Canon and Panasonic: updated models
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: George Kerby on 29 May 2010 10:39 On 5/28/10 2:16 PM, in article kg5006tvnf6nra33c1unlgiubab2bflouq(a)4ax.com, "Russ D" <russd(a)myowndomain.org> wrote: > On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:31:52 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> In article <XNTLn.5310$z%6.360(a)edtnps83>, Dudley Hanks >> <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: >> >>> The sad thing about John is that, as has been previously pointed out, his >>> comments seem more intended to justify his purchase than to explore the art >>> / science of picture taking. >> >> very true, and he considers anything other than what he purchased is >> junk. point out an advantage of a different product and it's "i don't >> need that feature." that's wonderful but other people might. >> >>> As a recent purchaser of a superzoom, I like it, and I believe it can >>> produce better pics than my Rebel XSi in a limited number of situations, but >>> the overall nod has to go to the DSLR because of the larger sensor and lens >>> interchangeability. >> >> of course. it depends whether someone wants convenience and portability >> versus quality and flexibility. there's a reason why pro photographers >> don't use compact digicams. > > More words coming from a role-playing pretend-photographer troll. > > MANY Pros use P&S cameras. I being one of them. > > You forget, nospam, that we've PROVED that you have never used any camera > in your lifetime. You only know about the imaginary ones you hold inside > that little head of yours. > The socks just don't end, do they?!?
From: George Kerby on 29 May 2010 10:40 On 5/28/10 2:26 PM, in article 4560065bvjvpn4eadllr4bbe1pjo44fgiq(a)4ax.com, "Henry Olson" <henryolson(a)nospam.org> wrote: > On Fri, 28 May 2010 12:04:11 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > >> On 28/05/10 11:18 AM, Dudley Hanks wrote: >>> "SMS"<scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message >>> news:4bffdaf5$0$1600$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >>>> On 28/05/10 6:05 AM, Bowser wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yes, I know the issue and I know Navas' tactics very well. He makes >>>>> ridiculous claims and never provides any proof to back them. I'll pass >>>>> on the banter this time. It's tiring and he's beginning to really bore >>>>> me. >>>> >>>> I kill-filed him years ago. His lack of knowledge is not limited just to >>>> digital cameras, but extends to other fields as well. It's amusing at >>>> first, then as you stated, it gets boring. >>> >>> He's a member in good standing of my kill file as well... >>> >>> The sad thing about John is that, as has been previously pointed out, his >>> comments seem more intended to justify his purchase than to explore the art >>> / science of picture taking. >> >> It's always amusing, though rather sad, to see Usenet (and other forum) >> posts where the sole purpose of the poster is to try to justify their >> purchase. It's as if it's a personal insult when someone points out even >> the slightest flaw in the product and why some other product might be >> better. >> >> For most people, there's not a single item they've ever purchased that >> they could not point out some issue with, and often they were well aware >> of the issue prior to the purchase. If someone asks about something they >> own, they're likely to be honest about it and point out both the pros >> and cons, and why they made their selection. >> >>> As a recent purchaser of a superzoom, I like it, and I believe it can >>> produce better pics than my Rebel XSi in a limited number of situations, but >>> the overall nod has to go to the DSLR because of the larger sensor and lens >>> interchangeability. >> >> For outdoor photos in good light with non-moving subjects, a superzoom >> can produce good results, and is certainly more convenient than a D-SLR. >> The reason why D-SLR sales are going up so much faster is the situations >> where they excel--low light, moving subjects, and better wide angle and >> telephoto lenses than the compromise lenses on the ZLRs. > > That's all complete and total nonsense coming from a troll that has never > used any of these cameras. EVER. > > You are an endless stream of frothing foaming flatulence, turd troll.
