Time to chuck the P&S's into the garbage

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Apr 3, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Apr 3, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Better Info <> wrote:
    >On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 16:50:50 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>Check out prices for used DSLRs.
    >>
    >>http://www.spammer.com/andersonrm/image/133620667

    >
    >Doesn't matter how cheap they are. Someone could pay me $1,000 to take one
    >off of their hands and I still wouldn't want it. Their 1900's clap-trap and
    >noisy mechanical technology is nothing but a huge drawback to photography
    >these days.


    If you buy one you need to know how to repair them. All those springs
    and gears tend to gum up and stop working over the decades.

    --
    Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
    | The new GOP ideal
     
    Ray Fischer, Apr 3, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Ofnuts Guest

    On 04/03/2011 03:47 AM, Better Info wrote:

    > Why do you think they're so cheap? Nobody wants used ones, and new ones
    > aren't much of an incentive either.


    You should check the prices of used superzooms...


    --
    Bertrand
     
    Ofnuts, Apr 3, 2011
    #3
  4. "bobwilliams" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > RichA wrote:
    >> Check out prices for used DSLRs.
    >>
    >> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133620667
    >>

    > Price is a pretty reliable indicator of the desirability of the product.
    > Bob


    There's an element of truth in that, but I think it's also an indication
    of the extra features and higher ISO sensitivity in the newer products.
    "For a little more, you can buy newer and better", coupled with a large
    "fashion" and/or "consumer society" factor. There is very little
    "digital" these days which retains its value. For folks with existing
    lenses, or those buying today's cameras from new (as opposed to upgrading)
    these are real bargains as backup bodies.

    I'd get one myself, were it not for the fact that I already have a D60
    from when I upgraded to the D5000 with its higher sensitivity, improved
    focus and swivel finder! <G>

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 4, 2011
    #4
  5. "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    []
    > ... that makes them more desirable.
    >
    > ... which was exactly Bob Williams' point. ;-)


    I see a distinction between "desirability" and genuine enhancements.
    Whilst the newest iPad2 may be desirable, it doesn't offer me enough to
    upgrade, whereas the D5000 did offer more than the D60.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 4, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    Ofnuts Guest

    On 04/03/2011 10:37 PM, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:

    > Though a few
    > models now sell for more as used than they did as new.


    Now that's an interesting admission:

    1) "a few": all others were crap

    2) "now sell for more as used than they did as new": since the prices of
    new cameras are decreasing, these used cameras are more expensive that
    their "equivalent" recent ones, which means they are perceived as far
    superior, despite their "short" zoom or low pixel count.

    So we agree... the problem with recent compact/bridge/superzoom cameras
    is that the pixel-count wars have led manufacturers to add pixels faster
    that they can mitigate the problems this creates (noise, etc...) (this
    is also true, but to a lesser extent, of DSLRs) and extend zoom range
    beyond what they can reasonably do and what is really usable by us mere
    mortals.

    --
    Bertrand
     
    Ofnuts, Apr 4, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 00:19:30 -0700, bobwilliams <>
    wrote:

    >RichA wrote:
    >> Check out prices for used DSLRs.
    >>
    >> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133620667
    >>

    >Price is a pretty reliable indicator of the desirability of the product.
    >Bob


    Or of what the likely customers can afford.
     
    John A., Apr 4, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    Mike Stand Guest

    Mike Stand, Apr 4, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    Ofnuts Guest

    On 04/04/2011 05:37 PM, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
    > On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 16:26:29 +0200, NumbNuts<> wrote:
    >
    >> So we agree...

    >
    > Why would anyone let a troll like you, who clearly puts words in other's
    > mouths, allow you to think you agree with words they never said?


    So you never said "Though a few models now sell for more as used than
    they did as new.".... Sorry, must be another sock puppet then...

    --
    Bertrand
     
    Ofnuts, Apr 4, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    Mike Stand Guest

    On 04/04/2011 3:19 AM, bobwilliams wrote:
    > RichA wrote:
    >> Check out prices for used DSLRs.
    >>
    >> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133620667
    >>

    > Price is a pretty reliable indicator of the desirability of the product.
    > Bob
    >

    Yes who want's a 6-7 year old 6 mp dSLR?
     
    Mike Stand, Apr 4, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Apr 4, 4:48 pm, Mike Stand <> wrote:
    > On 04/04/2011 3:19 AM, bobwilliams wrote:> RichA wrote:
    > >> Check out prices for used DSLRs.

    >
    > >>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133620667

    >
    > > Price is a pretty reliable indicator of the desirability of the product..
    > > Bob

    >
    >  >
    > Yes who want's a 6-7 year old 6 mp dSLR?


    Anyone who wants better images than a current P&S.
     
