How to tell a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a pro
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Winter is near
Next: CMOS sensors worthless for video?
From: LOL! on 5 Jul 2010 19:29 On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 18:52:44 -0400, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message >news:4c323a52$0$22163$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >> On 05/07/10 10:34 AM, Pete wrote: >>> On 2010-07-05 15:10:20 +0100, John Navas said: >>> >>>> "Point and shoot" is a pejorative when applied to high-end bridge >>>> cameras here, and "pretty much everyone" is a wild exaggeration, as I'm >>>> sure you know. >>> >>> From what I've understood from reading several Usenet photography >>> groups since last November, my initial reaction would be to disagree. >>> However, you did say "here" so I stay open-minded. >>> >>> My perception is that hatred of DSLR owners in the various groups seems >>> to be an order of magnitude worse than the pejorative remarks in the >>> other direction. >> >> Wrong perception. There are a grand total of two people that are >> pathological liars on the subject, Navas, and our favorite troll that goes >> by a plethora of identities in an effort to evade everyone's kill files. >> > >I go with you on that. I wonder if the attacks on DSLR owners are a form of >penis envy. You do realize that you are agreeing with a role-playing troll that doesn't even own a camera and has never even used one, don't you? Again, proving the depths of your intellect. The image destroying haze condensed on a DSLR's mirror is deeper than your intellect. LOL!
From: Pete on 5 Jul 2010 20:09 On 2010-07-05 22:56:45 +0100, Neil Harrington said: > Pete wrote: >> On 2010-07-05 21:18:31 +0100, Neil Harrington said: >> >>> <> >>> The term "point-and-shoot" *is* pejorative and inappropriate for most >>> compact cameras today, IMO. >> >> Then answer my originally respectful question: what is the correct terminology? > > Compact or ultracompact, depending on the size. Any camera that fits > easily in a shirt pocket I would call an ultracompact. Otherwise, > anything up to say a Coolpix 8800 in size I would call a compact. It > would be ridiculous to call an 8800, which has just about every > imaginable control, a P&S. > > There are very few digital cameras I'd call point-and-shoots, though I > do have one: my first digicam, an Agfa ePhoto CL-30, bought in 1999. > That really is pretty much the digital equivalent of the old 35mm P&S > cameras. > >> Telling me more of what is pejorative and inappropriate is only jarring >> me off. So, being jarred off: the term "DSLR" *is* pejorative and >> inappropriate for the users of full-frame DSLRs cameras today, more >> than my opinion: it is on technically delineated principles. > > Why? For a similar reason that you choose to delineate between compact and ultra compact. >> This is absolute stupidity. It's like two owners of a Ford Focus >> automobile arguing in a pub: mine has a 1.6 engine, yours only has a >> 1.4 therefore it's pejorative and inappropriate for you to call yours a >> Ford Focus, you must find a more appropriate name for it. > > I don't follow that at all. If both are the Ford Focus model, that's > what they are. We're not talking about small differences in model here, > are we? Yes, we are talking about small difference that don't actually matter. Small is relative and subjective. If I was an expert in dishwashers I would probably get very upset with anyone saying "dishwasher tablets" because I would know the differences between all the powders, tablets, and liquids: lumping them all together in one category could be taken as disrespecting my expertise. I would not get upset by anyone talking about "washing up liquid" because I would accept it as a generic term for something a little way outside my field of knowledge. If you have a dishwasher then you have a choice of what: powder, tablets, and liquid? If you wash dishes manually then you still have a choice of products. What fuel do you put in your automobile? I guess petrol or diesel. Talk to an industrial chemist for a day and we would quickly feel an idiot by not being able to sub-categorize fuel further. I can think of many more illustrations of the difference between macro and micro. The most obvious is the question "Is is animal, mineral, or vegetable?" A knowledgeable person could be pedantic and say "That is pejorative." and how would many of us accurately respond? Another example: "Today has been a mixture of sunshine and thick cloud" the response could be "Thick cloud is a pejorative." Every reply everyone has ever given can be twisted into a pejorative. I think it's called, amongst other things, "Having a negative outlook" or as John Navas sometimes asks "Do you feel threatened?". Answer to John Navas: "Not at all. Pondering the reason for the question is, however, stimulating." At the end of the day, these debates result from nothing more than a lack of understanding of domain theory. Each of us needs to defend our realm otherwise our spices will become extinct. Ok, so that would solve the global warming issue... Back to my original questions: how will you sub-divide DSLRs such that you do not offend me and how should I categorize non-DSLRs such that I never offend anyone else? -- Pete
From: Peter on 5 Jul 2010 20:09 "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message news:RfmdnU_hiNm_yK_RnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > Compact or ultracompact, depending on the size. Any camera that fits > easily in a shirt pocket I would call an ultracompact. Otherwise, anything > up to say a Coolpix 8800 in size I would call a compact. It would be > ridiculous to call an 8800, which has just about every imaginable control, > a P&S. I own an 8800, which I have always referred to as a P&S. Yes, it does have a lot of controls. I converted it to infra red and still use it. This whole conversation is ridiculous. -- Peter
From: SMS on 5 Jul 2010 20:18 On 05/07/10 3:52 PM, Peter wrote: > I go with you on that. I wonder if the attacks on DSLR owners are a form > of penis envy. You don't have to wonder, it's a certainty. We've seen it often. A newbie compares a super-zoom to a D-SLR and concludes, based on zoom range, megapixels, LCD size, and cost that the super-zoom is just a slam dunk. The problem is that they understand nothing about focusing, distortion, noise, or lighting and are understandably disappointed when the super-zoom does not live up to their expectations. Under these circumstances most people would say, "oh geez, I made a mistake" but our favorite trolls are too stubborn to admit that so instead they do what they do.
From: Pete on 5 Jul 2010 20:20
On 2010-07-06 01:09:43 +0100, Peter said: > "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message > news:RfmdnU_hiNm_yK_RnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> > >> Compact or ultracompact, depending on the size. Any camera that fits >> easily in a shirt pocket I would call an ultracompact. Otherwise, >> anything up to say a Coolpix 8800 in size I would call a compact. It >> would be ridiculous to call an 8800, which has just about every >> imaginable control, a P&S. > > I own an 8800, which I have always referred to as a P&S. Yes, it does > have a lot of controls. I converted it to infra red and still use it. > > > This whole conversation is ridiculous. Apologies for perpetuating it, hindsight is something I'm still finding difficult to predict :-) -- Pete |