Nikon D40x Versus Canon Rebel XTi 400D?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by dumbtroll, Nov 14, 2007.

  1. dumbtroll

    Sosumi Guest

    Dumb troll..
     
    Sosumi, Nov 15, 2007
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Yes, isn't it a shame when even a first time poster knows more than
    you ever will. Catch up.
    Oh wait, you can't. Try buying a camera sometime for a start.[/QUOTE]

    Thank you very much for the deep insight you are offering in your very first
    posting ever to this NG.

    OT: Does any know of a newsreader, where you can filter hit-and-run posters?
    Like postings will only show up if the person has made at least x
    contributions before?

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Nov 15, 2007
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. dumbtroll

    Guest Guest

    Sosumi wrote:
    he Olympus E-410 and 510 can, but the sensors are quite smaller, which you
    This is true. You really want to completely avoid the Olympus D-SLRs,
    due to the sensor issues. I think Olympus is coming out with some lower
    priced lenses to address the second issue.
     
    Guest, Nov 15, 2007
    #23
  4. dumbtroll

    dumbtroll Guest

    Fact: I don't think i have EVER looked through
    the optical viewfinder of my powershot G3 to take a picture!

    It's almost unnatural to do so, when you get a much bigger
    image
    on the LCD.

    I'm very close to throwing up my arms, and buying the 40D!
    but the
    screen is probably not rotatable like the G3.
     
    dumbtroll, Nov 15, 2007
    #24
  5. dumbtroll

    Chris Savage Guest

    I can conceive of no correlation between usenet activity and
    photographic experience. Surely you could see more to criticise in its
    post than that?
     
    Chris Savage, Nov 16, 2007
    #25
  6. dumbtroll

    Chris Savage Guest

    I'm sure someone could modify slrn or other open-source reader to do
    such. But you're asking in the wrong place.
     
    Chris Savage, Nov 16, 2007
    #26
  7. s/experience/credibility/

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Nov 16, 2007
    #27
  8. dumbtroll

    Chris Savage Guest

    No. Still no correlation, I know many people whose photographic
    experience and credibility exceeds anyone's here. They have never posted
    to usenet.
     
    Chris Savage, Nov 16, 2007
    #28
  9. No doubt that's true.

    However, if I've seen and read numerous sensible articles from a person for
    a few years then in my book that person has much more credebility than
    someone who just dropped in and makes his very first contribution a ranting
    sleezy accusation.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Nov 16, 2007
    #29
  10. dumbtroll

    Pat Guest

    There is a correlation between knowledge and activity. The people who
    know quite a bit about photography answer specific questions within
    their field/knowledge and will provide follow-up if needed. Then they
    stay quiet until the next question comes along. They don't tend to
    get involved in more general conversations or flame wars.

    If some asks "How do I shoot an outside performance in a rainstorm"
    they will answer that. If someone asks "what's better Nikon or Canon"
    they move on to the next question.
     
    Pat, Nov 16, 2007
    #30
  11. dumbtroll

    Chris Savage Guest

    While not disagreeing with anything you say, I still see no reason to
    correlate someone's wisdom with their usenet activity. Especially when,
    as in the case that started this off, the poster is clearly trolling (and
    has been for months). The bullshit stinks enough to preclude any
    research into the poster's history.

    One reason I post under a semi-assumed name is to avoid casual googling
    on my net activity. I find the behaviour rather creepy tbh.

    (There are no prizes or kudos for anyone coming up with my real name, it's
    not like I hide it very well.)
    And if someone answers either question under a fresh nym with some
    fact-free tirade on a tired old theme it's no measure of their
    uselessness that it's their first post under that identity.
     
    Chris Savage, Nov 17, 2007
    #31
  12. dumbtroll

    acl Guest

    I certainly see your point. But suppose you do explain how to shoot an
    outside performance in a rainstorm, and someone else also responds and
    says "no, you're wrong: the way to do it is by performing three
    backflips before each shot, then you don't need to worry about
    exposure, focusing, rain, timing or anything else" (sorry, I don't
    actually know what is important for a shot during a snowstorm, but you
    get the idea). You respond in a civil way, but he keeps coming back
    with the same sort of thing. Wouldn't you get a bit frustrated?

    Note that a lot of the stuff that gets posted on "technical" matters
    is worse than the analogy I used above, it's just that it doesn't look
    so stupid because it's not so familiar from everyday life...
     
    acl, Nov 17, 2007
    #32
  13. Quite right. It may take a few more posts to recognize those idiots ('cuse
    my language) for what they are. And by that time they have changed to a
    different name already, because every sane person has filtered them in the
    meantime.
    And that brings me back to my original point (which obviously I didn't
    explain too well). I don't 'trust' first-time posters because experience
    shows that the majority of trolls fall into that category just out of
    necessity. Otherwise it would be too easy to filter them.

    In my experience there are three groups of posters:
    - long history and respectable: good
    - long history and for one reason or the other 'incompatible': no problem,
    easy to filter
    - no history: jerks and trolls
    Yes, occasionally this is certainly unjust to the lurker or newbie with a
    lot of subject matter but limited Usenet experience. But in my experience
    this is a tiny minority and if he sticks to it he will very soon graduate
    into category one or two.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Nov 17, 2007
    #33
  14. All that, just to evade the truth of what was stated, which prompted their
    meaningless red-herring reaction (now visible for the whole world to witness).
    There's a name for what all of you just engaged in, it's called "displacement
    activity". When confronted with a flight or fight scenario. They preen or mumble
    or scratch and peck at the ground when neither instinctive fight or flight
    response is possible.

    Enjoy your scratching in the ground looking for more red-herrings. :)

    p.s. thanks for revealing the limits of your abilities to think and reason. That
    was fun.
     
    replyingtoidiots, Nov 17, 2007
    #34
  15. Dear replyingtoidiots

    Thank you for proving my point.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Nov 17, 2007
    #35
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.