Re: The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by David J Taylor, Dec 22, 2008.

  1. Stephen Bishop wrote:
    > On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:42:27 -0800, John Navas

    []
    >> The subject of the entire thread is pejorative, and your constant
    >> use of terms like "p&s" and "disposable" is likewise pejorative.
    >> Which is of course why you do it.

    >
    > I didn't create the title of the thread, but here we are. I wouldn't
    > choose that title myself.
    >
    > "P&S" is a category of camera, and is no more pejorative than "dslr."
    > "Disposable" is what you allude to when you said you take it to use
    > in conditions where you wouldn't mind if it got lost or damaged
    > because it was inexpensive to replace.


    The thread title obviously reflects on person's point of view, and it not
    one I would have chosen either.

    I've tried to suggest alternative terms like "small-sensor" camera
    elsewhere in this thread - which is perhaps a more accurate description,
    and probably the main distinguishing characteristic. Of course, it
    doesn't have the snappiness of P&S. It seems that the term P&S has stuck,
    even though many DSLRs also are capable of fully automated settings.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 22, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. David J Taylor

    dj_nme Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > Stephen Bishop wrote:
    >> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:42:27 -0800, John Navas

    > []
    >>> The subject of the entire thread is pejorative, and your constant
    >>> use of terms like "p&s" and "disposable" is likewise pejorative.
    >>> Which is of course why you do it.

    >>
    >> I didn't create the title of the thread, but here we are. I wouldn't
    >> choose that title myself.
    >>
    >> "P&S" is a category of camera, and is no more pejorative than "dslr."
    >> "Disposable" is what you allude to when you said you take it to use
    >> in conditions where you wouldn't mind if it got lost or damaged
    >> because it was inexpensive to replace.

    >
    > The thread title obviously reflects on person's point of view, and it
    > not one I would have chosen either.
    >
    > I've tried to suggest alternative terms like "small-sensor" camera
    > elsewhere in this thread - which is perhaps a more accurate description,
    > and probably the main distinguishing characteristic. Of course, it
    > doesn't have the snappiness of P&S. It seems that the term P&S has
    > stuck, even though many DSLRs also are capable of fully automated settings.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David


    Add to that the fact that many compact and ultra-zoom digicams have
    full-manual controls available, it further muddies the clarity of the
    term "P&S" when referring to non-SLR digital cameras.
     
    dj_nme, Dec 22, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David J Taylor

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >I've tried to suggest alternative terms like "small-sensor" camera
    > >elsewhere in this thread - which is perhaps a more accurate description,
    > >and probably the main distinguishing characteristic.

    >
    > Not true, a double standard. By that logic most dSLRs are also "small
    > sensor" cameras, since they have sensors much smaller than full frame 35
    > mm.


    don't be ridiculous. by that metric, a phase one medium format back is
    a 'small sensor' because it's smaller than a 4x5 view camera.

    > The main distinguishing characteristic of cameras like the FZ8 is
    > clearly the lack of interchangeable lenses. I prefer the term "compact"
    > cameras, but use "ZLR" or "fixed zoom" cameras if you prefer.


    no, the main characteristic is the sensor size. the fact that the lens
    won't come off is secondary.

    > >It seems that the term P&S has stuck,
    > >even though many DSLRs also are capable of fully automated settings.

    >
    > More careful and objective authors use more appropriate terms.


    tell that to all of the major camera sellers. like it or not, that's
    what it has come to mean.

    > This frankly comes across as bias.


    maybe to you but not to the rest of the world.
     
    nospam, Dec 22, 2008
    #3
  4. David J Taylor

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >> This frankly comes across as bias.

    > >
    > >maybe to you but not to the rest of the world.

    >
    > You presume to speak for the rest of the world?


    nope, i speak only for myself, and what i've noticed is *common usage*
    of the term, i.e., used by the rest of the world, typically means a
    compact digicam.

    furthermore, this is nothing more than nitpicking on terminology and
    has little to do with the differences between two cameras.
     
    nospam, Dec 22, 2008
    #4
  5. David J Taylor

    dj_nme Guest

    John Navas wrote:
    > On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:19:38 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    > <-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
    > <ecH3l.9855$>:
    >
    >> Stephen Bishop wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:42:27 -0800, John Navas

    >> []
    >>>> The subject of the entire thread is pejorative, and your constant
    >>>> use of terms like "p&s" and "disposable" is likewise pejorative.
    >>>> Which is of course why you do it.
    >>> I didn't create the title of the thread, but here we are. I wouldn't
    >>> choose that title myself.
    >>>
    >>> "P&S" is a category of camera, and is no more pejorative than "dslr."
    >>> "Disposable" is what you allude to when you said you take it to use
    >>> in conditions where you wouldn't mind if it got lost or damaged
    >>> because it was inexpensive to replace.