    Rich, Apr 5, 2011
    #11
  12. On Sat, 2 Apr 2011, RichA wrote:

    > Check out prices for used DSLRs.
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133620667
    >
    >

    Hey, I got my DSLR for free.

    It really uses batteries fast. It's bulky, and then there are the add on
    lenses. I'm not sure my cardreader can even read the cards, so old they
    are. And I don't have a spare serial port on my computer to make use of
    the serial interface on the camera (and later computers don't even have
    serial ports).

    It's a massive 1.6MP camera. Must have cost a fortune when bought new,
    it has little value now other than history (and likely some time down the
    road it may carry value as "antique").

    I was given a 2MP non-SLR camera about the same time, and I used that for
    five years, gave me the portability that I wanted in a camera (like that
    time I bought the 35mm viewfinder camera in 1980, I could go anywhere with
    that in my pocket and nobody knew I had a camera until I took it out).

    There's a reason SLRs aren't as common place as simpler cameras. Most
    people don't want or need something better.

    Michael
     
    Michael Black, Apr 5, 2011
    #12
  13. On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Mike Stand wrote:

    > On 02/04/2011 7:50 PM, RichA wrote:
    >> Check out prices for used DSLRs.
    >>
    >> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133620667
    >>

    > I have both a dSLR,and a pocket sized compact. Both have their place.
    >

    Yes, the former in a camera bag, the latter in your pocket.

    Michael
     
    Michael Black, Apr 5, 2011
    #13
  14. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Apr 4, 11:43 pm, Michael Black <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Mike Stand wrote:
    > > On 02/04/2011 7:50 PM, RichA wrote:
    > >> Check out prices for used DSLRs.

    >
    > >>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133620667

    >
    > > I have both a dSLR,and a pocket sized compact. Both have their place.

    >
    > Yes, the former in a camera bag, the latter in your pocket.
    >
    >     Michael


    No, the DSLR off the shoulder or around the neck. No need for a P&S
    unless you are in a situation where you feel compelled to hide the
    camera.
     
    Rich, Apr 5, 2011
    #14
  15. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Apr 4, 11:35 pm, Michael Black <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 2 Apr 2011, RichA wrote:
    > > Check out prices for used DSLRs.

    >
    > >http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133620667

    >
    > Hey, I got my DSLR for free.
    >
    > It really uses batteries fast.  It's bulky, and then there are the add on
    > lenses.  I'm not sure my cardreader can even read the cards, so old they
    > are.  And I don't have a spare serial port on my computer to make use of
    > the serial interface on the camera (and later computers don't even have
    > serial ports).
    >
    > It's a massive 1.6MP camera.  Must have cost a fortune when bought new,
    > it has little value now other than history (and likely some time down the
    > road it may carry value as "antique").


    I'd hang onto it. These things are already becoming collector's
    items. What is missing from cities that we need are museums of
    electronics. Some of the progression in the various fields is
    fascinating.
     
    Rich, Apr 5, 2011
    #15
  16. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Apr 4, 11:21 pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <>
    wrote:
    > On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 18:51:21 -0700 (PDT), Rich <> wrote:
    > >On Apr 4, 4:48 pm, Mike Stand <> wrote:
    > >> On 04/04/2011 3:19 AM, bobwilliams wrote:> RichA wrote:
    > >> >> Check out prices for used DSLRs.

    >
    > >> >>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133620667

    >
    > >> > Price is a pretty reliable indicator of the desirability of the product.
    > >> > Bob

    >
    > >>  >
    > >> Yes who want's a 6-7 year old 6 mp dSLR?

    >
    > >Anyone who wants better images than a current P&S.

    >
    > Too bad that that's a confirmed lie created by extremely insecure,
    > ignorant, and blind DSLR worshippers. Did you tighten your blinders some
    > more to retain that bliss of self-inflicted ignorance that you display so
    > well?
    >
    > There are compact and superzoom cameras from 2-3 years ago that already
    > beat the image quality of the latest "Pro" DSLRs.
    >
    > What's the matter? Are you worried about DSLRs, and their associated $5000
    > worth of required lenses needed for each one to make them the least bit
    > useful, is going to soon become worthless junk? Like SLR bodies have become
    > nothing but memorabilia and dust-collectors. I have my own collection of
    > those. May they gather dust and rest in peace. As your DSLRs soon will. The
    > only thing giving them any value these days are outright lies like yours.
    >
    > Time for you buggy-whip braiders to find a new animal to worship.
    >


    Sensors have not changed much in 20 years. The rules of light
    collection STILL matter and P&S sensors with their bacteria-sized
    pixels SUCK at collecting light. Hence, their true image quality
    hasn't improved much at all. DSLR's are the cure.
     
