P&S's still have rotten quality (Canon G10)
Rich
image from a blog on a Death Valley photo excursion is not even
cropped, but LOOK at the noise! At 1600 ISO, with an image size-
reduced this much, there should be almost no noise visible, IF it came
from a DSLR, which it didn't. That Canon cost over $500 and it still
can't compete with an entry-level $400 DSLR.
Ray Fischer
>No wonder Canon dropped the pixel count by 33% for the G11. This
>image from a blog on a Death Valley photo excursion is not even
>cropped,
Idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
bugbear
I think there's a problem with the blogs sub sampling;
evidence here:
http://artoftheimage.blogspot.com/2009/09/canon-g10-shooting-g10-at-iso-800-and.html
BugBear
Pointless Posts
For god's sake, get a life!
P&Ses are not intended to compete with DSLRs for low noise level,
especially at high ISOs. They are meant to fill another need. Why
can't you get that through your thick skull?
David J Taylor
news:f7SdnVz78bSEH2fX...@brightview.co.uk...
.. but it's still the noise in the shadow regions which shows up
particularly badly at such high ISOs. I'm delighted that Canon has
finally "seen the light" in reducing the pixel count - although it's at a
high price right now.
David
bugbear
Oh, agreed, there IS noise. Just not the extent of the
posted-without-thought initial claim.
BugBear
Outing Trolls is FUN!
wrote:
1/40th of a second? A subject like that could have been easily shot
handheld tack-sharp at 1/10th of a second at a clean ISO400. Hang on, let
me find some piss-poor examples from snapshooter DSLR owners (the net is
drowning with them) that can prove the same as you are trying to prove ...
(Hint: I won't waste my time. Nobody is as insecure as DSLR-Trolls.)
You'd be in so much trouble if P&S camera owners were as desperate as you
to try to prove their camera choice was better by posting links to all the
pathetically poor DSLR images inundating the net. And there's some real
doozies I've seen.
Though, with this link being handy, I do like it for pure entertainment
value:
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
Showing the image morphing rubberizing effects of any camera with a
focal-plane shutter. A favorite of many similar DSLR images flooding the
net because the shadow of the tail-rotor is 90-degrees from its true
orientation. The snail's-pace travel of any focal-plane shutter's curtains
causing a rift in the time-space continuum. Too fuckin' funny.
While you're at it, look for some more images to troll for attention for
yourself. Your desperate attempt to fill that fathomless attention-deficit
void of yours isn't obvious enough to the world yet.
The problem with trolls: Nobody in real life ever wants to be around them
(with good reason), so any words they get in reply are like a glass of
water to someone dying of thirst. The above is his deserved drop of
arsenic-tainted water.
Bob Larter
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:47:18 -0800 (PST), Rich <rande...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> No wonder Canon dropped the pixel count by 33% for the G11. This
>> image from a blog on a Death Valley photo excursion is not even
>> cropped, but LOOK at the noise! At 1600 ISO, with an image size-
>> reduced this much, there should be almost no noise visible, IF it came
>>from a DSLR, which it didn't. That Canon cost over $500 and it still
>> can't compete with an entry-level $400 DSLR.
>>
>> http://p1podas.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/img_28461.jpg
>
> 1/40th of a second? A subject like that could have been easily shot
> handheld tack-sharp at 1/10th of a second at a clean ISO400. Hang on, let
> me find some piss-poor examples from snapshooter DSLR owners (the net is
> drowning with them) that can prove the same as you are trying to prove ...
>
> (Hint: I won't waste my time. Nobody is as insecure as DSLR-Trolls.)
In other words, you couldn't find any. So much for your lame claim that
"the net is drowning in them". ;^)
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
wrote:
>Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:47:18 -0800 (PST), Rich <rande...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> No wonder Canon dropped the pixel count by 33% for the G11. This
>>> image from a blog on a Death Valley photo excursion is not even
>>> cropped, but LOOK at the noise! At 1600 ISO, with an image size-
>>> reduced this much, there should be almost no noise visible, IF it came
>>>from a DSLR, which it didn't. That Canon cost over $500 and it still
>>> can't compete with an entry-level $400 DSLR.
>>>
>>> http://p1podas.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/img_28461.jpg
>>
>> 1/40th of a second? A subject like that could have been easily shot
>> handheld tack-sharp at 1/10th of a second at a clean ISO400. Hang on, let
>> me find some piss-poor examples from snapshooter DSLR owners (the net is
>> drowning with them) that can prove the same as you are trying to prove ...
>>
>> (Hint: I won't waste my time. Nobody is as insecure as DSLR-Trolls.)
>
>In other words, you couldn't find any. So much for your lame claim that
>"the net is drowning in them". ;^)
Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer
Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy:
alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004)
Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."
<http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&num=10&as_ugroup=alt.kook.lionel-lauer>
"Results 1 - 10 of about 2,170 for group:alt.kook.lionel-lauer."
Fred
news:hddvtj$lnb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
He probably wouldn't have a clue what to do with a DSLR even if he owned
one.
