Opinions....(was Sony 828 First Impressions)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bill, Jan 2, 2004.

  1. Bill

    Bill Guest

    I have never seen so many "opinions" stated as facts and making assumptions
    about others! Each of us uses what
    he likes. But because someone choses a non-SLR digital camera (I won't call
    them all "P&S" becaue they aren't all the same!)....doesn't mean he doesn't
    know anything about photography! That is ridiculous! I have used a Canon SLR
    film camera with several lenses for many years. I have my own darkroom. I've
    processed all types of film, slides and prints. But when I bought my current
    digital camera (my second), I decided that if I found one that gave me full
    control of everything, then I would opt for that, and be satisfied with the
    non-changeable lens, so long as image quality was good. It's a matter of not
    wanting to lug all those lenses, bellows and so forth around any more. As it
    is, my digital case holds my camera, a wide angle adaptor, my external
    flash, extra batteries, a charger, cleaning kit, mini tripod and media.
    That's all I care to lug around. But that doesn't make me any less of a
    photographer than if I owned a dSLR. I still have the same eye for a good
    picture, the same ability to make a nice composition, and the same
    appreciation of subject matter. I know what an f-stop is and the
    relationship of aperture to DOF, what white balance is and more. And I can
    apply all of that to my digital camera. There are several modes that let me
    do what I want.

    Granted, some of the simpler digital cameras will appeal to those who don't
    know or care to know that much about photography, but that was true with
    film cameras as well, to wit the popularity of disposable film cameras for
    those who just want snapshots of a birthday or a vacation. But not all
    digital cameras are simplistic. There is a lot of variety in the
    capabilities of the various models. I could use a dSLR if I wanted to, but I
    chose not to. It's that simple.

    Bill
    Bill, Jan 2, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bill

    Azzz1588 Guest

    In article <DvnJb.23859$ti2.8214@lakeread03>, "Bill" <>
    writes:

    >There is a lot of variety in the
    >capabilities of the various models. I could use a dSLR if I wanted to, but I
    >chose not to. It's that simple.
    >




    Do realize that there is a certian core group of people here that
    equipment used matters more than the actual pictures taken.
    Unless you are using brand X, or Y digital camera, you
    pictures are not going to come out well in their opinion.




























    "Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."
    Azzz1588, Jan 3, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bill

    maf Guest

    Azzz1588 wrote:
    > In article <DvnJb.23859$ti2.8214@lakeread03>, "Bill" <>
    > writes:
    >
    >
    >>There is a lot of variety in the
    >>capabilities of the various models. I could use a dSLR if I wanted to, but I
    >>chose not to. It's that simple.
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Do realize that there is a certian core group of people here that
    > equipment used matters more than the actual pictures taken.
    > Unless you are using brand X, or Y digital camera, you
    > pictures are not going to come out well in their opinion.
    >

    This is all fine, but digital cameras make up a large industry, with
    much research and technological developments nearly on a daily basis. It
    is much fun to discuss these items, and it is only natural for people to
    defend their purchasing decisions to the bitter end. Shame people end up
    occasionally using foul language and getting itno personal arguments,
    but we are all human, after all.

    Mike
    maf, Jan 3, 2004
    #3
  4. Bill

    Guest

    In message <>,
    (Azzz1588) wrote:

    >In article <DvnJb.23859$ti2.8214@lakeread03>, "Bill" <>
    >writes:


    >>There is a lot of variety in the
    >>capabilities of the various models. I could use a dSLR if I wanted to, but I
    >>chose not to. It's that simple.


    >Do realize that there is a certian core group of people here that
    >equipment used matters more than the actual pictures taken.
    >Unless you are using brand X, or Y digital camera, you
    >pictures are not going to come out well in their opinion.


    This is rec.photo.DIGITAL.

    This is not rec.photo. It is technically off-topic to talk about
    photography in general here. Digital is a technology or range of
    technologies, so you should expect mainly tech talk here.

    You can not surmise a single thing about what people do with their
    cameras and how much, by what they talk about here.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Jan 4, 2004
    #4
  5. Bill

    Paul Guest

    Relax, man. How do you know what people are going to say, or what reasonable
    conclusions might be drawn from it? And general protography is not off-topic.
    After all, this is rec.PHOTO.digital.

    >This is rec.photo.DIGITAL.
    >
    >This is not rec.photo. It is technically off-topic to talk about
    >photography in general here. Digital is a technology or range of
    >technologies, so you should expect mainly tech talk here.
    >
    >You can not surmise a single thing about what people do with their
    >cameras and how much, by what they talk about here.
    Paul, Jan 4, 2004
    #5
  6. Bill

    imbsysop Guest

    "Paul" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Relax, man. How do you know what people are going to say, or what

    reasonable
    > conclusions might be drawn from it? And general protography is not

    off-topic.
    > After all, this is rec.PHOTO.digital.


    relax & read .. like it or not but the emphasis is on DIGITAL if not we
    could have done with plainly "rec.photo"
    imbsysop, Jan 4, 2004
    #6
  7. Bill

    Guest

    In message <>,
    (Paul) wrote:

    >Relax, man.


    I use capital letters for emphasis, and you decide that I need to relax?
    Talk about reading between the lines.

