Re: Nikon

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ASAAR, Jun 25, 2008.

  1. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:04:49 +0100, Jake wrote:

    > Is it just me, or are there a lot of stupid posts here supporting Nikon?


    No, it's not just you. But not all of those that are stupid as a
    post support Nikon. Many dolts also support Canon, Fuji, Kodak,
    Minolta, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax and Sony cameras. Which brands
    do *you* support? :)
    ASAAR, Jun 25, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ASAAR

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, ASAAR
    <> wrote:

    > Many dolts also support Canon, Fuji, Kodak,
    > Minolta, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax and Sony cameras.


    don't forget sigma. :)
    nospam, Jun 25, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:31:29 +1200, frederick wrote:

    >>> Is it just me, or are there a lot of stupid posts here supporting Nikon?

    >>
    >> No, it's not just you. But not all of those that are stupid as a
    >> post support Nikon. Many dolts also support Canon, Fuji, Kodak,
    >> Minolta, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax and Sony cameras. Which brands
    >> do *you* support? :)
    >>

    > Samsung - you forgot Samsung. There are bound to be some people who
    > support Samsung,


    Of course, they are legion. But how could there be any stupid
    supporters of Samsung, universally acknowledged as makers of the
    worlds finest cameras? I can be forgiven for forgetting Ricoh, as
    they're almost impossible to find, at least over here . . .
    ASAAR, Jun 25, 2008
    #3
  4. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:56:26 -0700, nospam wrote:

    >> Many dolts also support Canon, Fuji, Kodak,
    >> Minolta, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax and Sony cameras.

    >
    > don't forget sigma. :)


    I didn't forget Sigma. There are none left ever since George
    Preddy died and was reincarnated as Rita. Something obviously went
    haywire, as this happened more than 18 months ago and she's still
    here . . .
    ASAAR, Jun 25, 2008
    #4
  5. frederick wrote:
    []
    > Samsung - you forgot Samsung. There are bound to be some people who
    > support Samsung,


    I don't know about the US - but in the UK Samsung is current running an
    advert about their cameras having millions of pixels, but only "thousands"
    of colours. Makes it a brand to avoid in my view - I want far more
    colours than that!

    (Noted that each pixel may only be quantised to 10-14 bits, so perhaps
    they are being /too/ honest!).

    David
    David J Taylor, Jun 25, 2008
    #5
  6. nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, ASAAR
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Many dolts also support Canon, Fuji, Kodak,
    >> Minolta, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax and Sony cameras.

    >
    > don't forget sigma. :)


    Please do!
    David J Taylor, Jun 25, 2008
    #6
  7. ASAAR

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:15:42 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:

    >frederick wrote:
    >[]
    >> Samsung - you forgot Samsung. There are bound to be some people who
    >> support Samsung,

    >
    >I don't know about the US - but in the UK Samsung is current running an
    >advert about their cameras having millions of pixels, but only "thousands"
    >of colours. Makes it a brand to avoid in my view - I want far more
    >colours than that!
    >


    But looking at the images on a Samsung monitor is kick-ass. My
    SyncMaster 2253LW eliminates bad bokeh, is sharp enough to allow me to
    count an Osprey's eyelashes, and pops this up on the screen whenever
    Helen comments on one of Bret's photo links:
    http://img1.jurko.net/avatar_2332.gif
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jun 25, 2008
    #7
  8. David J Taylor <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    > frederick wrote:
    > []
    >> Samsung - you forgot Samsung. There are bound to be some people who
    >> support Samsung,


    > I don't know about the US - but in the UK Samsung is current running an
    > advert about their cameras having millions of pixels, but only "thousands"
    > of colours. Makes it a brand to avoid in my view - I want far more
    > colours than that!


    > (Noted that each pixel may only be quantised to 10-14 bits, so perhaps
    > they are being /too/ honest!).


    Why don't you hear people in music shops asking for an instrument with
    more notes?

    --
    Chris Malcolm DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
    Chris Malcolm, Jun 25, 2008
    #8
  9. ASAAR

    ASAAR Guest

    On 25 Jun 2008 08:38:19 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote:

    >> (Noted that each pixel may only be quantised to 10-14 bits, so perhaps
    >> they are being /too/ honest!).

    >
    > Why don't you hear people in music shops asking for an instrument with
    > more notes?


    They will, they will. But right now they're too busy looking for
    amps having volume controls that go to eleven!
    ASAAR, Jun 25, 2008
    #9
  10. Chris Malcolm wrote:
    []
    > Why don't you hear people in music shops asking for an instrument with
    > more notes?


    You can tune and tweak many instruments to get as many notes as you want!
    And then there is the string section, and trombones....

    David
    David J Taylor, Jun 25, 2008
    #10
  11. David J Taylor <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    > Chris Malcolm wrote:
    > []
    >> Why don't you hear people in music shops asking for an instrument with
    >> more notes?


    > You can tune and tweak many instruments to get as many notes as you want!
    > And then there is the string section, and trombones....


    That's true, but the more you make the less you can tell the
    difference. There's a limit to how many different notes the best human
    ear can hear, quite apart from the restricted range of our own
    personal ears.

