Will Fuji PDAF save P&S's from the dumpster of history?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rich, Aug 6, 2010.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Rich, Aug 6, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ? "Rich" <> ?????? ??? ??????
    news:...
    > Or will the camera phone still wipe them out? Once you can focus
    > faster, you can more fully appreciate how bad P&S images are, because
    > now you can't blame the ugliness on motion blur or a missed shot.
    >
    > http://dpreview.com/news/1008/10080505fujifilmpd.asp
    >

    While today's compact cameras are called colloquically
    P&S, they have little to do with the original film P&S, which were *really*
    P&S, also wothout *any* settings. So, my original Minolta Freedom II, which
    my aunt brought me from Canada, had only a shutter release (obviously) and
    manually changeable ISO, but only for non DX films (this was in 1985). I
    think that also the rewind button was manual, otherwise it was literally
    "P&S". My digital now, OTOH, has dozens of settings, my camcorder likewise.
    I like to compare my P&S to an Audi, while DSLRs are Mercedes. Audi cars are
    really good, but are not in the same league as Mercedes, but are much better
    than VW beetles. Also, the expression "P&S" should not be taken literally,
    like most people here call "Cognac" some brandy which is brewed in Greece.
    Brandy goes for 30 euros a bottle, while cognac...well. Also, many people
    call champagne fizzling wine which is not real champagne, of course.



    --
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
    major in electrical engineering
    mechanized infantry reservist
    hordad AT otenet DOT gr
     
    Tzortzakakis Dimitris, Aug 6, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rich

    LOL! Guest

    On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 22:03:19 +0300, "Tzortzakakis Dimitris"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >? "Rich" <> ?????? ??? ??????
    >news:...
    >> Or will the camera phone still wipe them out? Once you can focus
    >> faster, you can more fully appreciate how bad P&S images are, because
    >> now you can't blame the ugliness on motion blur or a missed shot.
    >>
    >> http://dpreview.com/news/1008/10080505fujifilmpd.asp
    >>

    >While today's compact cameras are called colloquically
    >P&S, they have little to do with the original film P&S, which were *really*
    >P&S, also wothout *any* settings. So, my original Minolta Freedom II, which
    >my aunt brought me from Canada, had only a shutter release (obviously) and
    >manually changeable ISO, but only for non DX films (this was in 1985). I
    >think that also the rewind button was manual, otherwise it was literally
    >"P&S". My digital now, OTOH, has dozens of settings, my camcorder likewise.
    >I like to compare my P&S to an Audi, while DSLRs are Mercedes. Audi cars are
    >really good, but are not in the same league as Mercedes, but are much better
    >than VW beetles. Also, the expression "P&S" should not be taken literally,
    >like most people here call "Cognac" some brandy which is brewed in Greece.
    >Brandy goes for 30 euros a bottle, while cognac...well. Also, many people
    >call champagne fizzling wine which is not real champagne, of course.


    A fun anecdote. I tended bar in a biker bar for a couple years. Then later
    during my usual photo-trek travels I spent some time tending bar in a posh
    wilderness country-club for the snooty and socially-insecure wealthy.
    (Wild-game dinners there were all over $100 a plate.) I was made
    head-bartender in no time. One night the waitress came up to her station
    ordering with the words of "cognac, rocks" as part of her drink order. So I
    poured her a low-ball of bar cognac. After the second drink, when she came
    back to order a 3rd, she said (hushedly), "OH SHIT! I forgot that he wanted
    Rémy Martin! You've been charging him for bar cognac. What are we going to
    do? It'll show up on his bill!" I said, "Okay, lets's do this, for the rest
    of the night I'll pour him top-shelf but just charge him for bar cognac.
    We'll make up the differences out of our tips. Deal?" She was more than
    pleased.