    >> The thread title obviously reflects on person's point of view, and it not
    >> one I would have chosen either.
    >>
    >> I've tried to suggest alternative terms like "small-sensor" camera
    >> elsewhere in this thread - which is perhaps a more accurate description,
    >> and probably the main distinguishing characteristic.

    >
    > Not true, a double standard. By that logic most dSLRs are also "small
    > sensor" cameras, since they have sensors much smaller than full frame 35
    > mm.


    Not so fast, the term "small sensor" has always been used for the sensor
    size used in P&S and compact digicams, at least for half a decade.

    > The main distinguishing characteristic of cameras like the FZ8 is
    > clearly the lack of interchangeable lenses. I prefer the term "compact"
    > cameras, but use "ZLR" or "fixed zoom" cameras if you prefer.


    Using the term "ZLR camera" for a digicam with an ultra-zoom lens and
    EVF is disingenuous, because the "R" in the name implies a reflex
    viewfinder.
    The term was originally created by Olympus to describe their IS series
    of fixed zoom lens (film) SLR cameras and they continued with the term
    when they were making small-sensor (2/3" CCD) fixed zoom lens DSLR cameras.
    None of the Panasonic FZ digicams have a reflex viewfinder, so they
    aren't real "ZLR cameras" no matter how hard you wish for it to be true.
    It would be more accurate to call them "EVF cameras" or "EVF digicams".

    >> Of course, it
    >> doesn't have the snappiness of P&S.

    >
    > Or the fun pejorative connotations. "Compact" is snappy, likewise
    > "ZLR", and "fixed zoom" isn't far behind.


    Many of the EVF digicams are just as bulky as the smaller bodied SLR
    cameras, so the term "compact" is rather an exaggeration of how "small"
    they are.

    >> It seems that the term P&S has stuck,
    >> even though many DSLRs also are capable of fully automated settings.

    >
    > More careful and objective authors use more appropriate terms.
    >
    > This frankly comes across as bias.


    Unfortunately, none of the manufacturers of EVF cameras have come up
    with anything "official" to call this class of camera.
    So you can't use a "real" or "proper" name for this type of digicam,
    only one that is generally agreed to and this hasn't really happened yet.

    Some of the more fanatical EVF digicam users hijacked the term "ZLR
    camera" and created a newsgroup rec.photo.digital.zlr.
    This has since proved to be a wasted exercise, as after the initial
    posting flurry (lasting a couple of months) has only had automated spam
    and other cross-posted messages.
     
    dj_nme, Dec 22, 2008
    #5
  6. David J Taylor

    nospam Guest

    In article
    <49500f1b$0$15761$>, dj_nme
    <> wrote:

    > > The main distinguishing characteristic of cameras like the FZ8 is
    > > clearly the lack of interchangeable lenses. I prefer the term "compact"
    > > cameras, but use "ZLR" or "fixed zoom" cameras if you prefer.

    >
    > Using the term "ZLR camera" for a digicam with an ultra-zoom lens and
    > EVF is disingenuous, because the "R" in the name implies a reflex
    > viewfinder.
    > The term was originally created by Olympus to describe their IS series
    > of fixed zoom lens (film) SLR cameras and they continued with the term
    > when they were making small-sensor (2/3" CCD) fixed zoom lens DSLR cameras.
    > None of the Panasonic FZ digicams have a reflex viewfinder, so they
    > aren't real "ZLR cameras" no matter how hard you wish for it to be true.
    > It would be more accurate to call them "EVF cameras" or "EVF digicams".


    and the panasonic g1 is considered an slr even though it lacks a
    mirror. it's more like an slr than it is any other category. the
    terms evolve.

    some have coined the term 'evil' for 'electronic viewfinder with
    interchangeable lenses', but it hasn't caught on (and hopefully stays
    that way).

