    review and the Amateur Photographer wasting pages on a Fuji Superzoom
    with a TINY sensor (what else is new?). C'mon Nikon, Canon, Pentax,
    Sony, Oly-forget it, I forgot, Olympus bailed out of DSLRs.
    RichA, Jul 1, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Barry Guest

    On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 15:10:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >No new camera releases means fewer readers so they've taken to
    >reviewing....P&S's!! First Dpreview with that 12 pieces of junk
    >review and the Amateur Photographer wasting pages on a Fuji Superzoom
    >with a TINY sensor (what else is new?). C'mon Nikon, Canon, Pentax,
    >Sony, Oly-forget it, I forgot, Olympus bailed out of DSLRs.


    Why does it bother you so much that the majority of photographers, amateur
    and pro, find P&S cameras more interesting, more capable, more
    cost-effective, more portable, more adaptable, more publicly accepted, and
    more important than DSLRs today?

    Buggy-whip braiders in the early 1900's eventually had to find new jobs
    too. I guess some people will just have to be dragged kicking and screaming
    into the 21st century. You sound just like those that went on and on for
    years crying about the benefits of film and how digital cameras will never
    be better.

    How many more years will it take for you to wake up?

    That's okay. We'll wait. We understand why you are like you are.
    Barry, Jul 1, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Jul 1, 6:23 pm, Barry <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 15:10:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >No new camera releases means fewer readers so they've taken to
    > >reviewing....P&S's!!  First Dpreview with that 12 pieces of junk
    > >review and the Amateur Photographer wasting pages on a Fuji Superzoom
    > >with a TINY sensor (what else is new?).  C'mon Nikon, Canon, Pentax,
    > >Sony, Oly-forget it, I forgot, Olympus bailed out of DSLRs.

    >
    > Why does it bother you so much that the majority of photographers, amateur
    > and pro, find P&S cameras more interesting, more capable, more
    > cost-effective, more portable, more adaptable, more publicly accepted, and
    > more important than DSLRs today?
    >


    If majority opinion mattered, then Tiger Woods really would be driving
    a Buick, and not an Escalade.
    Rich, Jul 2, 2010
    #3
  4. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 15:10:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
    : No new camera releases means fewer readers so they've taken to
    : reviewing....P&S's!! First Dpreview with that 12 pieces of junk
    : review and the Amateur Photographer wasting pages on a Fuji Superzoom
    : with a TINY sensor (what else is new?). C'mon Nikon, Canon, Pentax,
    : Sony, Oly-forget it, I forgot, Olympus bailed out of DSLRs.

    Rich, my daughter gets far better pictures with her P%Ses (a long line of
    them: with three kids (4, 6, and 8) to keep up with, she tends to drop her
    cameras a lot) than we've ever seen you get with whatever cameras you favor.
    My wife and I (and I guess most of the denizens of these newsgroups) have
    permanently switched to DSLRs. But that doesn't mean that a decent P&S (of
    which there are many) doesn't have its place. In many circumstances they're
    exactly the right choice. The P&S Troll (for example) keeps trying to posit a
    war between DSLR and P&S users, but it's useful to remember that he's insane.
    No such affliction has your good self in its grip, right?

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jul 2, 2010
    #4
  5. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 17:23:06 -0500, Barry <> wrote:
    : On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 15:10:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    : wrote:
    :
    : >No new camera releases means fewer readers so they've taken to
    : >reviewing....P&S's!! First Dpreview with that 12 pieces of junk
    : >review and the Amateur Photographer wasting pages on a Fuji Superzoom
    : >with a TINY sensor (what else is new?). C'mon Nikon, Canon, Pentax,
    : >Sony, Oly-forget it, I forgot, Olympus bailed out of DSLRs.
    :
    : Why does it bother you so much that the majority of photographers, amateur
    : and pro, find P&S cameras more interesting, more capable, more
    : cost-effective, more portable, more adaptable, more publicly accepted, and
    : more important than DSLRs today?
    :
    : Buggy-whip braiders in the early 1900's eventually had to find new jobs
    : too. I guess some people will just have to be dragged kicking and screaming
    : into the 21st century. You sound just like those that went on and on for
    : years crying about the benefits of film and how digital cameras will never
    : be better.
    :
    : How many more years will it take for you to wake up?
    :
    : That's okay. We'll wait. We understand why you are like you are.