    She brought the Rémy Martin back. The wealthy and socially-insecure
    customer FURIOUS that I was trying to pawn off bar cognac as Rémy Martin.
    When in reality, it WAS Rémy Martin this time that he was now going to get
    at bar cognac prices. She told him that it was her mistake and that he was
    getting bar cognac and being charged that price. So, we went back to the
    original but slightly different plan, and just served him bar cognac at
    Rémy Martin prices the rest of the night. His only inkling that he was
    drinking "Rémy Martin" would be the numbers on his bill. He was SO happy
    that he got to enjoy his beloved "Rémy Martin" and that he was quick enough
    to spot our error for the disgusting flavor in that "bar cognac" (which was
    actually Rémy Martin that time). No doubt greatly impressing all of his
    business constituents that he had invited in his talented discerning
    palette.

    LOL!

    What a fuckin' fool! I would have loved nothing better than to meet them
    all at the door on their way out and tell them, "Do you realize this
    wealthy fuckhead couldn't tell the difference between Rémy Martin and bar
    cognac? Enjoy being his kowtowing peon. LOL!"

    How much do you want to bet the same would be true in cameras. If they
    didn't know what name was attached to them.

    Humans are such transparent idiots. There is much more to their perception
    about the quality of any item, rather than its price or name-tag. Sheeple
    following the mindless herd only trying to impress the sheeple next to
    them.

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Aug 6, 2010
    #3
  4. LOL! <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 22:03:19 +0300, "Tzortzakakis Dimitris"
    > <> wrote:
    >>? "Rich" <> ?????? ??? ??????
    >>news:...


    >>> Or will the camera phone still wipe them out? Once you can focus
    >>> faster, you can more fully appreciate how bad P&S images are, because
    >>> now you can't blame the ugliness on motion blur or a missed shot.
    >>>
    >>> http://dpreview.com/news/1008/10080505fujifilmpd.asp


    > A fun anecdote. I tended bar in a biker bar for a couple years. Then later
    > during my usual photo-trek travels I spent some time tending bar in a posh
    > wilderness country-club for the snooty and socially-insecure wealthy.
    > (Wild-game dinners there were all over $100 a plate.) I was made
    > head-bartender in no time. One night the waitress came up to her station
    > ordering with the words of "cognac, rocks" as part of her drink order. So I
    > poured her a low-ball of bar cognac. After the second drink, when she came
    > back to order a 3rd, she said (hushedly), "OH SHIT! I forgot that he wanted
    > Rémy Martin! You've been charging him for bar cognac. What are we going to
    > do? It'll show up on his bill!" I said, "Okay, lets's do this, for the rest
    > of the night I'll pour him top-shelf but just charge him for bar cognac.
    > We'll make up the differences out of our tips. Deal?" She was more than
    > pleased.


    > She brought the Rémy Martin back. The wealthy and socially-insecure
    > customer FURIOUS that I was trying to pawn off bar cognac as Rémy Martin.
    > When in reality, it WAS Rémy Martin this time that he was now going to get
    > at bar cognac prices. She told him that it was her mistake and that he was
    > getting bar cognac and being charged that price. So, we went back to the
    > original but slightly different plan, and just served him bar cognac at
    > Rémy Martin prices the rest of the night. His only inkling that he was
    > drinking "Rémy Martin" would be the numbers on his bill. He was SO happy
    > that he got to enjoy his beloved "Rémy Martin" and that he was quick enough
    > to spot our error for the disgusting flavor in that "bar cognac" (which was
    > actually Rémy Martin that time). No doubt greatly impressing all of his
    > business constituents that he had invited in his talented discerning
    > palette.


    > LOL!


    > What a fuckin' fool! I would have loved nothing better than to meet them
    > all at the door on their way out and tell them, "Do you realize this
    > wealthy fuckhead couldn't tell the difference between Rémy Martin and bar
    > cognac? Enjoy being his kowtowing peon. LOL!"


    > How much do you want to bet the same would be true in cameras. If they
    > didn't know what name was attached to them.


    > Humans are such transparent idiots.


