Dpreview, not just whores, but CHEAP whores to boot!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: John McWilliams on 24 May 2010 20:58 John Navas wrote: > On Fri, 21 May 2010 18:48:50 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon > <grimly4REMOVE(a)REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in > <hphdv599n37km0junjthk5sv8rj871eeul(a)4ax.com>: > >> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the >> drugs began to take hold. I remember John Navas >> <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> saying something like: >> >>> Again, great photos can be taken with pretty much *any* camera. >> Up to a point. >> A great -once in a lifetime- pic can be taken on a cheapy pos if it's >> the only one to hand during an unrepeatable event. >> Otoh, carrying something more capable around will greatly increase the >> chances of getting something worthwhile in the majority of situations. > > That argument, carried to its logical conclusion, would have you lugging > around a huge amount of equipment, Not the logical conclusion; that's an extreme one. << Snipped bits out >> > What actually increases the chances of getting something worthwhile is > having the most appropriate tool for the situation, which might well be > a compact digital camera. But of course. And it might well be a high quality DSLR with a fabulous lens. Or an iPhone. Or with a tripod and a pano head. Or tilt-shift lens, etc. -- john mcwilliams
From: John Navas on 24 May 2010 21:47 On Mon, 24 May 2010 17:58:29 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote in <htf7bo$qg3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>: >John Navas wrote: >> On Fri, 21 May 2010 18:48:50 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon >>> A great -once in a lifetime- pic can be taken on a cheapy pos if it's >>> the only one to hand during an unrepeatable event. >>> Otoh, carrying something more capable around will greatly increase the >>> chances of getting something worthwhile in the majority of situations. >> >> That argument, carried to its logical conclusion, would have you lugging >> around a huge amount of equipment, > >Not the logical conclusion; that's an extreme one. It's the logical conclusion because each and every bit of kit adds additional capability, ad infinitum, and because there's no agreement on how much is enough. No much how much kit I'm carrying, you might still argue my kit is capable enough. Thus it comes down to personal style and taste, the point I was trying to make. How much is enough can be "just" a compact digital super-zoom to one person, and a heavy gadget bag to another person, and a really heavy gadget back to yet another person. "Different strokes for different folks." Photography is about photographs, not equipment. You might as well criticize Jackson Pollock for not using proper brushes. -- Best regards, John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: John McWilliams on 25 May 2010 00:01 John Navas wrote: > On Mon, 24 May 2010 17:58:29 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> > wrote in <htf7bo$qg3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>: > >> John Navas wrote: >>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 18:48:50 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon > >>>> A great -once in a lifetime- pic can be taken on a cheapy pos if it's >>>> the only one to hand during an unrepeatable event. >>>> Otoh, carrying something more capable around will greatly increase the >>>> chances of getting something worthwhile in the majority of situations. >>> That argument, carried to its logical conclusion, would have you lugging >>> around a huge amount of equipment, >> Not the logical conclusion; that's an extreme one. > > It's the logical conclusion because each and every bit of kit adds > additional capability, ad infinitum, and because there's no agreement on > how much is enough. No much how much kit I'm carrying, you might still > argue my kit is capable enough. Thus it comes down to personal style > and taste, the point I was trying to make. How much is enough can be > "just" a compact digital super-zoom to one person, and a heavy gadget > bag to another person, and a really heavy gadget back to yet another > person. "Different strokes for different folks." > > Photography is about photographs, not equipment. You might as well > criticize Jackson Pollock for not using proper brushes. John, you carry arguments /in extremis/, sometimes /ad naseum/. Your conclusion above is an example of the former; please don't make it also the latter. -- John McWilliams
From: John Navas on 25 May 2010 00:19 On Mon, 24 May 2010 21:01:18 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote in <htfi2f$6gn$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>: >John Navas wrote: >> On Mon, 24 May 2010 17:58:29 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> >> wrote in <htf7bo$qg3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>: >> >>> John Navas wrote: >>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 18:48:50 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon >> >>>>> A great -once in a lifetime- pic can be taken on a cheapy pos if it's >>>>> the only one to hand during an unrepeatable event. >>>>> Otoh, carrying something more capable around will greatly increase the >>>>> chances of getting something worthwhile in the majority of situations. >>>> That argument, carried to its logical conclusion, would have you lugging >>>> around a huge amount of equipment, >>> Not the logical conclusion; that's an extreme one. >> >> It's the logical conclusion because each and every bit of kit adds >> additional capability, ad infinitum, and because there's no agreement on >> how much is enough. No much how much kit I'm carrying, you might still >> argue my kit is capable enough. Thus it comes down to personal style >> and taste, the point I was trying to make. How much is enough can be >> "just" a compact digital super-zoom to one person, and a heavy gadget >> bag to another person, and a really heavy gadget back to yet another >> person. "Different strokes for different folks." >> >> Photography is about photographs, not equipment. You might as well >> criticize Jackson Pollock for not using proper brushes. > >John, you carry arguments /in extremis/, sometimes /ad naseum/. >Your conclusion above is an example of the former; please don't make it >also the latter. You presume to lecture me when you've jumped in to throw gasoline on the fire? ;) -- 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
From: John McWilliams on 25 May 2010 00:48
John Navas wrote: > On Mon, 24 May 2010 21:01:18 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> > wrote in <htfi2f$6gn$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>: > >> John Navas wrote: >>> On Mon, 24 May 2010 17:58:29 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> >>> wrote in <htf7bo$qg3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>: >>> >>>> John Navas wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 18:48:50 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon >>>>>> A great -once in a lifetime- pic can be taken on a cheapy pos if it's >>>>>> the only one to hand during an unrepeatable event. >>>>>> Otoh, carrying something more capable around will greatly increase the >>>>>> chances of getting something worthwhile in the majority of situations. >>>>> That argument, carried to its logical conclusion, would have you lugging >>>>> around a huge amount of equipment, >>>> Not the logical conclusion; that's an extreme one. >>> It's the logical conclusion because each and every bit of kit adds >>> additional capability, ad infinitum, and because there's no agreement on >>> how much is enough. No much how much kit I'm carrying, you might still >>> argue my kit is capable enough. Thus it comes down to personal style >>> and taste, the point I was trying to make. How much is enough can be >>> "just" a compact digital super-zoom to one person, and a heavy gadget >>> bag to another person, and a really heavy gadget back to yet another >>> person. "Different strokes for different folks." >>> >>> Photography is about photographs, not equipment. You might as well >>> criticize Jackson Pollock for not using proper brushes. >> John, you carry arguments /in extremis/, sometimes /ad naseum/. >> Your conclusion above is an example of the former; please don't make it >> also the latter. > > You presume to lecture me when you've jumped in to throw gasoline on the > fire? ;) No. |