    We do? I don't. Please cut the crap and explain (in plain English, German, or
    Spanish).

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jul 2, 2010
    #5
  6. RichA

    LOL! Guest

    On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 20:55:17 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 15:10:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
    >: No new camera releases means fewer readers so they've taken to
    >: reviewing....P&S's!! First Dpreview with that 12 pieces of junk
    >: review and the Amateur Photographer wasting pages on a Fuji Superzoom
    >: with a TINY sensor (what else is new?). C'mon Nikon, Canon, Pentax,
    >: Sony, Oly-forget it, I forgot, Olympus bailed out of DSLRs.
    >
    >Rich, my daughter gets far better pictures with her P%Ses (a long line of
    >them: with three kids (4, 6, and 8) to keep up with, she tends to drop her
    >cameras a lot) than we've ever seen you get with whatever cameras you favor.
    >My wife and I (and I guess most of the denizens of these newsgroups) have
    >permanently switched to DSLRs. But that doesn't mean that a decent P&S (of
    >which there are many) doesn't have its place. In many circumstances they're
    >exactly the right choice. The P&S Troll (for example) keeps trying to posit a
    >war between DSLR and P&S users, but it's useful to remember that he's insane.
    >No such affliction has your good self in its grip, right?
    >
    >Bob


    Still trying to justify all that unneeded expense and weight of all that
    DSLR equipment, I see. And yet not one bit of your photography gear has
    ever made you into a better photographer nor made your images any better.
    Why is that.

    LOL!
    LOL!, Jul 2, 2010
    #6
  7. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 17:27:36 -0700 (PDT), Rich <> wrote:
    : On Jul 1, 6:23 pm, Barry <> wrote:
    : > On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 15:10:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    : > wrote:
    : >
    : > >No new camera releases means fewer readers so they've taken to
    : > >reviewing....P&S's!!  First Dpreview with that 12 pieces of junk
    : > >review and the Amateur Photographer wasting pages on a Fuji Superzoom
    : > >with a TINY sensor (what else is new?).  C'mon Nikon, Canon, Pentax,
    : > >Sony, Oly-forget it, I forgot, Olympus bailed out of DSLRs.
    : >
    : > Why does it bother you so much that the majority of photographers,
    : > amateur and pro, find P&S cameras more interesting, more capable, more
    : > cost-effective, more portable, more adaptable, more publicly accepted,
    : > and more important than DSLRs today?
    :
    : If majority opinion mattered, then Tiger Woods really would be driving
    : a Buick, and not an Escalade.

    If my opinion mattered, he'd be driving a Segway. But it doesn't. Neither does
    yours. Or Barry's.

    Rich, I have no idea when Dominion Day is, so I'll simply wish you a happy 4th
    of July, and you can do the necessary date translation! ;^)

    BTW, I mean no offense to the Brits in this group. Indeed, a case can be made
    that our armed secession was unnecessary, since you'd have gotten tired enough
    of us eventually. All I can say is that it did work out pretty well for us (at
    least until those Bushes came along).

    bob
    Robert Coe, Jul 2, 2010
    #7
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jul 1, 8:55 pm, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 15:10:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
    >
    > : No new camera releases means fewer readers so they've taken to
    > : reviewing....P&S's!!  First Dpreview with that 12 pieces of junk
    > : review and the Amateur Photographer wasting pages on a Fuji Superzoom
    > : with a TINY sensor (what else is new?).  C'mon Nikon, Canon, Pentax,
    > : Sony, Oly-forget it, I forgot, Olympus bailed out of DSLRs.
    >
    > Rich, my daughter gets far better pictures with her P%Ses (a long line of
    > them: with three kids (4, 6, and 8) to keep up with, she tends to drop her
    > cameras a lot) than we've ever seen you get with whatever cameras you favor.
    > My wife and I (and I guess most of the denizens of these newsgroups) have
    > permanently switched to DSLRs. But that doesn't mean that a decent P&S (of
    > which there are many) doesn't have its place. In many circumstances they're
    > exactly the right choice. The P&S Troll (for example) keeps trying to posit a
    > war between DSLR and P&S users, but it's useful to remember that he's insane.
    > No such affliction has your good self in its grip, right?
    >
    > Bob


