DPreview's Richard Butler "apologizes" and corrects Sony A350 review
Focus
the Sony A350 was the built-in wireless flash function, he changed it and
added it with the "pros".
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&thread=28245139
(I'm still known there as Sosumi instead of Focus)
Now a few more adjustments, like how big is a nose if you can't get your eye
close enough to the OVF?
Why do A350 owners give it an average 4.55 and 450D owners an average 4.11?
AND a few questions and remarks:
Pros:
»Good detail at lowest sensitivities, competitive with best in class
»Reliable metering
»JPEG output makes good use of the sensor's dynamic range
»Most seamless live view system of current DSLRs
»Probably the easiest DSLR to use for a compact camera user
»Super SteadyShot helps keep snaps sharp
»External ISO button
»Above-average ergonomics for its class
»Well-featured and usable software included
»Very good battery life
»Wireless flash capability
»Solid-feeling construction
So this seems like one very good, outstanding camera, right?
Cons:
»Soft JPEGs with poor low-contrast detail
But you just said in Pros:
"Good detail at lowest sensitivities, competitive with best in class"
Speak English! What is it?
»Smallest viewfinder to appear on an APS-C DSLR
True, but also easy to change with, for example, a Nikon magnifier for 23
euro.
Also, the only DSLR that has a very workable alternative: the LV system.
»Screen obstructs use of viewfinder
Que? Last time I checked it was still under the viewfinder. And unless you
have a nose that will prevent you from using *any* camera with an OVF, it's
just as good as the next camera.
»Image quality suffers above ISO 400 (from both noise and excessive noise
reduction)
Shoot in RAW, turn of all NR and you don't have a problem.
»Long exposure noise reduction turns hot pixels black
No problem encountered with a 10 second night exposure.
»Slower and less responsive than its contemporaries
Slower at what??? Baking a cake? Mopping the floor?
»Poor continuous shooting rate
2.5 versus 3.5 with the 450D. Both are not winning any speed tests.
»Most convenient button on body given least useful function
O, that's a can of worms you just opened!
So how "useful" do you consider the "direct print" button on the Canons???
Now lets compare the different way of final "approach" to both camera's:
A350:
"The biggest reservations we have about this camera, though, relate to its
image quality. On paper and when shooting resolution charts, the A350 is an
impressive performer but that prowess doesn't always hold up when you step
outside the studio. The default JPEG output from the A350 is distinctly soft
(and this is exacerbated when coupled with the rather below-par 18-70 kit
lens), though detail is being recorded and can be recovered if you're
willing to shoot in RAW and post-process. We also see the traditional
trade-off between tightly-packed pixels and high-sensitivity performance,
with the sensor producing a lot of noise and smearing it away to an extent
we're not used to seeing in cameras of this type.
It's certainly a competitively-priced, well-specified camera and one that
feels better-constructed than many of its rivals. It's also one that
smoothes down the learning curve while still offering a huge step up in
all-round performance compared to compact cameras - and one that will
satisfy a lot of buyers. Unfortunately, it can't quite compete with the
all-round performance the best modern DSLRs are capable of.* Had the image
quality been of the same standard as the leaders in its class,* that would
have been enough to award it our highest rating. As it stands, it's a camera
we feel too **equivocal about to award more than a 'Recommended.'"
*Excuse me, but isn't that exactly what you wrote it WAS? Here a melancholy
trip down memory lane:
"Pros:
»Good detail at lowest sensitivities, competitive with best in class"
Now, that really could confuse people, to say the least.
**equivocal?
1.allowing the possibility of several different meanings, as a word or
phrase, esp. with intent to deceive or misguide; susceptible of double
interpretation; deliberately ambiguous: an equivocal answer.
2.of doubtful nature or character; questionable; dubious; suspicious: aliens
of equivocal loyalty.
3.of uncertain significance; not determined: an equivocal attitude.
if there's anything "equivocal" it's the text in this review...
450D cons (left the heavenly praised Pros at the site:
»Average automatic white balance performance, still very poor under
incandescent light
»Limited exposure compensation range (+/- 2.0 EV)
»Contrast detect AF so slow it's useless for most types of photography
Much worse then, compared to the superfast LV of the A350?