    > Unfortunately, none of the manufacturers of EVF cameras have come up
    > with anything "official" to call this class of camera.
    > So you can't use a "real" or "proper" name for this type of digicam,
    > only one that is generally agreed to and this hasn't really happened yet.


    good point, although it seems like 'p&s' has come to mean a non-dslr.
     
    nospam, Dec 22, 2008
    #6
  7. David J Taylor

    Paul Furman Guest

    nospam wrote:
    > In article
    > <49500f1b$0$15761$>, dj_nme
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>> The main distinguishing characteristic of cameras like the FZ8 is
    >>> clearly the lack of interchangeable lenses. I prefer the term "compact"
    >>> cameras, but use "ZLR" or "fixed zoom" cameras if you prefer.

    >> Using the term "ZLR camera" for a digicam with an ultra-zoom lens and
    >> EVF is disingenuous, because the "R" in the name implies a reflex
    >> viewfinder.
    >> The term was originally created by Olympus to describe their IS series
    >> of fixed zoom lens (film) SLR cameras and they continued with the term
    >> when they were making small-sensor (2/3" CCD) fixed zoom lens DSLR cameras.
    >> None of the Panasonic FZ digicams have a reflex viewfinder, so they
    >> aren't real "ZLR cameras" no matter how hard you wish for it to be true.
    >> It would be more accurate to call them "EVF cameras" or "EVF digicams".

    >
    > and the panasonic g1 is considered an slr even though it lacks a
    > mirror. it's more like an slr than it is any other category. the
    > terms evolve.


    The terms do evolve but 'SLR' would be completely meaningless used for
    the G1. I'd rather call it a digital rangefinder which is also wrong
    <g>. The distinction is interchangeable lens and that separates it from P&S.

    'Single Lens' means you looks through the taking lens which is true for
    almost all digital cameras apart from compacts with an optical
    viewfinder - those resemble film P&S - which resemble rangefinders in
    function. The term 'Single Lens' is meaningless today unless you are
    comparing to a TLR Twin Lens Reflex of the 1950's. And those weren't
    interchangeable lenses AFAIK <g>.

    'Reflex' is an awkward way of saying there's a mirror which flexes the
    image up to your eye. 'Reflex' didn't originally mean a flip-up mirror
    like an SLR but that's what we think it means; like the flipping motion
    is the reflex. 'Reflex' was originally used to distinguish from view
    cameras which project directly onto ground glass (upside down).


    > some have coined the term 'evil' for 'electronic viewfinder with
    > interchangeable lenses', but it hasn't caught on (and hopefully stays
    > that way).


    IL doesn't sound much better and 'interchangeable' is too long. 'Micro
    4/3' is all I can think of to call it but I can't type the mu character <g>.


    >> Unfortunately, none of the manufacturers of EVF cameras have come up
    >> with anything "official" to call this class of camera.
    >> So you can't use a "real" or "proper" name for this type of digicam,
    >> only one that is generally agreed to and this hasn't really happened yet.

    >
    > good point, although it seems like 'p&s' has come to mean a non-dslr.


    Yes P&S is an overly broad term. The main distinction is fixed lens.
    'Bridge Camera' is not a bad term, I might lump micro-4/3 in there for
    lack of a better term. There are a bunch of bridge concepts and even
    pro-sumer models that look like a P&S with more features, the smaller
    simple designs remain P&S. We can retire the D on DSLR too, film users
    can use 'film SLR'.

    P&S
    Bridge
    SLR

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Dec 23, 2008
    #7
  8. David J Taylor

    Paul Furman Guest

    Paul Furman wrote:
    > The distinction is interchangeable lens


    Well sensor size is more important but in terms of design it's the
    interchangeable lens that distinguishes micro 4/3 from everything but
    the Leica M8 and DSLRs.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Dec 23, 2008
    #8
  9. David J Taylor