He's obviously not a photographer, as all they're interested in is taking
photos, not sniping and back-stabbing to boost their miniscule little egos.
Outing Trolls is FUN!
I think what really bothers him is that not only do P&S cameras easily
compete with and beat images from DSLRs:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
But that non-stabilized P&S cameras even compete with medium format
Hasselblads securely mounted on a tripod, something that not even DSLRs can
accomplish:
RustY �
"Rich" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:952b542b-0afb-4dce...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
At 1600 ISO, , there should be almost no noise visible,
Trolls need to be more subtle - not stupid.
Bob Larter
*sniff*
Pointless Posts
We've often seen pro-P&S posts claiming that DSLR owners have a
need to constantly justify their purchase because, deep down,
thay feel that they wasted money needlessly with expensive DSLR
gear. I used to think that this was just sarcasm on their part,
but with the constant stream of anti-P&S nonsense spewed by
people like Rich, I'm beginning to suspect that such claims have
a core of truth, at least with *some* DSLR owners.
Chris Malcolm
> I think what really bothers him is that not only do P&S cameras easily
> compete with and beat images from DSLRs:
> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
> But that non-stabilized P&S cameras even compete with medium format
> Hasselblads securely mounted on a tripod, something that not even DSLRs can
> accomplish:
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
You still haven't read that, have you, despite having been told by
several folk that it doesn't say what you think it does!
I guess if there's no such thing as a web page which supports your
claims, you have to make do with web pages which don't :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
Rich
>
> BugBear
Please! As if any sub-sampling issue cause that noise. The camera is
the culprit.
Ray Fischer
Ray Fischer
> "Fred" <freda...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Pointless Posts" <x...@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>>> No wonder Canon dropped the pixel count by 33% for the G11. This
>>>> image from a blog on a Death Valley photo excursion is not even
>>>> cropped, but LOOK at the noise! At 1600 ISO, with an image size-
>>>> reduced this much, there should be almost no noise visible, IF it came
>>>> from a DSLR, which it didn't. That Canon cost over $500 and it still
>>>> can't compete with an entry-level $400 DSLR.
>>>>
>>>> http://p1podas.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/img_28461.jpg
>>>
>>> For god's sake, get a life!
>>>
>>> P&Ses are not intended to compete with DSLRs for low noise level,
>>> especially at high ISOs. They are meant to fill another need. Why can't
>>> you get that through your thick skull?
>>>
>>This is his sad little life, he has none beyond this group.
>>
>>He probably wouldn't have a clue what to do with a DSLR even if he owned
>>one.
>>
>>He's obviously not a photographer, as all they're interested in is taking
>>photos, not sniping and back-stabbing to boost their miniscule little egos.
>>
>I think what really bothers him is that not only do P&S cameras easily
>compete with and beat images from DSLRs:
You're lying again, asshole troll.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
rwalker
<ot...@trollouters.org> wrote:
>snip
You're as big an idiot as he is.
Savageduck
<ot...@trollouters.org> said:
> On 11 Nov 2009 16:49:06 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Outing Trolls is FUN! <ot...@trollouters.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I think what really bothers him is that not only do P&S cameras easily
>>> compete with and beat images from DSLRs:
>>
>>> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
>>
>>> But that non-stabilized P&S cameras even compete with medium format
>>> Hasselblads securely mounted on a tripod, something that not even DSLRs can
>>> accomplish:
>>
>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
>>
>> You still haven't read that, have you, despite having been told by
>> several folk that it doesn't say what you think it does!
>
> Your ability to not read all the text on a report is truly amazing. The
> same way that you read most posts on usenet no doubt.
>
> You better not read this one in total too.
>
> http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/
>
> You might have to ignore all the parts where a Canon G9 and G11 P&S cameras
> are keeping pace with and bettering the images from the new Canon 7D DSLR,
> as well as keeping pace with all the other DSLRs they compared.
>
> We all await your DSLR-Trolls' insecure cries of "boo hoo, that's NOT what
> it says!" No matter what anyone says the images posted there sure do say
> that.
Actually what it says, if you read it all the way through, is the Nikon
D300s is the performance winner.
You were probably focused on these quotes;
"The little $575 G11 point-n-shoot can definitely hold its own against
the 7D in terms of quality."
and
"The G11 gives very vibrant colours even when the RAW files are
processed with the exact same settings as the 7D. We're not sure why.
Disregarding the colour differences it looks like the little G11
produces files to compete with the bigger sensor on the 7D."
However you needed to read on to get to these;
"In this comparison the D300s easily wins in our opinion. The fine
detail is really nice, the tonal changes are subtle. The Canon 7D file
has a characteristic mushy look."
and
"In the next test we interpolated the Nikon D300s file up to 18MP. Then
we tried to match the colours and contrast of the two files for a
finished image." " Even at a disadvantage the interpolated Nikon file
simply trumps the Canon file. In our opinion there is no contest, the
Nikon D300s produces better files than the Canon 7D."