»Metering has tendency to overexpose in very bright, contrasty conditions
Hm, you mean against the A350? , I quote:
"»Reliable metering"
»Default JPEG output may be a little 'over processed' for some tastes (raw
far more flexible)
So really not much better then the A350?
»Flash must be up for AF assist lamp (although AF is good even in low light)
»Automatic AF point selection unpredictable (use center AF, it's safer)
So not as good as even a P&S?
»Occasional total focus failures (in our case only 5 or 6 shots in almost
2000)
Not much, but if you happen to loose your best shot... I'd smash it against
a solid brick wall...
»New Auto Lighting Optimizer doesn't really seem to do anything
Do you mean: as opposed to the DRO of the Sony that *does* work?
»No mass storage USB support
Again: Sony has.
»A little pricey
For a toy: no. For a serious photographer: yes.
NOW FOR THE KILL! Read this with attention:
Last part of the conclusion Canon 450D:
"Perhaps the biggest challenge facing Canon at the sales counter is that the
EOS 450D costs too much to compete with the real entry-level DSLRs and and -
on paper at least - cameras *such as the Sony Alpha 350 that offer a lot
more bang for your buck.* But compared to many of its competitors the EOS
450D just feels like a more 'sorted' camera; in the half decade since the
original 'Rebel' the line has matured to the point where we have to dig
pretty deep to find anything serious to complain about.
Canon may no longer be the automatic choice for the entry-level SLR user,
and I possibly wouldn't recommend it over a Nikon D60 or Olympus E-420 for
absolute beginners or anyone wanting 'point and shoot' access to well
optimized JPEG output. But if you want to move to the next level of image
quality and performance, and are prepared to** take control of parameters
(and ideally shoot raw) to get the best possible results,** the EOS 450D is
an easy recommendation."
*So here the Sony gives more bang for the buck??? Why didn't it get a High
recommendation then?
**So why didn't you write with the same "courtesy" in favor of the Sony?
After this sounds a lot worse:
"The default JPEG output from the A350 is distinctly soft (and this is
exacerbated when coupled with the rather below-par 18-70 kit lens), though
detail is being recorded and can be recovered if you're willing to shoot in
RAW and post-process."
Review conclusion:
The whole story is like a Swiss cheese: some parts are rather nice if it's
your taste, but it's full of very big holes and gaps.
Contradiction is no strange word in the used vocabulary of DPreview. Any
review should be free of biased parts and kept from using "expensive" words,
specially if they're out of place or even totally wrong.
All things considered and compared to a few random chosen competitive review
sites, my recommendation would be, to take the whole thing with an huge
shovel of salt. Until DPreview wakes up and smells the coffee, it's better
to compare with a few, less biased competitors, like:
http://www.trustedreviews.com/digital-cameras/review/2008/06/10/Sony-Alpha-A350-/p1
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA350/AA350A.HTM
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_DSLR_A350/index.shtml
http://www.alphamountworld.com/reviews/sony-a350-review?page=0%2C0
http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/camera/review/163/page_1.html
http://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/digitalslr/sony-dslra350.aspx
http://www.photographybay.com/2008/05/11/sony-a350-review/
(I would have also added Popphoto, but they have annoying advertisement that
doesn't go away)
--
Focus
OldBoy
news:MZWdnSmjlNy2U9LV...@novis.pt...
> After I pointed out, that another important missing feature in the review
> of the Sony A350 was the built-in wireless flash function, he changed it
> and added it with the "pros".
[snip]
It still has a low IQ
Dica Photo
"Focus" <fo...@togus.nl> schreef in bericht
news:MZWdnSmjlNy2U9LV...@novis.pt...
> After I pointed out, that another important missing feature in the review
> of the Sony A350 was the built-in wireless flash function, he changed it
> and added it with the "pros".
>
GET A LIFE..........................
Not mad, but nearly...
"OldBoy" <no...@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:484fd261$0$6014$9a62...@news.kpnplanet.nl...
So do the people who buy it ;)
new...@plcom.net
> "OldBoy" <n...@planet.nl> wrote in message
>
> news:484fd261$0$6014$9a62...@news.kpnplanet.nl...