    Not all P&S cameras are complete junk. In a very narrow range of
    circumstances they are capable of producing reasonably good images.
    Low, ISO, muted contrasts will serve to allow a good quality P&S to
    produce images of decent quality, if they aren't cropped or printed
    too large. But it brings up an interesting point. Some parents will
    eat steak while feeding their kids hotdogs in the belief that the
    child's palate is incapable of appreciating the finer meat, and that
    any extra money spent on procuring steak for the whole family is
    wasted. But, if the child is introduced to the better meat and made
    to understand why it is superior, then that would give the child a leg-
    up on the whole idea of eating well, as opposed to eating crap.
    RichA, Jul 2, 2010
    #8
  9. RichA

    Peter Guest

    "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 17:23:06 -0500, Barry <>
    > wrote:
    > : On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 15:10:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > : wrote:
    > :
    > : >No new camera releases means fewer readers so they've taken to
    > : >reviewing....P&S's!! First Dpreview with that 12 pieces of junk
    > : >review and the Amateur Photographer wasting pages on a Fuji Superzoom
    > : >with a TINY sensor (what else is new?). C'mon Nikon, Canon, Pentax,
    > : >Sony, Oly-forget it, I forgot, Olympus bailed out of DSLRs.
    > :
    > : Why does it bother you so much that the majority of photographers,
    > amateur
    > : and pro, find P&S cameras more interesting, more capable, more
    > : cost-effective, more portable, more adaptable, more publicly accepted,
    > and
    > : more important than DSLRs today?
    > :
    > : Buggy-whip braiders in the early 1900's eventually had to find new jobs
    > : too. I guess some people will just have to be dragged kicking and
    > screaming
    > : into the 21st century. You sound just like those that went on and on for
    > : years crying about the benefits of film and how digital cameras will
    > never
    > : be better.
    > :
    > : How many more years will it take for you to wake up?
    > :
    > : That's okay. We'll wait. We understand why you are like you are.
    >
    > We do? I don't. Please cut the crap and explain (in plain English, German,
    > or
    > Spanish).



    Bob,

    All you did was set out more troll bait.
    The fact is there are more P&SO cameras sold than DSLRs.
    They are cheaper and easier to use. The trolls ignore or lie about the
    limitations.

    --
    Peter
    Peter, Jul 2, 2010
    #9
  10. RichA

    ken d Guest

    On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 18:30:10 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >On Jul 1, 8:55 pm, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >> On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 15:10:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
    >>
    >> : No new camera releases means fewer readers so they've taken to
    >> : reviewing....P&S's!!  First Dpreview with that 12 pieces of junk
    >> : review and the Amateur Photographer wasting pages on a Fuji Superzoom
    >> : with a TINY sensor (what else is new?).  C'mon Nikon, Canon, Pentax,
    >> : Sony, Oly-forget it, I forgot, Olympus bailed out of DSLRs.
    >>
    >> Rich, my daughter gets far better pictures with her P%Ses (a long line of
    >> them: with three kids (4, 6, and 8) to keep up with, she tends to drop her
    >> cameras a lot) than we've ever seen you get with whatever cameras you favor.
    >> My wife and I (and I guess most of the denizens of these newsgroups) have
    >> permanently switched to DSLRs. But that doesn't mean that a decent P&S (of
    >> which there are many) doesn't have its place. In many circumstances they're
    >> exactly the right choice. The P&S Troll (for example) keeps trying to posit a
    >> war between DSLR and P&S users, but it's useful to remember that he's insane.
    >> No such affliction has your good self in its grip, right?
    >>
    >> Bob