    >How do you know what people are going to say, or what reasonable
    >conclusions might be drawn from it?


    Huh?

    >And general protography is not off-topic.


    It's not on-topic, per se. This is a digital group, and you should
    expect that most of the discussion is going to be about what makes
    digital photography unique, not what makes it similar to film
    photography.

    >After all, this is rec.PHOTO.digital.


    The words get increasingly specific towards the end of the group name.

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Jan 4, 2004
    #7
  8. Bill

    Ron Hunter Guest

    wrote:
    > In message <>,
    > (Azzz1588) wrote:
    >
    >
    >>In article <DvnJb.23859$ti2.8214@lakeread03>, "Bill" <>
    >>writes:

    >
    >
    >>>There is a lot of variety in the
    >>>capabilities of the various models. I could use a dSLR if I wanted to, but I
    >>>chose not to. It's that simple.

    >
    >
    >>Do realize that there is a certian core group of people here that
    >>equipment used matters more than the actual pictures taken.
    >>Unless you are using brand X, or Y digital camera, you
    >>pictures are not going to come out well in their opinion.

    >
    >
    > This is rec.photo.DIGITAL.
    >
    > This is not rec.photo. It is technically off-topic to talk about
    > photography in general here. Digital is a technology or range of
    > technologies, so you should expect mainly tech talk here.
    >
    > You can not surmise a single thing about what people do with their
    > cameras and how much, by what they talk about here.


    Sorry, but photography in general is very much on topic here. Digital
    is just the specific medium we use.
    Ron Hunter, Jan 5, 2004
    #8
  9. Bill

    Ron Hunter Guest

    wrote:

    > In message <>,
    > (Paul) wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Relax, man.

    >
    >
    > I use capital letters for emphasis, and you decide that I need to relax?
    > Talk about reading between the lines.
    >
    >
    >>How do you know what people are going to say, or what reasonable
    >>conclusions might be drawn from it?

    >
    >
    > Huh?
    >
    >
    >>And general protography is not off-topic.

    >
    >
    > It's not on-topic, per se. This is a digital group, and you should
    > expect that most of the discussion is going to be about what makes
    > digital photography unique, not what makes it similar to film
    > photography.


    There are vastly more similarities than differences, and the end result
    is always on topic.

    >
    >
    >>After all, this is rec.PHOTO.digital.

    >
    >
    > The words get increasingly specific towards the end of the group name.
    >
    Ron Hunter, Jan 5, 2004
    #9
  10. Bill

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Ron Hunter <> wrote:

    > wrote:


    >> In message <>,
    >> (Paul) wrote:


    >>>Relax, man.


    >> I use capital letters for emphasis, and you decide that I need to relax?
    >> Talk about reading between the lines.


    >>>How do you know what people are going to say, or what reasonable
    >>>conclusions might be drawn from it?


    >> Huh?


    >>>And general protography is not off-topic.


    >> It's not on-topic, per se. This is a digital group, and you should
    >> expect that most of the discussion is going to be about what makes
    >> digital photography unique, not what makes it similar to film
    >> photography.


    >There are vastly more similarities than differences, and the end result
    >is always on topic.


    Please read my posts in context. Someone was whining that all people
    talk about here is gear. I myself am not complaining about posts that
    aren't specifically about digital.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Jan 6, 2004
    #10
  11. Bill

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Ron Hunter <> wrote:

    > wrote:
    >> In message <>,
    >> (Azzz1588) wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>In article <DvnJb.23859$ti2.8214@lakeread03>, "Bill" <>
    >>>writes:

    >>
    >>
    >>>>There is a lot of variety in the
    >>>>capabilities of the various models. I could use a dSLR if I wanted to, but I
    >>>>chose not to. It's that simple.

    >>
    >>
    >>>Do realize that there is a certian core group of people here that
    >>>equipment used matters more than the actual pictures taken.
    >>>Unless you are using brand X, or Y digital camera, you
    >>>pictures are not going to come out well in their opinion.

    >>
    >>
    >> This is rec.photo.DIGITAL.
    >>
    >> This is not rec.photo. It is technically off-topic to talk about
    >> photography in general here. Digital is a technology or range of
    >> technologies, so you should expect mainly tech talk here.
    >>
    >> You can not surmise a single thing about what people do with their
    >> cameras and how much, by what they talk about here.

    >
    >Sorry, but photography in general is very much on topic here. Digital
    >is just the specific medium we use.


    Sorry, but you're not paying attention. Read my posts in context.

    Here's a clue; don't read between poster A's lines what poster B
    imagined he was replying to.

    Thank you.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Jan 6, 2004
    #11
    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. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    600
    Silverstrand
    Sep 30, 2005
  2. Lars L. Christensen

    G.SHDSL 828-to-828

    Lars L. Christensen, Dec 16, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,309
    Igor MamuziƦ
    Dec 17, 2004
  3. Gordon
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    411
    Old Gringo
    Dec 20, 2004
  4. bmoag

    Sony 828 first impressions

    bmoag, Dec 31, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    50
    Views:
    1,091
    Steven M. Scharf
    Jan 6, 2004
  5. joe.harman

    Sony 828 and Sony Flash 32X?...

    joe.harman, Jan 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    368
    Seymore
    Jan 4, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page