>
>
> > It still has a low IQ <<
>
> So do the people who buy it ;)
The only low IQs here belong to the people who spend any amount of
time worrying about such things.
van de Meppelink
> After I pointed out, that another important missing feature in the review of
> the Sony A350 was the built-in wireless flash function, he changed it and
> added it with the "pros".
>
>
> (I'm still known there as Sosumi instead of Focus)
>
Focus
"OldBoy" <no...@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:484fd261$0$6014$9a62...@news.kpnplanet.nl...
How admirable of you to try to keep "your" Canon brand up.
Look at what DPR writes at the JPEG comparison between the two.
Then go to the RAW comparison and download both the A350 and the 450D file.
Now enlarge and look closely: where, anywhere, in the picture do you see the
Canon is better???
You gotta be kidding me....
7 independent sites listed who think different.
Do you really think DPR is the holy grail or something?
--
Focus
OldBoy
>
> "OldBoy" <no...@planet.nl> wrote in message
> news:484fd261$0$6014$9a62...@news.kpnplanet.nl...
>> "Focus" <fo...@togus.nl> wrote in message
>> news:MZWdnSmjlNy2U9LV...@novis.pt...
>>> After I pointed out, that another important missing feature in the
>>> review of the Sony A350 was the built-in wireless flash function, he
>>> changed it and added it with the "pros".
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> It still has a low IQ
>
> How admirable of you to try to keep "your" Canon brand up.
I'm not branded, however I have a Nikon LF35 AF2
[snip]
> Do you really think DPR is the holy grail or something?
No, there are other sources: me and my monitor.
Focus
Either one or both need calibration ;-)
--
Focus
Focus
"Dica Photo" <Di...@dicasa.nl> wrote in message
news:484fdac4$1...@news4us.nl...
Sadly the only sentence he knows in English without making a mistake...
And he's deaf too, LOL!
--
Focus
Not mad, but nearly...
<new...@plcom.net> wrote in message
news:7e1ad38a-7b16-4ec0...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
I, for one, am not the slightest bit worried ;)
I have an A700 which (thanks mainly to Bibble) produces some excellent
results. What I can't really understand is why Sony have bothered to
release three noisy downmarket cameras that have about as much appeal as
chronic toothache.
They are not going to sell many - and having the cheap 'n' nasty things
hanging about only tarnishes the Sony image. Leave the bargain bin cams to
the proles to fight over in-between scrabbling for reduced food at their
local supermarket. The A700 should have been the lowest point at which Sony
entered the game (after stopping the abysmal A100)
I know the usual wail is that people can't always afford the 700 - well,
tough, lot's of people can't afford a Landrover Discovery either - LR
obviously decided that, rather than drag their cars downmarket, the plebs
would just have to do without.
Which is the strategy that Sony should adopt if they are ever to become an
established DSLR player.
Focus
"Not mad, but nearly..." <ha...@it.com> wrote in message
news:6bahakF...@mid.individual.net...
That's not a very good example: what do you call the Landrover Freelander?
Not nearly as good as the Discovery, yet it's sold pretty well.
> Which is the strategy that Sony should adopt if they are ever to become an
> established DSLR player.
I think it's safe to leave those decisions to Sony. They've only been in the
market for 2 years and already are #3. Something Pentax, Olympus and Fuji
can only drool and dream about.
Columbia pictures is now Sony and they are the biggest stockholder of
Tamron. So the future looks quite bright.
I don't understand your problem with the A350, which I have, for one thing.
It's a wonderful camera with excellent IQ and very reliable metering. If
you'd know how to use the LV, it's even better then most, even more
expensive DSLR's.
The only thing that could be better, is the high ISO (which I hardly or
never used, even with my D300) and the continues speed (which I used once
with the D300 and then it took three different settings to change from
normal to 3D!).
I can assure you the IQ is nothing worse than the D300 and the metering is
on par at least.
Even if they ware priced the same, I'd still wouldn't exchange it for a
A700...
After all: high continues shooting is only necessary for people who don't
know what they're doing, just like bracketing, as pointed out by one master
photographer. High ISO you need when there is nothing to capture ;-)
--
Focus
Not mad, but nearly...
