Why DSLR still use CF card?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: A little nostalgia this morning thinking of old dad
Next: There's an app for that: NNTP news reader for Android
From: SMS on 8 Jul 2010 11:40 On 08/07/10 1:51 AM, Bruce wrote: > On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 17:04:29 -0500, LOL!<lol(a)lol.org> wrote: >> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:12:14 +0100, Bruce<docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> But every other aspect of that camera's performance would be grossly >>> inadequate for what I do. Why on earth would I ever want to >>> jeopardise my business by relying on such inadequate equipment? >>> >> >> Then why do you demonize those that find smaller sensor cameras far far far >> superior for the kinds of photography that they do? > > > People who claim that small sensor cameras are "far far far superior" > demonise themselves without any help from me. It just isn't true. There's only one person on r.p.d. that has ever claimed that, and he lacks any knowledge of the subject, so don't use plurals. > We both know there are people who are prepared to accept low standards > in return for cheapness and compactness and who are prepared to accept > less control over their output through their laziness and ignorance. > Once again, they demonise themselves without any help from me. Actually if you're doing outdoor work, in good light, at low ISO, and don't need fast auto-focus, long telephoto, or extreme wide-angle, and don't plan to make poster size prints, you can get very good results with a compact camera. It's when you _do_ need any of those things that you have to move to a large sensor camera and when you may need the much faster AF that a D-SLR with PDAF provides. I doubt that many of us that regularly use D-SLRs don't also often use compact cameras when we can accept the limitations in return for the convenience of smaller size. It's when we need DOF and low noise, and fast AF, and low light capability that the D-SLR is indispensable. Don't blame the consumers that have fallen for the marketing hype of the super-zoom cameras, blame the manufacturers for misleading them, and our educational system for failing to provide these consumers with the critical thinking skills necessary to make informed decisions.
From: Savageduck on 8 Jul 2010 12:00 On 2010-07-08 08:00:19 -0700, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> said: > On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 20:51:01 -0700, nospam wrote: > >> In article <89kvmjF852U41(a)mid.individual.net>, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> >> wrote: >> >>> In my experience, if it works with MAC it will most likely work with >>> Linux. >> >> where in the world did you get that idea? >> >> however, the opposite is true. almost all linux apps run natively on mac >> os x. the exceptions are non-portable apps that assume specifics about >> linux. >> > > This idiot seems to be preoccupied with printers. It has been my general > observation that if a printer works with MAC it will most likely work > with Linux - I've yet to see an exception. OK. I use Macs exclusively at home. A Macbook Pro and a PPC iMac. I am using a Canon i9900 networked via WiFi without issue. So using your general rule that if a printer works with Mac it will most likely work with Linux, that i9900 should work with Linux. This just seems like another one of those "I am hiding my product bias behind a pseudo tech alibi". I think this is just some sort of extension the brand name war. Note, I use a Nikon D300s & a Canon G11. My last Epson printer became so clogged up, it was beyond recovery. That left me somewhat gun shy regarding Epson regardless of their current good reputation. My experience with HP printers has been limited to networked laser printers at work, and those worked well. As far as the argument of not using a particular brand of camera because the bundled SW doesn't support a particular OS, is somewhat silly. There are other solutions. > >>> Yeah - I guess if all you want is access to 90% of the market instead >>> of 100%, that is your business. If I'm one of the 10%, it's perfectly >>> within my purview to ignore you. >> >> doesn't linux include a calculator? -- Regards, Savageduck
From: ray on 8 Jul 2010 13:12 On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:00:17 -0700, Savageduck wrote: > On 2010-07-08 08:00:19 -0700, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> said: > >> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 20:51:01 -0700, nospam wrote: >> >>> In article <89kvmjF852U41(a)mid.individual.net>, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> In my experience, if it works with MAC it will most likely work with >>>> Linux. >>> >>> where in the world did you get that idea? >>> >>> however, the opposite is true. almost all linux apps run natively on >>> mac os x. the exceptions are non-portable apps that assume specifics >>> about linux. >>> >>> >> This idiot seems to be preoccupied with printers. It has been my >> general observation that if a printer works with MAC it will most >> likely work with Linux - I've yet to see an exception. > > OK. I use Macs exclusively at home. A Macbook Pro and a PPC iMac. I am > using a Canon i9900 networked via WiFi without issue. So using your > general rule that if a printer works with Mac it will most likely work > with Linux, that i9900 should work with Linux. This just seems like > another one of those "I am hiding my product bias behind a pseudo tech > alibi". I think this is just some sort of extension the brand name war. It's also true that Canon itself has done absolutely nothing to promote Linux support. HP and Epson have. Yes, some reverse engineering has been done recently and some of their stuff works. > > Note, I use a Nikon D300s & a Canon G11. My last Epson printer became so > clogged up, it was beyond recovery. That left me somewhat gun shy > regarding Epson regardless of their current good reputation. My > experience with HP printers has been limited to networked laser printers > at work, and those worked well. > > As far as the argument of not using a particular brand of camera because > the bundled SW doesn't support a particular OS, is somewhat silly. There > are other solutions. Yes, it is silly. I don't recall having said anything of the sort. > > >>>> Yeah - I guess if all you want is access to 90% of the market instead >>>> of 100%, that is your business. If I'm one of the 10%, it's perfectly >>>> within my purview to ignore you. >>> >>> doesn't linux include a calculator?
From: nospam on 8 Jul 2010 16:12 In article <89m7g3FrahU1(a)mid.individual.net>, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: > This idiot seems to be preoccupied with printers. It has been my general > observation that if a printer works with MAC it will most likely work > with Linux - I've yet to see an exception. that's because os x includes cups, as well as official drivers for nearly every printer.
From: nospam on 8 Jul 2010 16:15
In article <89m81kFrahU3(a)mid.individual.net>, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: > Yes, but don't need one here. His numbers (which I don't necessarily > believe anyway) show Linux and MAC with 113 million vs MS at 1.087 > billion. So, MAC plus Linux (those NOT able to use a winprinter) would > seem to come to 10.395584% - I guess I was fairly close. that's only for winprinters. win+mac = 99% of the market, which is why very few companies bother with linux. |