    Rich, Apr 5, 2011
    #16
  17. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Apr 5, 4:43 am, Michael Black <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Mike Stand wrote:
    > > On 02/04/2011 7:50 PM, RichA wrote:
    > >> Check out prices for used DSLRs.

    >
    > >>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133620667

    >
    > > I have both a dSLR,and a pocket sized compact. Both have their place.

    >
    > Yes, the former in a camera bag, the latter in your pocket.
    >
    >     Michael


    I thought the best place for any camera is in the hand or even on a
    tripod/monopod
    and taking photos, although there are good reasons for just storing
    and/or looking at cameras.

    Just being picky about the best place for a camera is in 'storage'
     
    Whisky-dave, Apr 5, 2011
    #17
  18. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Apr 5, 10:53 am, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 23:35:48 -0400, Michael Black <> wrote:
    > >On Sat, 2 Apr 2011, RichA wrote:

    >
    > >> Check out prices for used DSLRs.

    >
    > >>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133620667

    >
    > >Hey, I got my DSLR for free.

    >
    > >It really uses batteries fast.  It's bulky, and then there are the addon
    > >lenses.  I'm not sure my cardreader can even read the cards, so old they
    > >are.  And I don't have a spare serial port on my computer to make use of
    > >the serial interface on the camera (and later computers don't even have
    > >serial ports).

    >
    > For that matter, neither do most cameras.


    Virtually all computers and cameras have serial ports.

    What do you think USB stands for it's (universal serial bus)
     
    Whisky-dave, Apr 5, 2011
    #18
  19. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 20:15:54 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2011-04-05 20:10:11 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >
    >> On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 19:06:19 -0500, Schneider <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> None of the examples cite exact specs for each piece used, or brand
    >>>> names, so I'm having to guess quite a bit; it's not what I'd call
    >>>> really laid out plainly.
    >>>
    >>> I try to never mention brand names. For starters, I don't want others to
    >>> know exactly what I use to get such phenomenal performance.

    >>
    >> Oh, c'mon. Tell us the brand of the camera you used to take that
    >> fuzzy, muddy, out-of-focus shot of the rare moth. Tonka? Mattel?
    >> TootsieToy? Cracker Jack?

    >
    >An informed guess, would be some variety of Canon given his advocacy of CHDK.


    I'll believe that Mothboy was involved in the CHDK project the day
    that Andrey Gratchev says he was.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Apr 6, 2011
    #19
  20. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 20:43:00 -0700, Paul Furman <>
    wrote:

    >Rich wrote:
    >> On Apr 4, 11:35 pm, Michael Black<> wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2011, RichA wrote:
    >>>> Check out prices for used DSLRs.
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133620667
    >>>
    >>> Hey, I got my DSLR for free.
    >>>
    >>> It really uses batteries fast. It's bulky, and then there are the add on
    >>> lenses. I'm not sure my cardreader can even read the cards, so old they
    >>> are. And I don't have a spare serial port on my computer to make use of
    >>> the serial interface on the camera (and later computers don't even have
    >>> serial ports).
    >>>
    >>> It's a massive 1.6MP camera. Must have cost a fortune when bought new,
    >>> it has little value now other than history (and likely some time down the
    >>> road it may carry value as "antique").

    >>
    >> I'd hang onto it. These things are already becoming collector's
    >> items. What is missing from cities that we need are museums of
    >> electronics.

    >
    >I saw an identical model to my 5-year old Razr cell phone at the Museum
    >of Modern Art this week <g>. In a photography exhibit with some old
    >cameras etc.
    >http://www.sfmoma.org/exhibitions/408
    >-link doesn't show that part...
    >
    >> Some of the progression in the various fields is fascinating.


    I saw a watch like one I used to have in an exhibit at the Smithsonian
    Air & Space Museum a couple weeks ago. It was near the entrance to a
    section on the impact of digital technology on flight testing &
    aircraft design methods. IIRC they also had a Little Professor toy
    much like one I had when I was a kid.
     
    John A., Apr 8, 2011
    #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. John

    Broadband For Chuck(Message)

    John, Dec 18, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    455
  2. John

    To CHUCK No Reply Last 7Days

    John, Dec 27, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    798
  3. =?Utf-8?B?eHRyZW1lbWp5?=

    Chuck, I'm replying

    =?Utf-8?B?eHRyZW1lbWp5?=, Jun 20, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    437
    =?Utf-8?B?eHRyZW1lbWp5?=
    Jun 20, 2005
  4. Lasher

    OT: Chuck Norris Shirts

    Lasher, Feb 11, 2006, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,342
    MitchS
    Feb 13, 2006
  5. David Dyer-Bennet

    Re: Time to chuck the P&S's into the garbage

    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 5, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    226
    John Turco
    Apr 28, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page