Dpreview, not just whores, but CHEAP whores to boot!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: DanP on 22 May 2010 17:06 On 21 May, 19:14, Val Hallah <michaelnewp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 21, 7:48 pm, Grimly Curmudgeon <grimly4REM...(a)REMOVEgmail.com> > wrote: > > > We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the > > drugs began to take hold. I remember John Navas > > <spamfilt...(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. > > ....yeah, just wait til I change the lens.... If you could change lens you could take a picture like this at f/1.8 http://www.flickr.com/photos/danpetre/4295709063/ DanP
From: DanP on 22 May 2010 17:22 On 22 May, 06:52, Outing Trolls is FUN! <o...(a)trollouters.org> wrote: > Damn. My P&S cameras must be broken. How do I get the background in these > P&S camera photos to be like you describe? From all your vast experience > with all manner of *real* cameras, of course. > > http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3414/4628674084_ea2a8df9ae_o.jpg > > http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4072/4628674082_b72f520936_o.jpg Easy, have the camera really close to your subject. Try that with some human subjects and see the horrible results you will get. DanP
From: Val Hallah on 23 May 2010 01:38 On May 22, 9:00 pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:55:34 -0700 (PDT), Val Hallah > > > > > > <michaelnewp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On May 20, 6:35 pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 20 May 2010 09:01:52 -0700 (PDT), Val Hallah > > >> <michaelnewp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >On May 20, 4:52 pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> You have a good eye for subjects and composition. It's a pity to > >> >> waste your talents by using a camera that limits your creativity. > > >> >...still for GBP 270 its an excellent camera with a very long lens..... > > >> No, it's a cheap camera with a very long lens that gives very poor > >> results for anyone with any creativity. > > >> You are far more talented as a photographer than you are at choosing > >> equipment. > > >cheap is good > > Cheap is cheap. Based on what I saw, your camera isn't remotely good > enough for your skills. > > Perhaps I was wrong, and you are as cheap as your camera? ;-) you bet ;-)
From: John Navas on 24 May 2010 12:13 On 20 May 2010 19:57:21 GMT, Stuffed Crust <pizza(a)spam.shaftnet.org> wrote in <4bf59421$0$22146$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>: >In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> Again, great photos can be taken with pretty much *any* camera. > >In a general sense, you're absolutely correct. > >But specific types of photographs can't be done with pretty much any >camera; they need more specific (or specialized) gear. Of course -- no camera of any type (compact digital, digital SLR, etc) can take all "specific types of photographs". "The best camera is the one you have with you." -- 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 Navas on 24 May 2010 12:51
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 only impractical, but also often counterproductive, since it might well interfere with being able to get the picture. In other words, it's not a valid generalization. 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. -- Best regards, John "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you will see every problem as a nail." -Abraham Maslow |