    dj_nme Guest

    savvo wrote:
    > On 2008-12-22, nospam <> wrote:
    >> In article
    >> <49500f1b$0$15761$>, dj_nme
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> The main distinguishing characteristic of cameras like the FZ8 is
    >>>> clearly the lack of interchangeable lenses. I prefer the term "compact"
    >>>> cameras, but use "ZLR" or "fixed zoom" cameras if you prefer.
    >>> Using the term "ZLR camera" for a digicam with an ultra-zoom lens and
    >>> EVF is disingenuous, because the "R" in the name implies a reflex
    >>> viewfinder.
    >>> The term was originally created by Olympus to describe their IS series
    >>> of fixed zoom lens (film) SLR cameras and they continued with the term
    >>> when they were making small-sensor (2/3" CCD) fixed zoom lens DSLR cameras.
    >>> None of the Panasonic FZ digicams have a reflex viewfinder, so they
    >>> aren't real "ZLR cameras" no matter how hard you wish for it to be true.
    >>> It would be more accurate to call them "EVF cameras" or "EVF digicams".

    >>
    >> and the panasonic g1 is considered an slr even though it lacks a
    >> mirror. it's more like an slr than it is any other category. the
    >> terms evolve.

    >
    > Not by Panasonic or, well, anyone really.


    Not even Panasonic is silly enough to claim that a digicam with an EVF
    has a reflex viewfinder.

    > It's more like a compact because that's what it is.


    Only in viewfinder type and maybe body size, unfortunately.
    It would appear that lenses for mu4/3 cameras are still roughly the same
    size as the full-sized 4/3 lenses.
    I would challenge any-one that to put even a short zoom lens on a DMC-G1
    and then fit the whole thing into a pocket would be attempting the
    impossible.
    Unless you've got special "trick" trousers.
     
    dj_nme, Dec 23, 2008
    #9
  10. John Navas wrote:
    > On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:19:38 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    > <-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote
    > in <ecH3l.9855$>:
    >
    >> Stephen Bishop wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:42:27 -0800, John Navas

    >> []
    >>>> The subject of the entire thread is pejorative, and your constant
    >>>> use of terms like "p&s" and "disposable" is likewise pejorative.
    >>>> Which is of course why you do it.
    >>>
    >>> I didn't create the title of the thread, but here we are. I
    >>> wouldn't choose that title myself.
    >>>
    >>> "P&S" is a category of camera, and is no more pejorative than
    >>> "dslr." "Disposable" is what you allude to when you said you take
    >>> it to use in conditions where you wouldn't mind if it got lost or
    >>> damaged because it was inexpensive to replace.

    >>
    >> The thread title obviously reflects on person's point of view, and
    >> it not one I would have chosen either.
    >>
    >> I've tried to suggest alternative terms like "small-sensor" camera
    >> elsewhere in this thread - which is perhaps a more accurate
    >> description, and probably the main distinguishing characteristic.

    >
    > Not true, a double standard. By that logic most dSLRs are also "small
    > sensor" cameras, since they have sensors much smaller than full frame
    > 35 mm.
    >
    > The main distinguishing characteristic of cameras like the FZ8 is
    > clearly the lack of interchangeable lenses. I prefer the term
    > "compact" cameras, but use "ZLR" or "fixed zoom" cameras if you
    > prefer.
    >
    >> Of course, it
    >> doesn't have the snappiness of P&S.

    >
    > Or the fun pejorative connotations. "Compact" is snappy, likewise
    > "ZLR", and "fixed zoom" isn't far behind.
    >
    >> It seems that the term P&S has stuck,
    >> even though many DSLRs also are capable of fully automated settings.

    >
    > More careful and objective authors use more appropriate terms.
    >
    > This frankly comes across as bias.


    John, there is no bias nor any intentional connotations. The responses of
    others to your remarks seem to indicate that they don't think so either.
    Differences between the many variants of English will probably prevent us
    from coming up with a mutually agreeable term.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 23, 2008
    #10
  11. John Navas wrote:
    > On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 08:03:28 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    > <-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote
    > in <kX04l.10313$>:
    >
    >> John Navas wrote:

    >
    >>> This frankly comes across as bias.

    >>
    >> John, there is no bias nor any intentional connotations.

    >
    > With all due respect, David, all of us have biases, you (and me)
    > included. It's a bit disingenuous to assert otherwise. The
    > perception of bias is also important.
    >
    >> The responses of
    >> others to your remarks seem to indicate that they don't think so
    >> either.

