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: John McWilliams on 19 Oct 2009 13:32 ray wrote: > On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:26:54 -0700, John McWilliams wrote: > >> ray wrote: >>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:14:23 +1000, Bob Larter wrote: >>>> I don't have the slightest problem with people who prefer a P&S to a >>>> DSLR. The bit that confuses me is why they feel the need to post about >>>> P&Ses to a *DSLR specific* newsgroup. >>> Let me see: rec.photo.digital == DSLR - interesting hypothesis. >> ray- >> >> Do you not see that the post has been going to two NGs? Since the o.p.?? > > Yeah - I noticed. I've only read and responded here hence, IMHO, I'm not > having a need to post to a dslr specific newsgroup. Whatever. Your posts have all been going to whatever groups are in the headers, in this case two NGs. In other words, you are posting a dslr group. -- john mcwilliams
From: Chris Malcolm on 19 Oct 2009 14:20 In rec.photo.digital Helping the Clueless <hclueless(a)clues.org> wrote: > On 16 Oct 2009 15:38:25 GMT, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: >>Frankly I think you overstate the situation somewhat - I agree with the >>point, it's just a matter of degree. > Not overstated at all, maybe even understated. When I did the comparison I > also used the most inexpensive lenses I could find for the DSLR (for the > budget-conscious photographer). I'm not sure that would even provide image > quality from the DSLR equal to what already exists in the P&S camera. To > get the same focal-length range, aperture, and image quality as already > exists in the P&S camera for under $350 it will take over 23 lbs. of glass, > REQUIRED tripod, and DSLR, costing upward of $6,000. I can't imagine how you got anywhere near that weight or cost if as you say you were choosing the cheapest DSLR lenses. Can you itemise the shopping list that tots up to 23 lbs weight and $6,000? -- Chris Malcolm
From: John McWilliams on 19 Oct 2009 14:31 Chris Malcolm wrote: > In rec.photo.digital Helping the Clueless <hclueless(a)clues.org> wrote: >> On 16 Oct 2009 15:38:25 GMT, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: > >>> Frankly I think you overstate the situation somewhat - I agree with the >>> point, it's just a matter of degree. > >> Not overstated at all, maybe even understated. When I did the comparison I >> also used the most inexpensive lenses I could find for the DSLR (for the >> budget-conscious photographer). I'm not sure that would even provide image >> quality from the DSLR equal to what already exists in the P&S camera. To >> get the same focal-length range, aperture, and image quality as already >> exists in the P&S camera for under $350 it will take over 23 lbs. of glass, >> REQUIRED tripod, and DSLR, costing upward of $6,000. > > I can't imagine how you got anywhere near that weight or cost if as > you say you were choosing the cheapest DSLR lenses. Can you itemise > the shopping list that tots up to 23 lbs weight and $6,000? You're simply encouraging the pest to continue here. In this case, he's trolling with a slow hook. But it's the same pest...... -- john mcwilliams
From: Pete Stavrakoglou on 19 Oct 2009 15:44 "Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:MPG.2541b4a28643452198c15b(a)news.supernews.com... > In article <HnMBm.3649$KR3.3497(a)text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J > Taylor says... >> Nikon D40 - 522g (1.2lb) >> 18-200mm lens - 560g (19.8 oz) >> >> Total: 2.4lbs > > That's heavy, especially if you have to carry it the whole day with you. > -- > > Alfred Molon > ------------------------------ > Olympus 4040-8080, E-series DRLRs forum at > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ > http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site Yes it's heavy to carry all day but something like the R-Strap makes it a lot easier.
From: Ray Fischer on 20 Oct 2009 00:09
LOL! <LOL(a)LOL.org> wrote: >On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:31:30 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> >wrote: > >>Chris Malcolm wrote: >>> In rec.photo.digital Helping the Clueless <hclueless(a)clues.org> wrote: >>>> On 16 Oct 2009 15:38:25 GMT, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> Frankly I think you overstate the situation somewhat - I agree with the >>>>> point, it's just a matter of degree. >>> >>>> Not overstated at all, maybe even understated. When I did the comparison I >>>> also used the most inexpensive lenses I could find for the DSLR (for the >>>> budget-conscious photographer). I'm not sure that would even provide image >>>> quality from the DSLR equal to what already exists in the P&S camera. To >>>> get the same focal-length range, aperture, and image quality as already >>>> exists in the P&S camera for under $350 it will take over 23 lbs. of glass, >>>> REQUIRED tripod, and DSLR, costing upward of $6,000. >>> >>> I can't imagine how you got anywhere near that weight or cost if as >>> you say you were choosing the cheapest DSLR lenses. Can you itemise >>> the shopping list that tots up to 23 lbs weight and $6,000? >> >>You're simply encouraging the pest to continue here. In this case, he's >>trolling with a slow hook. But it's the same pest...... > >Awww.... what's the matter. Afraid to see the truth about your piece of Get back to us when you can deal with the truth. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |