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: nospam on 9 Jul 2010 17:57 In article <za6dnd1OxqS8CqrRnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil Harrington <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > >> NOTE: I'm not going to get drawn into a pointless and meaningless > >> debate over the quality of Tamron lenses. If they're good enough for > >> your needs, then by all means use them, but you've effectively conceded > >> the point by doing so. > > > > have you used that particular lens? no? then you aren't in a position > > to comment. the double-standard rears its head again. > > > > furthermore, some tamron lenses are outstanding. some are not. what > > matters is how well a particular lens performs. some nikon and canon > > lenses are outstanding and some are not. > > Exactly. John seems to be basing his opinion of lenses entirely on which > ones he thinks have more of a prestige brand name. That, after all his > insistence that it's only long experience with the particular product that > matters. he got burned with a crappy third party lens (it might have been tamron, i don't remember). > >> All you can say with any (but not much) validity is that you > >> personally don't like it. Anything more is disparaging. > > > > which means that your comments about tamron are exactly that. > > Just so. I think I'm going to give up on John. I enjoy a good argument with > anyone who can manage a *rational* discussion, by arguing with him is like > arguing with a doorknob. at least a doorknob serves a purpose :)
From: Neil Harrington on 9 Jul 2010 18:10 "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:i16g5u$no1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message > news:3_GdnXPIqddQ-avRnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > [] >> "Pocket camera" is fine with me. I don't think there's necessarily just >> *one* correct term for any of these camera styles. But I still balk at >> "P&S" because that term was coined to describe a rather specific kind of >> 35mm camera, which the cameras we are talking about are not really proper >> examples of (regardless of whether they're film or digital). >> >> I have previously mentioned that I do have a digital camera that's >> reasonable to call P&S -- my very first digital camera, an Agfa CL-30. >> That really is the digital equivalent of the 35mm P&S cameras of >> yesteryear. > > There certainly isn't /one/ term, but the half-dozen or more which SMS was > suggesting is, I feel, too many for general use. P&S is now so widely > used a term that I feel we should go with the way that our language has > evolved. Amazon have a Point and Shoot category, for example. All that illustrates is that the term has become popular for any digital camera that isn't an SLR. I don't dispute that it's become the most *popular* term, only that it isn't an appropriate one for many if not most of the cameras called that. I've seen little cheap digital cameras sold in blister packs at Walmart. For *those* the term P&S would probably be appropriate (I say this not really knowing anything about the cameras), because they are very likely analogous to the original and appropriately characterized 35mm point-and-shoot cameras. But really, do you believe a camera like the Nikon 8800, for example, or Canon G11, should be given the same type name as something that sells for $25 or whatever in a blister pack? Why should anything and everything that isn't an interchangeable-lens SLR be called a "P&S," when that term originally meant, and still implies, a simple-to-use little camera with practically no user controls and no indication about what the camera itself was doing in terms of exposure? > Doubtless there may still be some who use "automobile" rather than "car" > (although I accept this isn't the same evolution). Right, it is not the same at all. "Automobile" was often shortened to "auto." "Car" was short for "motor car" (often called simply "motor" also), much as "submarine" was short for "submarine boat" and "automatic" was short for "automatic pistol" -- the nounification of adjectives. Those were logical changes in the language in the interest of economy, and therefore really were examples of evolution.
From: SMS on 9 Jul 2010 18:16 On 09/07/10 2:39 PM, Neil Harrington wrote: <snip> > Just so. I think I'm going to give up on John. I enjoy a good argument with > anyone who can manage a *rational* discussion, by arguing with him is like > arguing with a doorknob. In fact he enjoys goading people into an argument by being non-rational, just as our favorite troll does. Filtering such posters is the most effective response. As long as people get into arguments with them it makes them happy and they continue their non-rationality.
From: Bruce on 9 Jul 2010 18:27 On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 18:10:39 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > >All that illustrates is that the term has become popular for any digital >camera that isn't an SLR. I don't dispute that it's become the most >*popular* term, only that it isn't an appropriate one for many if not most >of the cameras called that. I've seen little cheap digital cameras sold in >blister packs at Walmart. For *those* the term P&S would probably be >appropriate (I say this not really knowing anything about the cameras), >because they are very likely analogous to the original and appropriately >characterized 35mm point-and-shoot cameras. > >But really, do you believe a camera like the Nikon 8800, for example, or >Canon G11, should be given the same type name as something that sells for >$25 or whatever in a blister pack? Why should anything and everything that >isn't an interchangeable-lens SLR be called a "P&S," when that term >originally meant, and still implies, a simple-to-use little camera with >practically no user controls and no indication about what the camera itself >was doing in terms of exposure? In the UK, the term "point and shoot" is not in general use. The normal term is "compact". Of course that isn't always accurate as some small-sensor cameras can be quite large. But in most cases, it works.
From: David J Taylor on 10 Jul 2010 02:59
"Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message news:XMydncJ8Ko38A6rRnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d(a)giganews.com... [] > All that illustrates is that the term has become popular for any digital > camera that isn't an SLR. I don't dispute that it's become the most > *popular* term, only that it isn't an appropriate one for many if not > most of the cameras called that. I've seen little cheap digital cameras > sold in blister packs at Walmart. For *those* the term P&S would > probably be appropriate (I say this not really knowing anything about > the cameras), because they are very likely analogous to the original and > appropriately characterized 35mm point-and-shoot cameras. > > But really, do you believe a camera like the Nikon 8800, for example, or > Canon G11, should be given the same type name as something that sells > for $25 or whatever in a blister pack? Why should anything and > everything that isn't an interchangeable-lens SLR be called a "P&S," > when that term originally meant, and still implies, a simple-to-use > little camera with practically no user controls and no indication about > what the camera itself was doing in terms of exposure? [] That was one of the reasons I accepted the use of the term "ZLR" or perhaps "bridge" camera - neither "compact", "P&S" or "SLR-like" was appropriate or correct for one reason or another. Anyone who is really interested in a camera such as the Nikon 8800 or Panasonic FZ38 isn't going to worry too much about how it's categorised, more about how well it works and what it might do for them. Cheers, David |