    >
    >Not all P&S cameras are complete junk. In a very narrow range of
    >circumstances they are capable of producing reasonably good images.
    >Low, ISO, muted contrasts will serve to allow a good quality P&S to
    >produce images of decent quality, if they aren't cropped or printed
    >too large. But it brings up an interesting point. Some parents will
    >eat steak while feeding their kids hotdogs in the belief that the
    >child's palate is incapable of appreciating the finer meat, and that
    >any extra money spent on procuring steak for the whole family is
    >wasted. But, if the child is introduced to the better meat and made
    >to understand why it is superior, then that would give the child a leg-
    >up on the whole idea of eating well, as opposed to eating crap.


    I agree, the dSLRs should go to the kids. This will force them to learn
    basic photography skills. Then when they get good enough they'll find that
    the P&S cameras with manual controls are all they will ever need to create
    professional level imagery. dSLR's are great training wheels. I learned on
    SLRs, I don't regret it in the least. The skills I learned from that taught
    me that any cameras in my hands are now the tools of a Pro.

    May all you DSLR-Trolls realize this one day. Until then, you are nothing
    but base-amateurs.
    ken d, Jul 2, 2010
    #10
  11. RichA

    Better Info Guest

    On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 21:30:21 -0400, "Peter" <>
    wrote:

    >"Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 17:23:06 -0500, Barry <>
    >> wrote:
    >> : On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 15:10:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >> : wrote:
    >> :
    >> : >No new camera releases means fewer readers so they've taken to
    >> : >reviewing....P&S's!! First Dpreview with that 12 pieces of junk
    >> : >review and the Amateur Photographer wasting pages on a Fuji Superzoom
    >> : >with a TINY sensor (what else is new?). C'mon Nikon, Canon, Pentax,
    >> : >Sony, Oly-forget it, I forgot, Olympus bailed out of DSLRs.
    >> :
    >> : Why does it bother you so much that the majority of photographers,
    >> amateur
    >> : and pro, find P&S cameras more interesting, more capable, more
    >> : cost-effective, more portable, more adaptable, more publicly accepted,
    >> and
    >> : more important than DSLRs today?
    >> :
    >> : Buggy-whip braiders in the early 1900's eventually had to find new jobs
    >> : too. I guess some people will just have to be dragged kicking and
    >> screaming
    >> : into the 21st century. You sound just like those that went on and on for
    >> : years crying about the benefits of film and how digital cameras will
    >> never
    >> : be better.
    >> :
    >> : How many more years will it take for you to wake up?
    >> :
    >> : That's okay. We'll wait. We understand why you are like you are.
    >>
    >> We do? I don't. Please cut the crap and explain (in plain English, German,
    >> or
    >> Spanish).

    >
    >
    >Bob,
    >
    >All you did was set out more troll bait.
    >The fact is there are more P&SO cameras sold than DSLRs.
    >They are cheaper and easier to use. The trolls ignore or lie about the
    >limitations.


    What's that? Oh, that's right. I hear your kindergartner-level photography
    teacher calling you. You revealed the (lack of) depth of your skills and
    knowledge about photography in another recent post. That's why I know this.
    Better Info, Jul 2, 2010
    #11
  12. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 20:34:24 -0500, ken d <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 18:30:10 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Jul 1, 8:55 pm, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 15:10:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> : No new camera releases means fewer readers so they've taken to
    >>> : reviewing....P&S's!!  First Dpreview with that 12 pieces of junk
    >>> : review and the Amateur Photographer wasting pages on a Fuji Superzoom
    >>> : with a TINY sensor (what else is new?).  C'mon Nikon, Canon, Pentax,
    >>> : Sony, Oly-forget it, I forgot, Olympus bailed out of DSLRs.
    >>>
    >>> Rich, my daughter gets far better pictures with her P%Ses (a long line of
    >>> them: with three kids (4, 6, and 8) to keep up with, she tends to drop her
    >>> cameras a lot) than we've ever seen you get with whatever cameras you favor.
    >>> My wife and I (and I guess most of the denizens of these newsgroups) have
    >>> permanently switched to DSLRs. But that doesn't mean that a decent P&S (of
    >>> which there are many) doesn't have its place. In many circumstances they're
    >>> exactly the right choice. The P&S Troll (for example) keeps trying to posit a
    >>> war between DSLR and P&S users, but it's useful to remember that he's insane.
    >>> No such affliction has your good self in its grip, right?
    >>>
    >>> Bob