Well, OK, I *was* trying to poke and prod, just a little ;)
I do have the A700 and am genuinely pleased with it - at least, I became
pleased after trying and buying Bibble Pro which has eliminated the Chroma
noise which seems to be a real Sony trademark.
I've yet to see all the 'burring' that is supposed to be an effect of the
forced A700 NR, and post-Bibble I'm a happy camper.
I've handled the A200 and it really did seems a cheaply made camera to me -
mind you, that was in Asda who had it at the staggering price of £399! I
understand that some UK vendors are now knocking it out for around the £250
mark, so that makes a big difference to perceived value.
I personally love high ISO and the A700 (with Bibble, of course) is well
able to deliver nice shots up to 5000 (even 6400) although I usually stay
around ISO 2500. I can honestly say that I have hardly used my external
flash since buying it with the A700 earlier this year - with such good high
ISO results it's proved to be largely redundant.
To me (and this is just my opinion) the 350 has succumbed to 'gadget
mania' - I don't find the idea of live view even remotely interesting, and
it seems as if Sony have compromised the rest of the 350 solely to produce a
camera with this month's 'must have' feature. What's next?, built in MP3's
?!
In the end, none of it really matters - they will all be dated and
superseded this time next year ;)
Focus
About LV I thought the same until I used it on the A350. With the D300 I
hardly ever used it, because it was so clumsey. But this little guy works so
well, I find myself using it at least, if not more, then the OVF.
One reason is the life histogram feedback and the very good metering system.
Yesterday I did some shots at sundown at some rock at the ocean. I just
point the camera, move until the light is distributed the way I want. The I
lock the light, frame and ready. I already know the shot is good.
Besides that, it gives me shots that I can never do with another camera
without breaking my back or legs ;-)
> In the end, none of it really matters - they will all be dated and
> superseded this time next year ;)
Let's hope so!
--
Focus
ransley
> "OldBoy" <n...@planet.nl> wrote in message
So why would I look ar RAW when Jpeg on the sony is weak, Im not
shooting Raw, who does. Its weak on Jpeg, what people most often use.
Lucas
Users fussy enough about image quality to use raw are hardly going to
want to consider an a350, given it's noisy low-performing sensor.
Lucas
>
> About LV I thought the same until I used it on the A350. With the D300 I
> hardly ever used it, because it was so clumsey. But this little guy works so
> well, I find myself using it at least, if not more, then the OVF.
LCD, isn't that a significant advantage for use on a tripod, rather than
rely on a separate CCD image of the viewfinder, when the viewfinder
itself isn't very good?
> One reason is the life histogram feedback and the very good metering system.
> Yesterday I did some shots at sundown at some rock at the ocean. I just
> point the camera, move until the light is distributed the way I want. The I
> lock the light, frame and ready. I already know the shot is good.
> Besides that, it gives me shots that I can never do with another camera
> without breaking my back or legs ;-)
You can do that with most point and shoot cameras.
Lucas
>
> To me (and this is just my opinion) the 350 has succumbed to 'gadget
> mania' - I don't find the idea of live view even remotely interesting, and
> it seems as if Sony have compromised the rest of the 350 solely to produce a
> camera with this month's 'must have' feature. What's next?, built in MP3's
> ?!
>
But to be fair to Sony, they have a large enough range of models so that
other more sensible choices are available.
The a350 is the worst of two worlds. It features the pitfalls of P&S
cameras, but doesn't avoid the pitfalls of dslrs either.
Alan Browne
> I have an A700 which (thanks mainly to Bibble) produces some excellent
> results. What I can't really understand is why Sony have bothered to
> release three noisy downmarket cameras that have about as much appeal as
> chronic toothache.
>
> They are not going to sell many - and having the cheap 'n' nasty things
> hanging about only tarnishes the Sony image. Leave the bargain bin cams to
> the proles to fight over in-between scrabbling for reduced food at their
> local supermarket. The A700 should have been the lowest point at which Sony
> entered the game (after stopping the abysmal A100)
Why leave the low end to Nikon and Canon? They too have some rather
lean offerings at the lower dollar points, including the recent 1000D.
