I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Immigration: The shocking truth about the immigrants who openedthe floodgates
Next: The real cost of being sued by Getty
From: -hh on 22 Oct 2009 20:01 nospam <nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <e031e51rsu0li52pbkbkoo45hddkfdj...(a)4ax.com>, John Navas > > <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > > >> >the best dslrs now have very good iso 3200 performance and are very > > >> >usable at higher speeds. it opens up a world of new opportunities, many > > >> >that were considered impossible just a few years ago. > > > >> None that I need. > > > >More likely, its "None that you've considered". > > > With that insult you concede the debate. Thanks for saving me the time. > > And feel free to rant on without me -- I'm giving you the last word. > > don't flatter yourself. that's not in any way an insult. Precisely correct. As illustration, I merely will refer to the main photo on my domain's homepage, namely that Milky Way & Cabin" night sky photograph taken at ISO 1600. I had never previously anticipated having any "need" for high ISO ... it wasn't until the moment when I saw that sky and decided to experimentally make the shot. The shot was the result and it was an eye-opener to a different photographic realm that I hadn't ever really considered before. Since then, I've made several other forays into night photography, which have also been quite interesting and expanding...including several with a P&S, which I've posted links to in past conversations. > it's nothing more than your standard way to weasel out of a debate > which you are clearly losing. you even have the text ready to be > copy/pasted whenever you need it. very telling. Its also "very telling" that either John is here, or the Troll is here...YMMV as to which is Harvey Dent :-) -hh
From: John McWilliams on 22 Oct 2009 20:02 Savageduck wrote: > On 2009-10-22 16:37:46 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> said: > >> John Navas wrote: >>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:15:11 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote in <4ae04cd2$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>: >>> >>>> John Navas wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:41:36 -0500, Doug McDonald >>>>> <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote in >>>>> <hbndjr$sku$1(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu>: >>>>> >>>>>> John Navas wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:28:50 -0700 (PDT), -hh >>>>>>> <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote in >>>>>>> <6f13be1b-7470-496a-a225-c616e187862e(a)k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> [SNIP desperate defense of dSLR] >>>>>>>> And unfortunately, the performance of these P&Ss at even just >>>>>>>> ISO 400 >>>>>>>> makes for a relatively poor showing against what a one-use >>>>>>>> (disposable) Kodak Max 400 35mm film camera was able to do, a >>>>>>>> decade >>>>>>>> ago. >>>>>>> The best compact digital cameras now have very good ISO 400 >>>>>>> performance. >>>>>> Well, yes, depending on your definition of "very good". >>>>>> >>>>>> However, the best dSLRs have very good ISO 3200 performance, for >>>>>> the same definition of "very good". >>>>> That's a bit like bragging your personal equipment is an inch longer >>>>> than mine. ;) >>>> I expect that your GF would notice the difference... ;^) >>> >>> You would be wrong. >>> As in cameras, what matters is the workman, not the tool. >> >> An adequate tool in the hands of an artist is a good thing. A better >> tool in the hands of a maestro is a great thing*. >> >> Q.E.D. > > Aah! The Acme vs. The Strad analogy. > Creo, mas o menos, amigo! -- john mcwilliams
From: John McWilliams on 22 Oct 2009 20:42 -hh wrote: > nospam <nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >> In article <e031e51rsu0li52pbkbkoo45hddkfdj...(a)4ax.com>, John Navas >> >> it's nothing more than your standard way to weasel out of a debate >> which you are clearly losing. you even have the text ready to be >> copy/pasted whenever you need it. very telling. > > Its also "very telling" that either John is here, or the Troll is > here...YMMV as to which is Harvey Dent :-) John can troll, and sometimes very well. But he also adds real stuff, too, and can be straightforward. The other guy is not a Troll. At best, a lower case troll. At worst, a pest. And here I am the guy saying not to talk about 'him'. .eeech. -- john mcwilliams
From: Bob Larter on 23 Oct 2009 02:10 John Navas wrote: > On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:28:50 -0700 (PDT), -hh > <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote in > <6f13be1b-7470-496a-a225-c616e187862e(a)k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>: > >> John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> [SNIP desperate defense of dSLR] > >> And unfortunately, the performance of these P&Ss at even just ISO 400 >> makes for a relatively poor showing against what a one-use >> (disposable) Kodak Max 400 35mm film camera was able to do, a decade >> ago. > > The best compact digital cameras now have very good ISO 400 performance. Well, average, actually. From the samples I've seen, the best digicams are about as good at ISO 400 as average DSLRs are at ISO 1600. -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Navas on 23 Oct 2009 09:48
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:13:08 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in <4ae13b67$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>: >> [HUGE SNIP] >*snicker* By quoting the entire thing, adding only a single word juvenile comment, you show yourself to be no better than the person you're trying to make fun of. How old are you, 8? -- 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 |