    >>
    >>Not all P&S cameras are complete junk. In a very narrow range of
    >>circumstances they are capable of producing reasonably good images.
    >>Low, ISO, muted contrasts will serve to allow a good quality P&S to
    >>produce images of decent quality, if they aren't cropped or printed
    >>too large. But it brings up an interesting point. Some parents will
    >>eat steak while feeding their kids hotdogs in the belief that the
    >>child's palate is incapable of appreciating the finer meat, and that
    >>any extra money spent on procuring steak for the whole family is
    >>wasted. But, if the child is introduced to the better meat and made
    >>to understand why it is superior, then that would give the child a leg-
    >>up on the whole idea of eating well, as opposed to eating crap.

    >
    >I agree, the dSLRs should go to the kids. This will force them to learn
    >basic photography skills. Then when they get good enough they'll find that
    >the P&S cameras with manual controls are all they will ever need to create
    >professional level imagery. dSLR's are great training wheels. I learned on
    >SLRs, I don't regret it in the least. The skills I learned from that taught
    >me that any cameras in my hands are now the tools of a Pro.
    >
    >May all you DSLR-Trolls realize this one day. Until then, you are nothing
    >but base-amateurs.


    You sound like my dad. His vision is failing too.
    John A., Jul 2, 2010
    #12
  13. RichA

    ken d Guest

    On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 23:04:25 -0400, John A. <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 20:34:24 -0500, ken d <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 18:30:10 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Jul 1, 8:55 pm, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >>>> On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 15:10:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> : No new camera releases means fewer readers so they've taken to
    >>>> : reviewing....P&S's!!  First Dpreview with that 12 pieces of junk
    >>>> : review and the Amateur Photographer wasting pages on a Fuji Superzoom
    >>>> : with a TINY sensor (what else is new?).  C'mon Nikon, Canon, Pentax,
    >>>> : Sony, Oly-forget it, I forgot, Olympus bailed out of DSLRs.
    >>>>
    >>>> Rich, my daughter gets far better pictures with her P%Ses (a long line of
    >>>> them: with three kids (4, 6, and 8) to keep up with, she tends to drop her
    >>>> cameras a lot) than we've ever seen you get with whatever cameras you favor.
    >>>> My wife and I (and I guess most of the denizens of these newsgroups) have
    >>>> permanently switched to DSLRs. But that doesn't mean that a decent P&S (of
    >>>> which there are many) doesn't have its place. In many circumstances they're
    >>>> exactly the right choice. The P&S Troll (for example) keeps trying to posit a
    >>>> war between DSLR and P&S users, but it's useful to remember that he's insane.
    >>>> No such affliction has your good self in its grip, right?
    >>>>
    >>>> Bob
    >>>
    >>>Not all P&S cameras are complete junk. In a very narrow range of
    >>>circumstances they are capable of producing reasonably good images.
    >>>Low, ISO, muted contrasts will serve to allow a good quality P&S to
    >>>produce images of decent quality, if they aren't cropped or printed
    >>>too large. But it brings up an interesting point. Some parents will
    >>>eat steak while feeding their kids hotdogs in the belief that the
    >>>child's palate is incapable of appreciating the finer meat, and that
    >>>any extra money spent on procuring steak for the whole family is
    >>>wasted. But, if the child is introduced to the better meat and made
    >>>to understand why it is superior, then that would give the child a leg-
    >>>up on the whole idea of eating well, as opposed to eating crap.