    --
    Chris Malcolm DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
    Chris Malcolm, Jun 26, 2008
    #11
  12. Chris Malcolm wrote:
    > David J Taylor
    > <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    >> Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >> []
    >>> Why don't you hear people in music shops asking for an instrument
    >>> with more notes?

    >
    >> You can tune and tweak many instruments to get as many notes as you
    >> want! And then there is the string section, and trombones....

    >
    > That's true, but the more you make the less you can tell the
    > difference. There's a limit to how many different notes the best human
    > ear can hear, quite apart from the restricted range of our own
    > personal ears.


    Were that the same was true with eyes! I believe that I have been able to
    see quantisation even in 24-bit displays ("16 million colours") if the
    colours are carefully chosen to be adjacent (G=50, B=51 etc.) and the
    image chosen to maximise quantisation visibility (slow changes across the
    display, "circular greyscale"). Hence my comment that "thousands of
    colours" would stop me purchasing a camera.

    The trouble is that, with using LCD displays (as opposed to CRT) you never
    know where you are with colour (it could even be 6-bits per channel, and
    goodness knows what calibration), and I also watch some digital TV
    (FreeView) and you have no idea how the bit-rate reduction there may have
    damaged the original.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jun 26, 2008
    #12
  13. ASAAR

    John Turco Guest

    nospam wrote:
    >
    > In article <>, ASAAR
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > Many dolts also support Canon, Fuji, Kodak,
    > > Minolta, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax and Sony cameras.

    >
    > don't forget sigma. :)



    Hello, nospam:

    Why? Sigma is quite forgettable, if nothing else. ;-)


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
    John Turco, Jun 27, 2008
    #13
  14. David J Taylor <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    > Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >> David J Taylor
    >> <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    >>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >>> []
    >>>> Why don't you hear people in music shops asking for an instrument
    >>>> with more notes?

    >>
    >>> You can tune and tweak many instruments to get as many notes as you
    >>> want! And then there is the string section, and trombones....

    >>
    >> That's true, but the more you make the less you can tell the
    >> difference. There's a limit to how many different notes the best human
    >> ear can hear, quite apart from the restricted range of our own
    >> personal ears.


    > Were that the same was true with eyes! I believe that I have been able to
    > see quantisation even in 24-bit displays ("16 million colours") if the
    > colours are carefully chosen to be adjacent (G=50, B=51 etc.) and the
    > image chosen to maximise quantisation visibility (slow changes across the
    > display, "circular greyscale"). Hence my comment that "thousands of
    > colours" would stop me purchasing a camera.


    > The trouble is that, with using LCD displays (as opposed to CRT) you never
    > know where you are with colour (it could even be 6-bits per channel, and
    > goodness knows what calibration), and I also watch some digital TV
    > (FreeView) and you have no idea how the bit-rate reduction there may have
    > damaged the original.


    It's obvious what's going to happen if you leave digitisation quality
    in the hands of someone who is going to profit from underestimating
    the capacity of human senses. I reluctantly accept the bland
    cartoonish plasticisation of digital TV as a worthwhile trade off
    which gives me in return more reliable noise-free reception, more
    channels, etc..

    It's a shame the purveyors of digital sound broadcasting couldn't have
    rested content with CD quality, and rather disgusting that the BBC,
    who used to lead the world in broadcast sound quality, have made such
    a greedy pig's breakfast of digital radio "quality". The compression
    artefacts annoy me even when listening to the news despite my ears
    being far too old to be able to hear TV pictures or bats.

    --
    Chris Malcolm DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
    Chris Malcolm, Jun 27, 2008
    #14
  15. Chris Malcolm wrote:
    []
    > It's obvious what's going to happen if you leave digitisation quality
    > in the hands of someone who is going to profit from underestimating
    > the capacity of human senses. I reluctantly accept the bland
    > cartoonish plasticisation of digital TV as a worthwhile trade off
    > which gives me in return more reliable noise-free reception, more
    > channels, etc..
    >
    > It's a shame the purveyors of digital sound broadcasting couldn't have
    > rested content with CD quality, and rather disgusting that the BBC,
    > who used to lead the world in broadcast sound quality, have made such
    > a greedy pig's breakfast of digital radio "quality". The compression
    > artefacts annoy me even when listening to the news despite my ears
    > being far too old to be able to hear TV pictures or bats.


    Chris,

    I still have FM analogue radio here, and it's fine for my purposes. My
    radio news is restricted to BBC Radio 3. I do agree with you about the
    trade-off with digital TV, although I would prefer less quantity and more
    quality (both of the broadcast material and the technical transmission
    aspects). Fewer, higher-quality channels.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jun 27, 2008
    #15
    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. Tom Thackrey

    Re: Nikon D100/Nikon N80; same exposure?

    Tom Thackrey, Jul 14, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    441
    Tom Thackrey
    Jul 14, 2003
  2. MarkH

    Re: Nikon D100/Nikon N80; same exposure?

    MarkH, Jul 14, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    695
    Frank Gaylord
    Jul 15, 2003
  3. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Nikon Coolpix 775 or Nikon Coolpix 2500

    Larry R Harrison Jr, Aug 2, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    523
    Larry R Harrison Jr
    Aug 2, 2003
  4. H. Brinkman
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    846
    H. Brinkman
    Aug 9, 2003
  5. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    921
    Joseph Miller
    Jun 7, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page