    >
    > Some do; some don't. Claiming consensus for your point of view is
    > also a bit disingenuous, and not terribly meaningful -- all you can
    > really speak for is your own perception and opinion, and you seem
    > unable or unwilling to acknowledge valid differences of perception
    > and opinion.
    >
    >> Differences between the many variants of English will probably
    >> prevent us from coming up with a mutually agreeable term.

    >
    > I'd say differences in bias and agenda prevent us from coming up with
    > a mutually agreeable term, and think the stubbornness of dSLR fans is
    > telling -- if they're not using the term in a derogatory way, and know
    > it to be negative to at least some compact camera fans, why the
    > stubbornness?
    >
    > It smacks of Southerners claiming the n-word and "boy" are commonly
    > accepted, no need to change to "black" or "African American".
    >
    > I think this alone is ample evidence of some people here using "p&s"
    > in a derogatory way. You disagree. We should leave it at that. And
    > we can if you can resist the temptation to again assert authority. ;)


    I'm happy to discuss well-reasoned arguments with anyone, without agenda,
    and I'm open to views which have the backing of scientific reason and
    examples. I try not to have any intentional bias, and to state as fact
    only that which I can verify for myself. Of course, I will not always
    achieve that!

    Having considered what you have said, I think that I will continue to use
    the terms P&S and compact camera as they seem the least likely to be
    misunderstood, although I do feel that small-sensor camera actually
    describes them better. Any word can be used in a derogatory way if you
    try hard enough!

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 23, 2008
    #11
  12. John Navas wrote:
    []
    > Surely you also consider the _perception_ of what you're trying to
    > communicate -- that is, after all, the essence of communication.
    > Isn't communication your objective? Calling your wife "fat" may be
    > objective and scientifically accurate, but not likely to have a good
    > result, now is it? ;)


    I do not consider my camera to have the same sensitivities as my wife.
    Calling my camera "DSLR" or "P&S" is unlikely to influence the results it
    produces.


    > The point is that some can be used in a derogatory way without trying,
    > as I'm sure you know. And as you should now know, I consider the term
    > "P&S" to be derogatory when used to refer to a "bridge" camera like
    > the Panasonic FZ8, unlike the term "compact camera". If you do that,
    > knowing how I feel, and why, how could you really expect to have a
    > good constructive relationship with me? Just like how you would feel
    > if you perceived me to be insulting you.



    Sorry, but only in the most exceptional circumstances would I consider not
    calling a P&S a P&S. Even a DSLR can be a P&S camera - mine even has a
    special position on the command-dial for it, marked in green, so it's easy
    to find! In normal use of my DSLR and non-DLSR cameras, I regularly make
    use of automatic exposure and automatic focussing. Does that make them
    P&S? <G>

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 23, 2008
    #12
  13. John Navas wrote:
    []
    > If that's your choice, consciously and deliberately using a term that
    > you know I feel is insulting to me (even though I don't insult your
    > choices), then I don't see how we can possibly have a good
    > relationship. Life is too short.


    Please don't be silly, John. If I don't happen to like the word "bung"
    and yet that's what everyone calls it, I'm not going to take offence.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 23, 2008
    #13
  14. David J Taylor

    nospam Guest

    In article <VmW3l.11288$>, Paul Furman
    <> wrote:

    > The terms do evolve but 'SLR' would be completely meaningless used for
    > the G1. I'd rather call it a digital rangefinder which is also wrong
    > <g>. The distinction is interchangeable lens and that separates it from P&S.


    but it's closer to an slr than it is to anything else.
     
    nospam, Dec 23, 2008
    #14
  15. David J Taylor

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, savvo
    <> wrote:

    > > and the panasonic g1 is considered an slr even though it lacks a
    > > mirror. it's more like an slr than it is any other category. the
    > > terms evolve.

    >
    > Not by Panasonic or, well, anyone really.
    >
    > It's more like a compact because that's what it is.


    no, it's more like an slr. the g1 is closer to something like a nikon
    d40 than it is any compact camera. the main difference is that there's
    an evf and no mirror. otherwise, it feels like a small dslr.
     
    nospam, Dec 23, 2008
    #15
  16. John Navas wrote:
    []
    > Please don't be disingenuous and demeaning, David. Even though it
    > shouldn't matter, I've explained and documented how and why that term
    > is offensive.