Sony are fresh at this. Same old engineers (mainly) but new marketing.
Takes a while to settle down.
I picked up the A700 the other day. Was not particularly enthused with
the feel or the controls.
As the A900 won't be out on time for my trip to CA this summer, I
wouldn't mind borrowing an A700, however. I'm still shooting the Maxxum 7D.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Chris Malcolm
From your point of view. However, having used another Sony with
articulated LCD I've found it so surprisingly useful for the kind of
photography I do that I now will not buy a general purpose digital
camera without an articulated LCD, and the more articulated the
better. Having to hold the camera up to your eye places quite a
restriction on the points of view usable by a camera. It took quite a
while for me to appreciate the possibilities and start exploiting
them, but now that I have, I'm not going back!
It looks to me as though Sony realise that some of their new features
(or comibnations of features) are creating a new market as some people
get to like them, and in their various models they're testing the size
and shape of this market and how it's developing.
You may be right that this particular camera is not one of their best
efforts. I do think for example that placing the articulating LCD so
that it has to be folded away before you can use the viewfinder is a
definite disadvantage. Nevertheless I think the development of their
digital camera model range over the years shows a developing
philosophy and approach which I'm not alone in finding has some
advantages over the conventional canonikal view of how to design a
good camera. Of course it has disadvantages too. If Sony can continue
developing the advantages and reducing the disadvantages they could
in a few years end up with a winner.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Focus <fo...@togus.nl> wrote:
> After I pointed out, that another important missing feature in the review of
> the Sony A350 was the built-in wireless flash function, he changed it and
> added it with the "pros".
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&thread=28245139
Oh, yes, be proud of yourself, Sosushi. Wow.
And no, it wasn't forgotten, you merely did not read the
review --- as has been pointed out in the thread above.
[lots of wanking deleted]
Go get yourself a prostitute, or at least do it at home, not
in public.
-Wolfgang
van de Meppelink
> "OldBoy" <n...@planet.nl> wrote in message
>
> news:485006d2$0$6030$9a62...@news.kpnplanet.nl...
>
>
>
> > "Focus" <fo...@togus.nl> wrote in message
> >news:d6WdneBH8vzIZNLV...@novis.pt...
>
> >>news:484fd261$0$6014$9a62...@news.kpnplanet.nl...
> >>> "Focus" <fo...@togus.nl> wrote in message
> >>>news:MZWdnSmjlNy2U9LV...@novis.pt...
> >>>> After I pointed out, that another important missing feature in the
> >>>> review of the Sony A350 was the built-in wireless flash function, he
> >>>> changed it and added it with the "pros".
>
> >>> [snip]
>
> >>> It still has a low IQ
>
> >> How admirable of you to try to keep "your" Canon brand up.
>
> > I'm not branded, however I have a Nikon LF35 AF2
>
> > [snip]
> >> Do you really think DPR is the holy grail or something?
>
> > No, there are other sources: me and my monitor.
>
> Either one or both need calibration ;-)
>
> --
> Focus
And you do need a brain transplant.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Focus <fo...@togus.nl> wrote:
> That's not a very good example: what do you call the Landrover Freelander?
An idiot's car.
It's a SUV. A heavy, aerodynamically pessimized, gas-guzzling
people killer (especially others, but also passengers and drivers,
in an accident). An updressed truck with all the safety features
and economy of a truck (none to speak of) instead of those of
a car. It's not an offroad vehicle (even the first generation had
neither the low gears nor locking differentials real off-roaders
have).
And noone uses it as an off-road vehicle.
> Not nearly as good as the Discovery, yet it's sold pretty well.
Neither is 'good' unless you have a very small penis.
Have a read:
http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html
> After all: high continues shooting is only necessary for people who don't
> know what they're doing, just like bracketing, as pointed out by one master
> photographer. High ISO you need when there is nothing to capture ;-)
And Sony you need when you have no arguments left.
-Wolfgang
jon
> After I pointed out,
*snip*
Shut up. Just go and take some pictures, for the love of fuck. God
knows you need the practice.
Not mad, but nearly...
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:q7e7i5-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...
> ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
> Focus <fo...@togus.nl> wrote:
>
>> That's not a very good example: what do you call the Landrover
>> Freelander?
>
> An idiot's car.
>
> It's a SUV. A heavy, aerodynamically pessimized, gas-guzzling
> people killer (especially others, but also passengers and drivers,
> in an accident). An updressed truck with all the safety features
> and economy of a truck (none to speak of) instead of those of
> a car. It's not an offroad vehicle (even the first generation had
> neither the low gears nor locking differentials real off-roaders
> have).
>
> And noone uses it as an off-road vehicle.
>
>> Not nearly as good as the Discovery, yet it's sold pretty well.
>
> Neither is 'good' unless you have a very small penis.
I haven't made a study of penis' - but I'm happy with mine and also I have a
4x4.
I like 'em both - both are large and rugged, both are an imposing source of
envy to proles like you - and, to the best of my knowledge, neither had yet
killed anyone.
You sound disgruntled and envious enough to be a cyclist - almost certainly
a bearded cyclist, with a well thumbed copy of the 'I-Spy' Book of Trees
permanently in your saddlebag.
You see, I don't actually care much about the 'environment' - I like driving
2 tonne's of steel about because it's safe for me and my family (despite
your nonsensical assertion to the contrary) If a careless driver (or even a
wobbling cyclist) hits me I will almost certainly come off best. (in the
case of the cyclist you can remove the 'almost')
It's also a lot of fun to go off-road - until I tried it myself I had no
idea just how exhilarating it is to bounce over tracks and climb steep
muddy banks.
Get yourself some knobbly cycle tyres and try it ;)
new...@plcom.net
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
And it doesn't occur to you that a vehicle that doesn't stop or turn
nearly as well as a passenger car, and is prone to rolling over
because of its high centre of mass and height/width ratio, is
inherently _less_ safe than a compact car? The only added "safety" you
acheive is the likelihood that you'll kill anyone in a passenger car
in the event of a collision. But with SUVs, trucks and minivans
accounting for well over 50% of North American vehicle sales, your
chances of running into something significantly smaller are not that
great. Meanwhile you and your kind have made the roads much less safe
for everyone else. Thank you very much.
Then again it probably doesn't occur to you either that there is maybe
enough recoverable oil left in the ground for a few more decades at
the current rate of consumption. Nope. Not an issue for you.
You don't care about the environment. Good for you. Meanwhile, in the
US alone you're already seeing severe drought in the Southwest, major
flooding in the Mississipi Valley, and a rise in the frequency and
severity of hurricanes. And yet you tool happily along in your 3-ton
vehicle without a care in the world.
Pboud
Not mad, but nearly...
<new...@plcom.net> wrote in message news:4ca85ee7-e8c8-42ba-a3e7-
>> And it doesn't occur to you that a vehicle that doesn't stop or turn
>> nearly as well as a passenger car, and is prone to rolling over
>> because of its high centre of mass and height/width ratio, is
>> inherently _less_ safe than a compact car? .
The only added "safety" you
>> acheive is the likelihood that you'll kill anyone in a passenger car
>> in the event of a collision. But with SUVs, trucks and minivans
>> accounting for well over 50% of North American vehicle sales, your
>> chances of running into something significantly smaller are not that
>> great. Meanwhile you and your kind have made the roads much less safe
>> for everyone else. Thank you very much.
I should point out that I live in the UK - and we drive 'Europe-size' 4x4's
which, unlike the American variety, have a habit of remaining upright.
As for 'making the roads unsafe for everyone else' - I can scarcely even
begin to tell you how little I care about that! As long as my own family
are safe, everyone else can take their chances, as far as I'm concerned.
I don't have a highly developed social conscience, you see - I just care for
those whom I love.
>>
>> Then again it probably doesn't occur to you either that there is maybe
>> enough recoverable oil left in the ground for a few more decades at
>> the current rate of consumption. Nope. Not an issue for you.<
A few more decades will do me nicely, thank you.