    >>
    >>I agree, the dSLRs should go to the kids. This will force them to learn
    >>basic photography skills. Then when they get good enough they'll find that
    >>the P&S cameras with manual controls are all they will ever need to create
    >>professional level imagery. dSLR's are great training wheels. I learned on
    >>SLRs, I don't regret it in the least. The skills I learned from that taught
    >>me that any cameras in my hands are now the tools of a Pro.
    >>
    >>May all you DSLR-Trolls realize this one day. Until then, you are nothing
    >>but base-amateurs.

    >
    >You sound like my dad. His vision is failing too.


    I guess that's why all of you useless DSLR-Trolls were surprised to see the
    images I posted taken with a super-zoom P&S camera, with +2 diopter
    close-up filter, stacked with a 1.7x teleconverter, capable of imaging the
    wing-scales from a butterfly 7 feet away, right down to single-pixel level
    details. Go ahead, ask DSLR-Troll Paul Furman about it. The only thing he
    got wrong was thinking there was CA in the image. Not realizing that the
    white wing-scales right next to the regions of color that he thought was CA
    (caused by actual wing-scale colors) didn't have any CA around them at all.
    Yes, his powers of observation are precisely that piss-poor and his
    desperate need to justify his DSLR crap is precisely that great.

    Keep trying to justify why you are still a beginner snapshooter with your
    DSLRs. While others, REAL Pros, know how to use any camera properly.
    ken d, Jul 2, 2010
    #13
  14. RichA

    Vance Guest

    On Jul 1, 8:19 pm, ken d <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 23:04:25 -0400, John A. <> wrote:
    > >On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 20:34:24 -0500, ken d <> wrote:

    >
    > >>On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 18:30:10 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > >>wrote:

    >
    > >>>On Jul 1, 8:55 pm, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    > >>>> On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 15:10:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:

    >
    > >>>> : No new camera releases means fewer readers so they've taken to
    > >>>> : reviewing....P&S's!! First Dpreview with that 12 pieces of junk
    > >>>> : review and the Amateur Photographer wasting pages on a Fuji Superzoom
    > >>>> : with a TINY sensor (what else is new?). C'mon Nikon, Canon, Pentax,
    > >>>> : Sony, Oly-forget it, I forgot, Olympus bailed out of DSLRs.

    >
    > >>>> Rich, my daughter gets far better pictures with her P%Ses (a long line of
    > >>>> them: with three kids (4, 6, and 8) to keep up with, she tends to drop her
    > >>>> cameras a lot) than we've ever seen you get with whatever cameras you favor.
    > >>>> My wife and I (and I guess most of the denizens of these newsgroups) have
    > >>>> permanently switched to DSLRs. But that doesn't mean that a decent P&S (of
    > >>>> which there are many) doesn't have its place. In many circumstances they're
    > >>>> exactly the right choice. The P&S Troll (for example) keeps trying to posit a
    > >>>> war between DSLR and P&S users, but it's useful to remember that he's insane.
    > >>>> No such affliction has your good self in its grip, right?

    >
    > >>>> Bob

    >
    > >>>Not all P&S cameras are complete junk.  In a very narrow range of
    > >>>circumstances they are capable of producing reasonably good images.
    > >>>Low, ISO, muted contrasts will serve to allow a good quality P&S to
    > >>>produce images of decent quality, if they aren't cropped or printed
    > >>>too large.  But it brings up an interesting point.  Some parents will
    > >>>eat steak while feeding their kids hotdogs in the belief that the
    > >>>child's palate is incapable of appreciating the finer meat, and that
    > >>>any extra money spent on procuring steak for the whole family is
    > >>>wasted.  But, if the child is introduced to the better meat and made
    > >>>to understand why it is superior, then that would give the child a leg-
    > >>>up on the whole idea of eating well, as opposed to eating crap.

    >
    > >>I agree, the dSLRs should go to the kids. This will force them to learn
    > >>basic photography skills. Then when they get good enough they'll find that
    > >>the P&S cameras with manual controls are all they will ever need to create
    > >>professional level imagery. dSLR's are great training wheels. I learned on
    > >>SLRs, I don't regret it in the least. The skills I learned from that taught
    > >>me that any cameras in my hands are now the tools of a Pro.