    John,

    You know perfectly well that if I say P&S it simply refers to a type of
    camera by a common nomenclature. I use a P&S camera, and the term is not
    in the least offensive, so please don't take as such. Just translate it
    when you read it to a term you see fit.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 23, 2008
    #16
  17. John Navas wrote:
    []
    > p.s. Do you really not see how illogical it is to say you're open to
    > "scientific reason", acknowledge that cameras like the FZ8 are really
    > no more P&S than dSLRs, and then conclude that you'll continue to use
    > the term P&S?? That's a big part of why it seems biased.


    I'm simply not going to waste my time writing or your time reading "a
    small-sensor camera which has a fixed lens" when P&S will do.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 23, 2008
    #17
  18. John Navas wrote:
    > On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:19:06 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    > <-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote
    > in <_Ib4l.10645$>:
    >
    >> John Navas wrote:
    >> []
    >>> p.s. Do you really not see how illogical it is to say you're open
    >>> to "scientific reason", acknowledge that cameras like the FZ8 are
    >>> really no more P&S than dSLRs, and then conclude that you'll
    >>> continue to use the term P&S?? That's a big part of why it seems
    >>> biased.

    >>
    >> I'm simply not going to waste my time writing or your time reading "a
    >> small-sensor camera which has a fixed lens" when P&S will do.

    >
    > I rest my case. I think your bias is clear, whether you honestly
    > don't see it or not, and will take that into account in the future.


    John, as you objected to "small-sensor", and said that "compact" was not
    appropriate (IIRC), what would /you/ prefer your camera to be called?
    Perhaps, when I reply specifically to you, I will remember to use that
    term.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 23, 2008
    #18
  19. John Navas wrote:
    > On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:17:01 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    > <-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote
    > in <1Hb4l.10644$>:
    >
    >> John Navas wrote:
    >> []
    >>> Please don't be disingenuous and demeaning, David. Even though it
    >>> shouldn't matter, I've explained and documented how and why that
    >>> term is offensive.

    >>
    >> You know perfectly well that if I say P&S it simply refers to a type
    >> of camera by a common nomenclature.

    >
    > No more than you're wife knows you don't really mean any harm when you
    > tell her those pants she picked make her look fat.
    >
    >> I use a P&S camera, and the term is not
    >> in the least offensive,

    >
    > To you. As in the case of Vista, you don't seem to think the
    > experiences of others are at all important. "No skin off my nose."


    You refused to tell me of your experiences - "just Google" was your
    response!

    >> so please don't take as such. Just translate it
    >> when you read it to a term you see fit.

    >
    > In other words, the negative connotation of your term is my problem.
    > How nice.


    I can't help you with problems like that, John. If the rest of the world
    uses the term, you will have more than deal with it from many more people.

    Don't take it personally, but I'm closing this topic now.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 23, 2008
    #19
  20. David J Taylor

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >If the rest of the world
    > >uses the term, you will have more than deal with it from many more people.

    >
    > This is about you, not the rest of the world. That you repeatedly use
    > the fallacies of Appeal to Common Practice and Appeal to Popularity does
    > you no credit.


    as mentioned before, the rest of the world generally refers to
    non-dslrs as p&s cameras. that's just how it is.

    if it's so derogatory, why do the companies who make the cameras call
    them point and shoot?
    <http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_digital_cseries.asp>

    it's you who sees offense where there is none to be seen.

    > >Don't take it personally, but I'm closing this topic now.

    >
    > Suit yourself. I can't say I'm surprised -- I've reluctantly come to
    > the conclusion you're one of the more self-centered people I've come in
    > contact with.


    "with that insult you concede the debate."
     
    nospam, Dec 23, 2008
    #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. JD

    How do you convert a CD ISO to DVD ISO?

    JD, Aug 20, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    29,400
  2. SMS

    Re: The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

    SMS, Dec 6, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    65
    Views:
    1,444
  3. Ray Fischer

    Re: The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

    Ray Fischer, Dec 20, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    271
    Ray Fischer
    Dec 22, 2008
  4. Mark Thomas

    Re: The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

    Mark Thomas, Dec 20, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    360
    Mark Thomas
    Dec 21, 2008
  5. dj_nme

    Re: The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

    dj_nme, Dec 22, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    278
    dj_nme
    Dec 26, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page