    So it seems were the people who promoted you to head bartender. It's
    well known in the bar trade that among the cognoscenti who insist on
    expensive high quality spirits few can tell the difference between
    their favourite and the standard cheap version after the first drink,
    almost none after the second. In some bars it's the job of the head
    bartender to know exactly who those people are, so you don't have to
    waste money serving them more expensive drinks than are required.

    Someone who orders cognac on the rocks would obviously not be able to
    tell after the first, if indeed they could tell on the first one,
    given how much of the distinctions in cognac flavours depends on it
    being at room temperature.

    But we expect no less from the anecdotes of someone who so inflates
    their photographic knowledge. Do keep pumping yourself up, it's most
    entertaining!

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Aug 7, 2010
    #4
  5. Rich

    LOL! Guest

    On 7 Aug 2010 08:32:41 GMT, Chris Malcolm <> wrote:

    >LOL! <> wrote:
    >> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 22:03:19 +0300, "Tzortzakakis Dimitris"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>>? "Rich" <> ?????? ??? ??????
    >>>news:...

    >
    >>>> Or will the camera phone still wipe them out? Once you can focus
    >>>> faster, you can more fully appreciate how bad P&S images are, because
    >>>> now you can't blame the ugliness on motion blur or a missed shot.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://dpreview.com/news/1008/10080505fujifilmpd.asp

    >
    >> A fun anecdote. I tended bar in a biker bar for a couple years. Then later
    >> during my usual photo-trek travels I spent some time tending bar in a posh
    >> wilderness country-club for the snooty and socially-insecure wealthy.
    >> (Wild-game dinners there were all over $100 a plate.) I was made
    >> head-bartender in no time. One night the waitress came up to her station
    >> ordering with the words of "cognac, rocks" as part of her drink order. So I
    >> poured her a low-ball of bar cognac. After the second drink, when she came
    >> back to order a 3rd, she said (hushedly), "OH SHIT! I forgot that he wanted
    >> Rémy Martin! You've been charging him for bar cognac. What are we going to
    >> do? It'll show up on his bill!" I said, "Okay, lets's do this, for the rest
    >> of the night I'll pour him top-shelf but just charge him for bar cognac.
    >> We'll make up the differences out of our tips. Deal?" She was more than
    >> pleased.

    >
    >> She brought the Rémy Martin back. The wealthy and socially-insecure
    >> customer FURIOUS that I was trying to pawn off bar cognac as Rémy Martin.
    >> When in reality, it WAS Rémy Martin this time that he was now going to get
    >> at bar cognac prices. She told him that it was her mistake and that he was
    >> getting bar cognac and being charged that price. So, we went back to the
    >> original but slightly different plan, and just served him bar cognac at
    >> Rémy Martin prices the rest of the night. His only inkling that he was
    >> drinking "Rémy Martin" would be the numbers on his bill. He was SO happy
    >> that he got to enjoy his beloved "Rémy Martin" and that he was quick enough
    >> to spot our error for the disgusting flavor in that "bar cognac" (which was
    >> actually Rémy Martin that time). No doubt greatly impressing all of his
    >> business constituents that he had invited in his talented discerning
    >> palette.

    >
    >> LOL!

    >
    >> What a fuckin' fool! I would have loved nothing better than to meet them
    >> all at the door on their way out and tell them, "Do you realize this
    >> wealthy fuckhead couldn't tell the difference between Rémy Martin and bar
    >> cognac? Enjoy being his kowtowing peon. LOL!"

    >
    >> How much do you want to bet the same would be true in cameras. If they
    >> didn't know what name was attached to them.

    >
    >> Humans are such transparent idiots.

    >
    >So it seems were the people who promoted you to head bartender. It's
    >well known in the bar trade that among the cognoscenti who insist on
    >expensive high quality spirits few can tell the difference between
    >their favourite and the standard cheap version after the first drink,
    >almost none after the second. In some bars it's the job of the head
    >bartender to know exactly who those people are, so you don't have to
    >waste money serving them more expensive drinks than are required.