    >
    > >>May all you DSLR-Trolls realize this one day. Until then, you are nothing
    > >>but base-amateurs.

    >
    > >You sound like my dad. His vision is failing too.

    >
    > I guess that's why all of you useless DSLR-Trolls were surprised to see the
    > images I posted taken with a super-zoom P&S camera, with +2 diopter
    > close-up filter, stacked with a 1.7x teleconverter, capable of imaging the
    > wing-scales from a butterfly 7 feet away, right down to single-pixel level
    > details. Go ahead, ask DSLR-Troll Paul Furman about it. The only thing he
    > got wrong was thinking there was CA in the image. Not realizing that the
    > white wing-scales right next to the regions of color that he thought was CA
    > (caused by actual wing-scale colors) didn't have any CA around them at all.
    > Yes, his powers of observation are precisely that piss-poor and his
    > desperate need to justify his DSLR crap is precisely that great.
    >
    > Keep trying to justify why you are still a beginner snapshooter with your
    > DSLRs. While others, REAL Pros, know how to use any camera properly.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    I have that image for my tutorial on 'How to Take Pictures Like
    Bartholemew Cubbins.' I really do need some more images for
    illustration so that I can explain your fascinating techniques that
    know one in the world knows about or can use without years of study on
    how to use a P&S camera. Please get busy and provide some. I'll post
    the text here and link to images on my site. It is remarkabley
    selfish of you to keep these secrets all to yourself given that you
    are always motivating others to take better pictures. I really like
    the 'follow the nocturnal insect as it bumps along a white wall
    technique.' So simple, yet so sophisticated! That is some awesome
    skill. Wait, you lied about that shot. Well there's the awesome
    shots of moths in flight! Oh, you lied about those, too. Forgot to
    mention how you managed to get such consistencey in type of shot and
    lighting. Oh, well, I'll put that in the tutorial. Can't use the
    Ibis shot because those are birds coming in for a landing, which you
    totally lied about.

    By the way, I'll continue to tear up any image you lie about, which is
    just about every one of them and post and link to them at my pleasure
    until and unless I hear from either Google,or, (snicker) your
    attornies. Of course, I quake at the thought of that every waking
    moment and have nightmares about when it will occur. It must be the
    stress of defending myself against the international investigation
    into my copyright violations worldwide.

    You seem to be having a tough time getting this whole legal thing
    going. I don't know why I'm being so nice to you, helping you contact
    Google and all now offering the following: You have my e-mail; send
    me the e-mail address of the lead attorney in your pursuit of legal
    redress to my alleged violoation of your alleged copyright and alert
    him (or her) that I will be contacting them with a list of all my
    websites where I have ever posted any images in the last 8 years,
    along with all applicable forms for the release of the information on
    the activities for those sites. Now, how much nicer can I be, though
    it is getting to be a strain?

    Have a good one, Barty!

    Vance
    Vance, Jul 2, 2010
    #14
  15. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Barry <> wrote:
    > Why does it bother you so much that the majority of photographers, amateur
    > and pro, find P&S cameras more interesting, more capable, more
    > cost-effective, more portable, more adaptable, more publicly accepted, and
    > more important than DSLRs today?


    Bzzt, wrong.

    The majority of photographers now use cell phone cameras. More
    cost-effective, portable, adaptable, and definitely more publically
    accepted.

    As you like to point out, sales figures don't lie.

    - Solomon
    --
    Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
    Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
    Stuffed Crust, Jul 2, 2010
    #15
  16. RichA

    Vance Guest

    On Jul 1, 10:32 pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <>
    wrote:
    > On 02 Jul 2010 05:25:38 GMT, Stuffed Crust <> wrote:
    >
    > >In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Barry <> wrote:
    > >> Why does it bother you so much that the majority of photographers, amateur
    > >> and pro, find P&S cameras more interesting, more capable, more
    > >> cost-effective, more portable, more adaptable, more publicly accepted, and
    > >> more important than DSLRs today?

    >
    > >Bzzt, wrong.

