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: John Navas on 8 Jul 2010 14:01 On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:55:42 +0100, in <nt3c36tnj1borf5fgu4v4fkevve77j95nl(a)4ax.com>, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:50:56 -0400, "Neil Harrington" ><nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >>How is anything I said an "offensive put-down"? I just said I took the FZ35 >>because I thought it would be ideal for that situation. That's an "offensive >>put-down"? >> >>I think you are getting paranoid about this whole business, John. > >John Navas's problem is, and always has been, that his modest needs >are completely satisfied by mediocre equipment. > >He simply cannot understand why some people need, or at least aspire >to, something better. He gets irrationally angry when they point this >out, then claims that his mediocre equipment is "excellent". > >He has been doing it for years. No doubt he will be doing it many >years hence. Arguing with him is pointless because his values are on >an entirely different scale, one that peaks at "mediocre". I rest my case. -- John "Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman
From: SMS on 8 Jul 2010 14:05 On 08/07/10 10:55 AM, Bruce wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:50:56 -0400, "Neil Harrington" > <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >> How is anything I said an "offensive put-down"? I just said I took the FZ35 >> because I thought it would be ideal for that situation. That's an "offensive >> put-down"? >> >> I think you are getting paranoid about this whole business, John. > > > John Navas's problem is, and always has been, that his modest needs > are completely satisfied by mediocre equipment. Nothing wrong with that actually, he's no different than most users of digital camera equipment. > He simply cannot understand why some people need, or at least aspire > to, something better. He gets irrationally angry when they point this > out, then claims that his mediocre equipment is "excellent". Unfortunately his attitude extends to many other areas outside of digital camera equipment as well. It would be one thing if anything he wrote was grounded in reality and backed up by facts, but it rarely isn't. Instead he feels compelled to reply to every post that points out the facts, even when he has absolutely no knowledge of the subject being discussed. The most amusing thing is when he posts references that completely contradict what he's saying. > He has been doing it for years. No doubt he will be doing it many > years hence. Arguing with him is pointless because his values are on > an entirely different scale, one that peaks at "mediocre". Indeed, that's why a kill-file is the best solution. He thrives on the attention he gets with his shtick.
From: Frank ess on 8 Jul 2010 14:08 SMS wrote: > On 08/07/10 10:55 AM, Bruce wrote: >> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:50:56 -0400, "Neil Harrington" >> <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >>> How is anything I said an "offensive put-down"? I just said I >>> took the FZ35 because I thought it would be ideal for that >>> situation. That's an "offensive put-down"? >>> >>> I think you are getting paranoid about this whole business, John. >> >> >> John Navas's problem is, and always has been, that his modest needs >> are completely satisfied by mediocre equipment. > > Nothing wrong with that actually, he's no different than most users > of digital camera equipment. > >> He simply cannot understand why some people need, or at least >> aspire to, something better. He gets irrationally angry when they >> point this out, then claims that his mediocre equipment is >> "excellent". > > Unfortunately his attitude extends to many other areas outside of > digital camera equipment as well. ---> It would be one thing if anything > he wrote was grounded in reality and backed up by facts, but it > rarely isn't. <--- Hm? Instead he feels compelled to reply to every post > that points out the facts, even when he has absolutely no knowledge > of the subject being discussed. The most amusing thing is when he > posts references that completely contradict what he's saying. > >> He has been doing it for years. No doubt he will be doing it many >> years hence. Arguing with him is pointless because his values are >> on an entirely different scale, one that peaks at "mediocre". > > Indeed, that's why a kill-file is the best solution. He thrives on > the attention he gets with his shtick.
From: David J Taylor on 8 Jul 2010 14:11 "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message news:seydnXXzTc7lYKjRnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... [] > Well, my FZ35 is significantly more compact than my D40-family cameras > (with usual kit lens), and those I regard as "small body" Nikons. But > I'll agree some others (Coolpix 8800, DiMAGE 7Hi, etc.) would be > stretching the term "compact" too far. I suppose "superzoom" is the best > term for that type of camera since it isn't likely to be confused with > anything else. > > "Compact" I think is the best used for more or less pocketable cameras > (Optio 750Z, Coolpix 5900, Powershot S80, etc.) while "ultracompact" > should be reserved for those cameras that are really shirt-pocket size > (Optio S4i, Coolpix S510 and thereabouts). Superzoom and compact are terms I would quite happily use, while retaining the generic term P&S to cover both. Ultra-compact seems clumsy (to me) - what about pocket camera? Cheers, David
From: John Navas on 8 Jul 2010 14:19
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 11:05:27 -0700, in <4c361361$0$22131$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >On 08/07/10 10:55 AM, Bruce wrote: >> He simply cannot understand why some people need, or at least aspire >> to, something better. He gets irrationally angry when they point this >> out, then claims that his mediocre equipment is "excellent". > >Unfortunately his attitude extends to many other areas outside of >digital camera equipment as well. It would be one thing if anything he >wrote was grounded in reality and backed up by facts, but it rarely >isn't. Instead he feels compelled to reply to every post that points out >the facts, even when he has absolutely no knowledge of the subject being >discussed. The most amusing thing is when he posts references that >completely contradict what he's saying. > >> He has been doing it for years. No doubt he will be doing it many >> years hence. Arguing with him is pointless because his values are on >> an entirely different scale, one that peaks at "mediocre". > >Indeed, that's why a kill-file is the best solution. He thrives on the >attention he gets with his shtick. You've described yourself perfectly. That you project your own faults onto others is telling. -- John "It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain "A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope "Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin |