Magazines, websites getting desperate
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: RichA on 1 Jul 2010 18:10 No new camera releases means fewer readers so they've taken to reviewing....P&S's!! First Dpreview with that 12 pieces of junk review and the Amateur Photographer wasting pages on a Fuji Superzoom with a TINY sensor (what else is new?). C'mon Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Sony, Oly-forget it, I forgot, Olympus bailed out of DSLRs.
From: Barry on 1 Jul 2010 18:23 On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 15:10:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >No new camera releases means fewer readers so they've taken to >reviewing....P&S's!! First Dpreview with that 12 pieces of junk >review and the Amateur Photographer wasting pages on a Fuji Superzoom >with a TINY sensor (what else is new?). C'mon Nikon, Canon, Pentax, >Sony, Oly-forget it, I forgot, Olympus bailed out of DSLRs. Why does it bother you so much that the majority of photographers, amateur and pro, find P&S cameras more interesting, more capable, more cost-effective, more portable, more adaptable, more publicly accepted, and more important than DSLRs today? Buggy-whip braiders in the early 1900's eventually had to find new jobs too. I guess some people will just have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. You sound just like those that went on and on for years crying about the benefits of film and how digital cameras will never be better. How many more years will it take for you to wake up? That's okay. We'll wait. We understand why you are like you are.
From: Rich on 1 Jul 2010 20:27 On Jul 1, 6:23 pm, Barry <bfeinst...(a)spamblocked.com> wrote: > On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 15:10:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > >No new camera releases means fewer readers so they've taken to > >reviewing....P&S's!! First Dpreview with that 12 pieces of junk > >review and the Amateur Photographer wasting pages on a Fuji Superzoom > >with a TINY sensor (what else is new?). C'mon Nikon, Canon, Pentax, > >Sony, Oly-forget it, I forgot, Olympus bailed out of DSLRs. > > Why does it bother you so much that the majority of photographers, amateur > and pro, find P&S cameras more interesting, more capable, more > cost-effective, more portable, more adaptable, more publicly accepted, and > more important than DSLRs today? > If majority opinion mattered, then Tiger Woods really would be driving a Buick, and not an Escalade.
From: Robert Coe on 1 Jul 2010 20:55 On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 15:10:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: : No new camera releases means fewer readers so they've taken to : reviewing....P&S's!! First Dpreview with that 12 pieces of junk : review and the Amateur Photographer wasting pages on a Fuji Superzoom : with a TINY sensor (what else is new?). C'mon Nikon, Canon, Pentax, : Sony, Oly-forget it, I forgot, Olympus bailed out of DSLRs. Rich, my daughter gets far better pictures with her P%Ses (a long line of them: with three kids (4, 6, and 8) to keep up with, she tends to drop her cameras a lot) than we've ever seen you get with whatever cameras you favor. My wife and I (and I guess most of the denizens of these newsgroups) have permanently switched to DSLRs. But that doesn't mean that a decent P&S (of which there are many) doesn't have its place. In many circumstances they're exactly the right choice. The P&S Troll (for example) keeps trying to posit a war between DSLR and P&S users, but it's useful to remember that he's insane. No such affliction has your good self in its grip, right? Bob
From: LOL! on 1 Jul 2010 21:01
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 20:55:17 -0400, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: >On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 15:10:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >: No new camera releases means fewer readers so they've taken to >: reviewing....P&S's!! First Dpreview with that 12 pieces of junk >: review and the Amateur Photographer wasting pages on a Fuji Superzoom >: with a TINY sensor (what else is new?). C'mon Nikon, Canon, Pentax, >: Sony, Oly-forget it, I forgot, Olympus bailed out of DSLRs. > >Rich, my daughter gets far better pictures with her P%Ses (a long line of >them: with three kids (4, 6, and 8) to keep up with, she tends to drop her >cameras a lot) than we've ever seen you get with whatever cameras you favor. >My wife and I (and I guess most of the denizens of these newsgroups) have >permanently switched to DSLRs. But that doesn't mean that a decent P&S (of >which there are many) doesn't have its place. In many circumstances they're >exactly the right choice. The P&S Troll (for example) keeps trying to posit a >war between DSLR and P&S users, but it's useful to remember that he's insane. >No such affliction has your good self in its grip, right? > >Bob Still trying to justify all that unneeded expense and weight of all that DSLR equipment, I see. And yet not one bit of your photography gear has ever made you into a better photographer nor made your images any better. Why is that. LOL! |