From: George Kerby on 29 May 2010 10:42 On 5/28/10 3:29 PM, in article 4681a81b-7b6c-4f8f-8538-02c946c52468(a)y12g2000vbg.googlegroups.com, "DanP" <dan.petre(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 28, 8:11�pm, C. Werner <n...(a)noaddress.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:55:01 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On May 28, 2:40�am, John Navas <jnsp...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>>> On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:22:59 -0700, SMS <scharf.ste...(a)geemail.com> >>>> wrote in <4bff1afc$0$1591$742ec...(a)news.sonic.net>: >> >>>>> On 27/05/10 4:22 PM, Bowser wrote: >> >>>>>> Uh, not really. I own an FZ35 and while I love it, it's clearly not in >>>>>> the same league as any DSLR with regards to image quality or AF speed. >>>>>> Not to say it's bad; it's quite good. But nowhere near a DSLR. >> >>>>> You've got to understand the issue here. Apparently our favorite troll >>>>> has an FZ-35/FZ-38 so by default that camera becomes the perfect camera >>>>> and it can have no faults. >> >>>>> Unlike you and I, who could objectively look at most any item we own and >>>>> point out both its highs and lows to someone who inquires about it, >>>>> there are people that immediately after purchasing an item feel >>>>> compelled to justify the purchase to the entire world and make it clear >>>>> that their purchasing decision was in fact the best possible one. It's >>>>> deep-seated insecurity that causes this behavior. >> >>>>> The reality is that it at low ISO settings the FZ-35/FZ-38 produces >>>>> acceptable results, and it has many highly desirable features. >>>>> But it is neither the best quality ZLR in terms of noise or image >>>>> quality, nor is it anywhere close to quality of a D-SLR. >> >>>> The actual reality is that you have zero experience with any of these >>>> cameras, and have no idea what you're talking about. >> >>>> -- >>>> Best regards, >>>> John >> >>>> Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, >>>> it makes you a dSLR owner. >>>> "The single most important component of a camera >>>> is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams >> >>> Erm, have you ever tried a DSLR? >> >>> DanP >> >> I sold my favorite one (and gave a couple away) when I found out that >> high-quality P&S cameras were far more adaptable and versatile with just as >> good, if not better, image quality in some of them. You might want to >> actually compare cameras some day and put them through their paces instead >> of listening to all the insecure trolls online trying to justify why they >> wasted so much money trying to get their DSLRs to get decent snapshots. If >> you had as many wide-ranging creative requirements as I do for my >> photographic gear, and could actually think for yourself, you'd ditch your >> DSLRs too. > > If you want to keep on this muppet show you have to answer as John > Navas. > Otherwise why do you answer my question directed to him? > > DanP Could be? Hummm!
From: George Kerby on 29 May 2010 10:43 On 5/28/10 4:24 PM, in article 83d006d7s4tm9jvvc2nogq89ullk63bpn8(a)4ax.com, "Jeff Jones" <jj197109671(a)mailinator.com> wrote: > On Fri, 28 May 2010 21:14:36 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" > <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: > >> the difference between you and I is that you start with >> your own ideas / opinions / prejudices and devote your energy to bringing >> the world down to your level > > Quite the contrary. I sort out the wheat from the chaff. I'm a > photographer. I find those rarest of gems in the most unlikely places. It's > part of being a photographer. Looking for gold amongst the world's trash. > Your photography is trash. That simple. > And you cannot count.
From: Dudley Hanks on 29 May 2010 11:36
"David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:htqgt8$ie$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message > news:IQULn.5311$z%6.2582(a)edtnps83... > [] >> In my case, my SX120 has a f/2.8 IS lens and an ISO 3200 setting which >> help it outperform my XSi in certain low-light situations, since I don't >> have a large-apertured, long focal-length lens for the XSi. > > Nor do you with the SX120 - at its longest focal length (60mm, 360mm > equivalent), it's f/4.3, not f/2.8. > > The ISO 3200 image I found with a quick search was not full resolution, > but 1600 x 1200. > > Cheers, > David I was wondering when somebody would point that out... My only lenses for the XSi are either 3.5 - 5.6 or 4.0 - 5.6, so the f/2.8 - 4.3 is still larger, even at long focal lengths... As for the ISO 3200 not producing the full resolution, that would only be a problem if I intended to produce low light, large format prints, which I obviously would not, and the image size is plenty big enough for posts to Usenet, my site, etc... I forgot to put the smaller end of the aperture range, as I do not shoot at full zoom very often. Most of my pics are at the shorter to mid focal length of the 36 to 360mm lens. So, even at 3.5 for about 180mm, the aperture is as large as the lowend of my other lenses, which seems like a large aperture zoom to me... Take Care, Dudley |