Prev: NEWS: Sizing up the iPhone 4 for shutterbugs
Next: Latest super-efficient sensor claim
From: Chris Malcolm on 20 Jun 2010 10:18
Ted Banks <email(a)email.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:09:59 -0500, Rich <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>>John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in
>>news:qftm16lheii94u6v81aap7n4sv46ub2rsa(a)4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 02:15:41 -0500, in
>>> <n67m161vq5dd9ulq268msn0ifomq7gvkhj(a)4ax.com>, James Nagler
>>> <jnagler(a)spamproofed.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:31:53 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>P&S's are kitchen-sink cameras, everything attempted to be thrown into
>>>>>one crappy package, jacks of all trade, master's of none. So, who is
>>>>>dependent on what?
>>>>
>>>>I can take (and have taken) award winning photographs with a
>>>>Brownie-Box camera if I so desire. Can't you?
>>>
>>> "It's a poor workman who blames his tools."
>>
>>B.S. Try repairing a car with $10 tool sets from China from Walmart. Give
>>the tools their due.

> In the hands of a skilled mechanic they will recognize their limitations
> and work accordingly, producing the very same results as those using
> titanium tools.

I wouldn't even bother trying to use any tools made of a tool metal no
better than titanium!

--
Chris Malcolm
Warning: none of the above is indisputable fact.
From: James Nagler on 30 Jun 2010 02:49
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:11:52 -0500, John Turco <jtur(a)concentric.net> wrote:

>James Nagler wrote:
>
><heavily edited for brevity>
>
>> In fact I keep a mint condition Brownie-Box camera on my shelves in plain
>> sight, to always remind me--it's NEVER the camera that will ever deserve
>> the praise. When you finally figure that out you can ditch those
>> DSLR-shaped training wheels of yours.
>
>
>I, too, still own quite of few of those "Brownies" (and equivalents).
>During the mid-1980's, I shot a roll of Kodak color film, with one of
>them.
>
>Pretty pleasing prints resulted, due to the large size of the negative
>frames. Not needing as much enlargement as 35mm ones, grain was barely
>noticeable.
>
>Unfortunately, sharpness was lacking (because of the camera's crude,
>single-element lens).

They use two lenses, good ones, in a Ramsden configuration. This allows for
the flat focal-plane. If you had a problem with sharpness it was probably
due to your shutter-release technique.

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: NEWS: Sizing up the iPhone 4 for shutterbugs
Next: Latest super-efficient sensor claim