    >
    > >The majority of photographers now use cell phone cameras.  More
    > >cost-effective, portable, adaptable, and definitely more publically
    > >accepted.

    >
    > >As you like to point out, sales figures don't lie.

    >
    > > - Solomon

    >
    > Counting the sales of cell-phones as cameras is like counting the sales of
    > microwave-ovens as clocks.


    A point for the Troll! Always give credit where and when due.

    Vance
    Vance, Jul 2, 2010
    #16
  17. RichA

    Vance Guest

    On Jul 1, 10:11 pm, LOL! <> wrote:

    > Thanks again for publicly admitting theft of others photos. And again,
    > everyone can see what a lying and deceitful thief you are, in your very own
    > words.
    >


    For people to see what a lying and deceitful thief I am, they will
    need your help. I suggest you link to and point out the images in
    question. If that is too much work, just describe them and I will be
    happy to put them back up if they were switched out for new images.
    After all, I am trying to be helpful in your pursuit of justice.

    Perhaps it's not your own legal endeavors you are referring to but
    someone else's? In that case you will need to inform the NG of who
    that is so that they can follow up and see the truth of your
    allegations. I'm up for that.

    Barty, you have me so terrified that I almost bought a night light so
    that you didn't pop out of the closet or crawl out from under my bed
    and get me the way the biggest and baddest monsters always do.
    However, I sleep better in the dark and since I haven't lost any sleep
    over you yet, I couldn't think of a reason to start now.

    Vance
    Vance, Jul 2, 2010
    #17
  18. Vance wrote:
    > On Jul 1, 10:32 pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <> wrote:
    >> Counting the sales of cell-phones as cameras is like counting the sales of
    >> microwave-ovens as clocks.

    >
    > A point for the Troll! Always give credit where and when due.


    Yes, a good'un. My cameras, and cars, TVs and telephones also have
    clocks in them. Over clocked I am!

    --
    john mcwilliams
    John McWilliams, Jul 2, 2010
    #18
  19. RichA

    Peter Guest

    "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    news:i0l22e$vfm$-september.org...
    > Vance wrote:
    >> On Jul 1, 10:32 pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <> wrote:
    >>> Counting the sales of cell-phones as cameras is like counting the sales
    >>> of
    >>> microwave-ovens as clocks.

    >>
    >> A point for the Troll! Always give credit where and when due.

    >
    > Yes, a good'un. My cameras, and cars, TVs and telephones also have clocks
    > in them. Over clocked I am!



    IOW you never actually know hat time it is.

    --
    Peter
    Peter, Jul 2, 2010
    #19
  20. Peter wrote:
    > "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    > news:i0l22e$vfm$-september.org...
    >> Vance wrote:
    >>> On Jul 1, 10:32 pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <> wrote:
    >>>> Counting the sales of cell-phones as cameras is like counting the
    >>>> sales of
    >>>> microwave-ovens as clocks.
    >>>
    >>> A point for the Troll! Always give credit where and when due.

    >>
    >> Yes, a good'un. My cameras, and cars, TVs and telephones also have
    >> clocks in them. Over clocked I am!

    >
    >
    > IOW you never actually know hat time it is.


    Does anyone really care?

    As I mentioned,

    I was walking down the street one day.......

    --
    john mcwilliams
    John McWilliams, Jul 2, 2010
    #20
    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. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    463
    The Old Sourdough
    Sep 4, 2006
  2. Rafael Rivera [Extended64.com]

    Crashing Mystery; Getting Desperate

    Rafael Rivera [Extended64.com], Jun 14, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    1,222
    Christian Hougardy
    Jun 19, 2005
  3. Richard G Carruthers

    Help I am getting Desperate!!

    Richard G Carruthers, Aug 8, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    505
    jackfrost64
    Aug 10, 2005
  4. Miles Bader

    Re: P&S sellers getting desperate

    Miles Bader, Aug 14, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    515
    Bob Larter
    Aug 17, 2009
  5. Rich

    Re: P&S sellers getting desperate

    Rich, Aug 15, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    649
    John Turco
    Aug 23, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page