    People who would fly in to that supper club would do so once a year to try
    to impress other useless fucks just like themselves. Rarely would they sit
    at the bar. I never saw most of the clientele, spread throughout the large
    timber-lodge dining rooms with 20 ft. copper-domed and glassed-in
    fireplaces in each separate quadrant, upstairs and downstairs as well. But
    I sure did learn a lot about how amazingly insecure they are in their lives
    and just what makes them that way. The few that I did meet really weren't
    worth meeting nor even worth remembering. You know, boring insipid fucks
    just like you.

    LOL!

    Now, did you have something you wanted to say about cameras and
    photography? Or would you like to just do your usual desperate trolling for
    my attention. That is your favorite drink, is it not?

    LOL!!!
     
    LOL!, Aug 7, 2010
    #5
  6. Rich

    LOL! Guest

    On 7 Aug 2010 08:32:41 GMT, Chris Malcolm <> wrote:

    > It's
    >well known in the bar trade that among the cognoscenti who insist on
    >expensive high quality spirits few can tell the difference between
    >their favourite and the standard cheap version after the first drink,
    >almost none after the second.


    BTW & FYI: What you state is NOT well known, except in your own imagination
    and wishful thinking. They can usually always tell on the first drink and
    all subsequent drinks. But if it is switched in mid-stream sensory bells
    and whistles go off, even if three sheets to the wind.

    Try reading before replying next time as well. He was served BAR cognac on
    his FIRST drink (thinking he received the Rémy Martin he had ordered for
    his FIRST drink). This "cognoscenti" couldn't tell on his FIRST drink. He
    had 2 drinks of BAR cognac. Then the waitress remembered her error and we
    introduced a Rémy Martin into what he had been drinking, as his THIRD
    drink. This THIRD drink is what he said tasted like disgusting BAR cognac
    (which was actually Rémy Martin), so we switched it back for the BAR cognac
    that he thought was Rémy.

    Got that now?

    You're not much of a "cognoscenti" yourself if you can't even comprehend
    what you read and reply to.

    p.s. It was interesting in the other thread on how much experience you have
    with putting cameras on their auto-everything settings. I've no reason to
    doubt that, in the least.

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Aug 7, 2010
    #6
  7. LOL! <> wrote:
    > On 7 Aug 2010 08:32:41 GMT, Chris Malcolm <> wrote:


    >> It's
    >>well known in the bar trade that among the cognoscenti who insist on
    >>expensive high quality spirits few can tell the difference between
    >>their favourite and the standard cheap version after the first drink,
    >>almost none after the second.


    > BTW & FYI: What you state is NOT well known, except in your own imagination
    > and wishful thinking.


    Not imagination, In my youth I spent a year blending and bottling
    various kinds of whisky, and a year behind a bar frequented by rich
    fussy drinkers.

    > They can usually always tell on the first drink and
    > all subsequent drinks. But if it is switched in mid-stream sensory bells
    > and whistles go off, even if three sheets to the wind.


    I have practical experience which says that is not always the
    case. That hotel bar used to save money by not serving the expensive
    stuff to people who couldn't tell the difference. They were very good
    at it. In the year I was there not one customer spotted the switches.

    > Try reading before replying next time as well. He was served BAR cognac on
    > his FIRST drink (thinking he received the Rémy Martin he had ordered for
    > his FIRST drink). This "cognoscenti" couldn't tell on his FIRST drink. He
    > had 2 drinks of BAR cognac. Then the waitress remembered her error and we
    > introduced a Rémy Martin into what he had been drinking, as his THIRD
    > drink. This THIRD drink is what he said tasted like disgusting BAR cognac
    > (which was actually Rémy Martin), so we switched it back for the BAR cognac
    > that he thought was Rémy.


    > Got that now?


    I got it the first time. Your own assumptions are leading you up the
    garden path.

    > p.s. It was interesting in the other thread on how much experience you have
    > with putting cameras on their auto-everything settings. I've no reason to
    > doubt that, in the least.


