Prev: Newton, up close and personal
Next: Don't view on a full stomach
From: John Navas on 30 Jun 2010 17:52
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:54:27 -0700, in
<4c2baeff$0$22178$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote:

>On 30/06/10 1:26 PM, SneakyP wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> And there's the rub. You only have to look at his postings at Steve's -
>> people *did* constructively point out issues with his images, quite
>> pleasantly, but he invariably went ballistic with silly defenses of his
>> images, rather than admit he had much to learn.
>
>That's just his shtick, in reality he is learning a lot from everything
>that is pointed out to him. He's just one of those types that finds it
>difficult to admit that he does not know everything about everything.

You've described yourself to a T.

>For me, the most amusing thing about our troll is how upset he
>apparently is that I have contributed to the documentation for the CHDK
>firmware for Canon cameras. I was a bit worried that he would remove the
>stuff I wrote, but then I realized that even though I've even posted the
>same text I wrote almost verbatim in some rec.photo.digital posts he has
>not figured out the sections of the Wiki that I have added to and edited.

Proof?

--
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
From: Robert Spanjaard on 30 Jun 2010 17:56
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:49:27 -0500, SneakyP wrote:

> NGBarfart <ngbarfart(a)ngflatulence.net> wrote in news:ngbarfart-
> AF606C.14154330062010(a)nntp.charter.net:
>
>> In article <Xns9DA79D01BE8BB48umofa02sneakemailc(a)127.0.0.1>,
>> SneakyP <48umofa02(a)WHITELISTONLYsneakemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> From a little digging,
>>> Message-ID: <a4aee245-8732-463c-96e4-a37bbbe4ce58
>>> @m24g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>>>
>>> revealed this nugget about our resident P&S trolltard: trimmed
>>
>> You provoked him again.
>> It would be interesting to see if he e-mails you for information on how
>> to filter himself. That would be revealing. He remains a PIA.
>>
>>
> Mr. Hamster is efficient today.

With Hamster, expanding the filtering to include replies to the troll is
easy. All it takes is a single, fairly simple hs2-script.
I haven't used Hamster myself for about five years, so I can't give any
details.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
From: Rich on 30 Jun 2010 20:42
On Jun 30, 4:34 pm, LOL! <l...(a)lol.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 15:26:15 -0500, SneakyP
>
>
>
> <48umof...(a)WHITELISTONLYsneakemail.com> wrote:
> >From a little digging,
> >Message-ID: <a4aee245-8732-463c-96e4-a37bbbe4ce58
> >@m24g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >revealed this nugget about our resident P&S trolltard:
>
> >http://www.eotacforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=24769&p=300369#p300369
>
> ><quote>
>
> >Stephen Bishop wrote:
> >> If not for his abrasive attitude, I'm sure many people would be more
>
> >    than willing to give him some favorable comments as well as
> >    suggestions on how to improve.
>
> >And there's the rub. You only have to look at his postings at Steve's -
> >people *did* constructively point out issues with his images, quite
> >pleasantly, but he invariably went ballistic with silly defenses of his
> >images, rather than admit he had much to learn. He desperately wants to be
> >worshipped, and when he doesn't get it, he explodes and exacts his revenge.
>
> >On several different forums, he has taken such umbrage with his perceived
> >enemies that he made great shows of storming off, telling everyone that
> >they didn't deserve his help. Then to prove it, he laboriously *deleted all
> >his previous posts* from those forums. Hilarious - one is reminded of a
> >toddler's tantrum, yet a bit sad...
>
> >    If nothing else, those examples demonstrate the strengths and
> >    weaknesses of a p&s camera. They can be good for extreme close-ups in
> >    good light, but they fall short when they are used for action shots or
> >    in very low light.
>
> >And then there's print sizes. The best P&s/bridge/superzoom cameras can do
> >'quite nice' 13x19's, but when you get to those sizes and beyond, dslrs are
> >very obviously better (even at base ISO, kit lens, bright light). If you
> >add in low light or challenging action, the fat lady has sung. Frankly, if
> >you are doing serious work at poster sizes, then you probably shouldn't be
> >using 35mm format anyway - although the latest round of cameras are surely
> >going to shake up the MF market.
>
> >So we can only assume that Keoeeit has never seen a truly razor-sharp large
> >print, and it is obvious by his postings that he has never shot anything
> >decent or challenging in low-light, and doesn't understand the
> >opportunities that good high-iso performance offers - I am reminded of this
> >guy's work (warning - wedding photos!):
> >http://cliffmautner.typepad.com/page/4/
> >Check out the high ISO shots (Nikon D3, several at 6400!) and the superb
> >use of natural light.. But I'm sure Vern could squash those images flat
> >with his dinky little S3IS. (O:
>
> >The funny thing is, I use a bridge camera for ~95% of my stuff. I don't
> >usually do wildlife/sports, and most of my low-light stuff is just for the
> >family, so the p&s is ok. But if I was back in the weddings game...
>
> ></quote>
>
> >Sad sad life.
>
> >I wouldn't have noticed, except the persistent replies from a few people
> >have exposed the nymshifting idiot and I cannot filter those re-quoted
> >troll posts out.
> >Unless there's an overwhelming desire for others to stuff their killfile
> >with "From:" entries, there's an easier way to ignore the idiot.
>
> >Please email me for the details.
>
> >Or If you have another filter that does not only kill the troll, but the
> >replies to the troll automagically, please tell about it.
>
> Is this why the ONLY posts you reply to are those of the supposed P&S
> Troll?

Well, if that fixed-lens 4/3rds comes out, it'll mean that at least
some P&S'rs will have a camera that can at least try to compete with
DSLRs, on an image quality level. Up to now, you've had the Sony R1
(nice camera) and the Sigma and finally the overpriced Leica. But you
have to dump the crappy superzooms.
From: John Navas on 30 Jun 2010 21:12
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 17:42:50 -0700 (PDT), in
<1a66e754-1d7d-40c8-b0f0-eb45a204c81a(a)a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>Well, if that fixed-lens 4/3rds comes out, it'll mean that at least
>some P&S'rs will have a camera that can at least try to compete with
>DSLRs, on an image quality level. Up to now, you've had the Sony R1
>(nice camera) and the Sigma and finally the overpriced Leica. But you
>have to dump the crappy superzooms.

You wish. :)

--
Best regards,
John

"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman
From: Charles Chase on 30 Jun 2010 21:32
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 17:42:50 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com>
>
>Well, if that fixed-lens 4/3rds comes out, it'll mean that at least
>some P&S'rs will have a camera that can at least try to compete with
>DSLRs, on an image quality level. Up to now, you've had the Sony R1
>(nice camera) and the Sigma and finally the overpriced Leica. But you
>have to dump the crappy superzooms.

I see that those mental blinders of yours are still helping you to enjoy
your deep bliss of total ignorance.

I have a P&S superzoom camera from 2003 that beats the image quality of an
EOS D60 when images are compared side by side of the same subjects in all
lighting conditions. A Powershot G9 from three years ago beats the image
quality of 7D DSLR today. A 20x superzoom P&S camera puts the image quality
of a EOS450D with a meager 3X zoom lens to shame. A handheld G10 rivals the
image quality of a medium format Hasselblad that's securely mounted on a
sturdy tripod with mirror-lockup, timed shutter-delay, and tripped with a
remote cable release.

For all those DSLR-buying fools that doubt this to be true:

<http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml>

<http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml>

<http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/>



Seriously, what color is the sky on your planet?

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Newton, up close and personal
Next: Don't view on a full stomach