>> You don't care about the environment. Good for you. Meanwhile, in the
>> US alone you're already seeing severe drought in the Southwest,<<
That's why you need a car with air conditioning.
major
>> flooding in the Mississipi Valley,<<
And a car with good traction in the wet.
and a rise in the frequency and
>> severity of hurricanes.<
A heavy car helps there, too.... ;) And don't forget to lay the fate of
the Ganges Delta on me, as well. That rat-hole is sinking into the sea, and
I can barely sleep at night due to remorse.
And yet you tool happily along in your 3-ton
>> vehicle without a care in the world.<
Well, that's about the size of it. Yes.
BTW - most people feel exactly the same - I'm just a little more honest and
I refuse to try and pacify the vile hypocritical eco-Nazi's. They don't
want any form of 'sustainable car ownership' - they only people they want
driving cars is, er, themselves. Everyone else can walk.
Alan LeHun
> I don't have a highly developed social conscience, you see - I just care for
> those whom I love.
>
And just who do you love?
> >>
> >> Then again it probably doesn't occur to you either that there is maybe
> >> enough recoverable oil left in the ground for a few more decades at
> >> the current rate of consumption. Nope. Not an issue for you.<
>
> A few more decades will do me nicely, thank you.
>
Only yourself apparently....
--
Alan LeHun
Not mad, but nearly...
"Alan LeHun" <t...@reply.to> wrote in message
news:MPG.22bb7d799...@news.clara.net...
Like most normal people I love my family - love them more than I love
myself, in fact - and that's how it should be.
The most sickening thing that's being rammed down our throats today is the
entirely bogus idea of 'world love'
People don't believe a word of it, of course, but they nevertheless feel
obliged (for some inexplicable reason) to pretend that they 'care' about
people whom they have never met, nor ever will.
When this society goes pear-shaped (and it assuredly will) we will see how
much of this 'love' survives. when strangers are stabbing each other for a
loaf of bread, when law and order has broken down, when the veneer of
'society' has been stropped away, we will see how much true compassion
remains.
Hint - it won't be much.
I don't love you - and I certainly don't expect you to love me. I don't
wish you good or ill - I just don't care. I care only about the people who
are dear to me - and neither you, nor the multitudes in Africa are in that
category.
We are tribal people at heart - and we care only for our own tribe and kin.
That's how it works in the real word.
Alan Browne
> That's not a very good example: what do you call the Landrover Freelander?
Amongst the lowest quality vehicles in the world?
Per a WashPost table a couple years ago Land Rover had the highest
non-quality rate of the big manufacturers. (about 800 defects per 100
vehicles in first three years of use).
Where, surprisingly, brands like Mercedez and BMW ended up in the middle
of the rating;
Toyota, Honda, Acura, Lexus were at the very top (no surprise);
Buick and Mercury were very good with defect rates about half of
Benz/BMW. (surprise)
But Land Rover was the absolute pits. I've heard nothing to suggest
that they have improved.
I've stuck with Honda (me: 3 cars; ex-wife 2; SO: 1) since 1990.
Absolutely no regrets, though my next car might be a Toyota. TBD.
Chris Malcolm
It does seem to be the case that the current remarkable enthusiasm for
SUV's is due to the general impression that something big and strong
with lots of steel and rubber between you and the rest of the world
must be safe. All other things being equal that would be the case. But
they aren't. Most SUV's are in practice a great deal less safe than
their owners imagine, due to the lack of other important safety
features. The SUV manufacturers have discovered that the average car
buyer isn't interested in "invisible" safety features that need some
investigation and technical understanding to grasp. They want
something that gives the simple gut-feel safety impression of lots of
big tough steel.
Here's a very good analysis of the phenomenon from the New Yorker:
http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html
Chris Malcolm
You're quite right. That kind of behaviour has been remarkably
evolutionarily successful, and the most remarkable case of all has
been homo sapiens. Unlike any other large animal we have succeeded not
only in adapting to a very wide range of climates and habitats but
doing it so successfully that the only other large animals which have
achieved comparably large world population numbers are those we farm
for our own food. In fact our world population and command of
planetary resources has become so extensive that we are the first
large animal to start forcing the ecology of the entire planet to
adapt to our use of it.