    Read my post again. I wasn't advising use of auto everything. I was
    advising the use of certain specific auto modes with certain specific
    camera models in certain specific circumsntances. Different models
    vary markedly in how good their various different auto settings
    are. Some are so good on certain auto settings in certain
    circumstances that's it's a waste of valuable time not using them when
    they work. Unless of course you have to use manual all the time, or
    pretend to, in case someone thought you weren't a "professional"
    :)

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Warning: none of the above is indisputable fact.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Aug 8, 2010
    #7
  8. Rich

    SMS Guest

    On 05/08/10 4:37 PM, Rich wrote:
    > Or will the camera phone still wipe them out? Once you can focus
    > faster, you can more fully appreciate how bad P&S images are, because
    > now you can't blame the ugliness on motion blur or a missed shot.
    >
    > http://dpreview.com/news/1008/10080505fujifilmpd.asp


    It's promising, but read the fine print, "'The AF sensels are only
    arranged in the center area of a CCD, so when phase detection AF is
    activated the AF point is fixed to the center of an image.'"

    Still it's probably a good compromise. Action shots that require the
    speed of PDAF can use it, albeit with only center spot focusing, while
    other shots that don't require faster focusing can still use multiple
    focusing points.

    Will it save the P&S? Probably it will have no effect at all. The P&S is
    not going away, it's just losing market share among those that want
    better quality at the expense of larger size and greater cost. I was
    just in Glacier NP, Mt. Rushmore NM, Badlands NM, and Crater Lake NP.
    The increase in the number of visitors toting D-SLRs was
    incredible--even older kids were now using D-SLRs, often what looked
    like the hand-me-downs of their parents (i.e. Nikon D70). We saw two
    grizzly bears at a distance in Glacier. The P&S cameras were hopeless in
    the poor lighting (very overcast) and the lenses were too short.
     
    SMS, Aug 8, 2010
    #8
  9. On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:19:44 -0700, SMS <> wrote:

    >On 05/08/10 4:37 PM, Rich wrote:
    >> Or will the camera phone still wipe them out? Once you can focus
    >> faster, you can more fully appreciate how bad P&S images are, because
    >> now you can't blame the ugliness on motion blur or a missed shot.
    >>
    >> http://dpreview.com/news/1008/10080505fujifilmpd.asp

    >
    >It's promising, but read the fine print, "'The AF sensels are only
    >arranged in the center area of a CCD, so when phase detection AF is
    >activated the AF point is fixed to the center of an image.'"
    >
    >Still it's probably a good compromise. Action shots that require the
    >speed of PDAF can use it, albeit with only center spot focusing, while
    >other shots that don't require faster focusing can still use multiple
    >focusing points.
    >
    >Will it save the P&S? Probably it will have no effect at all. The P&S is
    >not going away, it's just losing market share among those that want
    >better quality at the expense of larger size and greater cost. I was
    >just in Glacier NP, Mt. Rushmore NM, Badlands NM, and Crater Lake NP.


    ROFLMAO!

    SUUUUURE you were! LOL!!!!!!

    Where were these parks? On the 8th floor on locked ward?

    LOL!

    Like the time you helped to install a computer controlled geyser in
    Yellowstone too?

    <http://www.wifi-forum.com/wf/showpost.php?p=448381&postcount=101>

    You don't get it do you? We *ALL* already know that you don't even own ONE
    camera.

    LOL!
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Aug 8, 2010
    #9
    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. S.Rodgers
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,465
    S.Rodgers
    May 5, 2005
  2. pcbutts1

    Re: Dumpster Dell saga SUCCESS !!!!!!!!

    pcbutts1, Jul 21, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    597
    pcbutts1
    Jul 21, 2005
  3. Jeff G
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    361
    Jeff G
    Jun 11, 2005
  4. Anonymous

    Jerry McBride The Dumpster Diver

    Anonymous, Dec 17, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    854
    philo
    Dec 17, 2007
  5. George Orwell

    Jerry McBride The Dumpster Diver

    George Orwell, Dec 17, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,112
    amicus_curious
    Jan 2, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page