There seems little doubt that the extra magic ingredient which has
given us such extraordinary success is our big brains. Those enable us
to carry out experiments in our imaginations. Where other animals
faced with a choice simply have to go with their instincts and
feelings and die if their hunch turns out to be badly wrong, we can
think things through in advance of committing ourselves to action and
let our ideas die in our stead. Sometimes thinking things through will
tell us that what our instincts and gut feelings really really want is
going to turn out really really badly. It seems that being able to
choose to suppress our powerful natural urges and follow our ideas
instead has proved valuable enough in our evolutionary past that our
big brains are equipped with that facility. Unlike any other animal we
can, after thinking things through, say no to what we really really
want.
Some of us have thought things through and decided that our current
position of planetary dominance means that if we continue to follow
our basic tribal urges we are not only going to make life a lot
tougher for those other people we don't care about, we're going to
make life so tough that our civilisation will be threatened, and
possibly continued existence of the entire human race.
Are you prepared to consider the possibility that in our usage of the
natural resouces of the planet that it may be time to start using our
intelligence even if it contradicts our basic tribal gut instincts?
Even if it goes as far as seeming to be rather unmanly?
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>> It's a SUV. A heavy, aerodynamically pessimized, gas-guzzling
>> people killer (especially others, but also passengers and drivers,
> I haven't made a study of penis' - but I'm happy with mine and also I have a
> 4x4.
And you are also a saint, right?
> I like 'em both - both are large and rugged, both are an imposing source of
> envy to proles like you - and, to the best of my knowledge, neither had yet
> killed anyone.
Do you often suffer from amnesia?
> You sound disgruntled and envious enough to be a cyclist - almost certainly
> a bearded cyclist, with a well thumbed copy of the 'I-Spy' Book of Trees
> permanently in your saddlebag.
An upstart prole, hating other proles (and cyclists) for reminding
him what he was; an upstart prole that feels the others will love
him better if he squashes what he was and deep inside is.
I pity you. It's a huge cross you have to carry with your
overweening ego. In Athens, hubris was a crime for it lead to
often to violence --- and you show all the signs or
externalized self-hate leading to hubris.
Hubris is also a mortal sin, according to the roman catholic
church. May someone pray for your soul.
> You see, I don't actually care much about the 'environment' - I like driving
> 2 tonne's of steel about because it's safe for me and my family
If it _was_ indeed safe, you would have an argument.
It isn't, it's just appealing to your reptilian hind brain
that "high, large, has breasts --- aeh, cup holders" equates
"safe".
> (despite
> your nonsensical assertion to the contrary)
You know I'm right, therefore you must not even look at the truth.
Admitting one is wrong is terribly hard, especially for you.
> If a careless driver
That describes SUV drivers to a tee. Give me a driver who's
instinctively a bit nervous about his skin (even though his
vehicle is 10 times safer!) any day instead of a wannabe-Rambo
driver who thinks himself invincible and untouchable.
-Wolfgang
Pboud
>> You see, I don't actually care much about the 'environment' - I like driving
>> 2 tonne's of steel about because it's safe for me and my family
>
> If it _was_ indeed safe, you would have an argument.
>
> It isn't, it's just appealing to your reptilian hind brain
> that "high, large, has breasts --- aeh, cup holders" equates
> "safe".
Actually, one of the *primary* reasons I always get a sedan instead of a
compact is the ability to take damage. I'm fairly utilitarian when it
comes to vehicles, so trucks, SUVs etc. don't really appeal. Minivan
would be considered based on carrying capacity, but again, the mileage
on those sucks.
>
>> If a careless driver
>
> That describes SUV drivers to a tee. Give me a driver who's
> instinctively a bit nervous about his skin (even though his
> vehicle is 10 times safer!) any day instead of a wannabe-Rambo
> driver who thinks himself invincible and untouchable.
>
Actually, by your description, *all* you drivers are a danger to me
while I cycle.
Can we get back to cameras now?
P.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> As for 'making the roads unsafe for everyone else' - I can scarcely even
> begin to tell you how little I care about that! As long as my own family
> are safe, everyone else can take their chances, as far as I'm concerned.
By your standards, I'd be perfectly within my moral rights to
preventively kill you before you hurt me or my family.
-Wolfgang