That article is certainly more of a condemnation of the 7D as compared
with the G11, but not of the G11 trouncing all DSLRs, especially the
D300s.
As he says in his conclusion, "We were so impressed with the Canon G11
that we plan to add it to our camera bags as an everyday walk around
camera." and "We thought the 7D should give us files better than a
Rebel or G11. Maybe we are too anal."
and his test photographer Sam has since purchased the Nikon D300s.
So it seems I did well to add the G11 to my bag as a companion to my D300.
Thanks for providing this confirmation.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Dale Connors
What you fail to do is compare the images yourself with an unbiased point
of view. The G11 image quality and resolution clearly beat or equaled those
of a few of the other DSLRs tested against it.
If everyone is laughing about P&S cameras, why are P&S cameras able to
provide better images than those from many DSLRs these days? A $440 P&S
camera consistently beating the image quality from a $1500 DSLR. In the
other CameraLabs review a super-zoom P&S camera clearly beating another
DSLR in image quality. In the Luminous-Landscape review using a blind-test
they couldn't tell 13"x19" prints apart from a lowly P&S camera and those
taken with a medium format Hasselblad. Prints much larger than most any
average photographer will ever print theirs.
Three different groups of people comparing and reviewing them in those
links above. All consistently showing that P&S cameras can and indeed do
win over, if not at least keep paces with, many DSLRs made today. So why
the big stink being made by DSLR-Trolls about P&S cameras? According to all
the DSLR-Trolls there is NO WAY that a P&S camera can even come close to
producing DSLR image quality. Yet here are three different reviews being
done where they not only come close, but they in fact even beat the images
from some DSLRs.
So why the incessant big stink from all the DSLR-Trolls?
Ray Fischer
>>
>>> I think what really bothers him is that not only do P&S cameras easily
>>> compete with and beat images from DSLRs:
>>
>>> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
>>
>>> But that non-stabilized P&S cameras even compete with medium format
>>> Hasselblads securely mounted on a tripod, something that not even DSLRs can
>>> accomplish:
>>
>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
>>
>>You still haven't read that, have you, despite having been told by
>>several folk that it doesn't say what you think it does!
>
Your ability to be a lying troll is tiresome.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Dale Connors
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
What you fail to do is compare the images yourself with an unbiased point
of view. The G11 image quality and resolution clearly beat or equaled those
of a few of the other DSLRs tested against it.
If everyone is laughing about P&S cameras, why are P&S cameras able to
provide better images than those from many DSLRs these days? A $440 P&S
camera consistently beating the image quality from a $1500 DSLR, and that
doesn't even include the price of the hunk of glass needed for the DSLR.
$1900 with a kit-lens. In the other CameraLabs review a super-zoom P&S
Savageduck
<dcon...@spamblockedaddress.com> said:
Not at all. I have recently purchased a G11 to team with my D300. I
examined each of the images and read the accompanying comments with the
interest of a new owner wanting to find validation of his purchase, and
I did.
I was surprised a Canon biased blog had thrown a D300s into the test
mix ( I guess that was to appease "Sam") and I was pleasantly surprised
to find thier conclusion was the G11 out performed the 7D, and the
D300s out performed both of them.
I will be well equiped on my next trip with my D300 and my new G11.
>
> If everyone is laughing about P&S cameras,
Not everybody is laughing about P&S cameras, many of us use both, P&S
and DSLR. Before buying the G11 I had a Fujifilm E-900 which was a good
performer, but had terrible ergonomics.
> why are P&S cameras
One particular P&S in this test, the G11.
> able to provide better images than those from many DSLRs these days? A $440 P&S
> camera consistently beating the image quality from a $1500 DSLR, and that
> doesn't even include the price of the hunk of glass needed for the DSLR.
> $1900 with a kit-lens.
Again that seems to be an issue Canon needs to deal with for the three
Canon cameras discussed in the test.
> In the other CameraLabs review a super-zoom P&S
> camera clearly beating another DSLR in image quality. In the
> Luminous-Landscape review using a blind-test they couldn't tell 13"x19"
> prints apart from a lowly P&S camera and those taken with a medium format
> Hasselblad. Prints much larger than most any average photographer will ever
> print theirs.
You need to reread that review.
>
> Three different groups of people comparing and reviewing them in those
> links above. All consistently showing that P&S cameras can and indeed do
> win over, if not at least keep paces with, many DSLRs made today. So why
> the big stink being made by DSLR-Trolls about P&S cameras? According to all
> the DSLR-Trolls there is NO WAY that a P&S camera can even come close to
> producing DSLR image quality. Yet here are three different reviews being
> done where they not only come close, but they in fact even beat the images
> from some DSLRs.
P&S cameras have a place, and the quality of images produced has
improved. As cited in some cases, matches or exceeds that of certain
compared test DSLRs. However there are areas where the P&S does not
meet the ability of the DSLR.
>
> So why the incessant big stink from all the DSLR-Trolls?
The issue is your incessant evangelizing of P&S and insulting many here
who use both P&S and DSLR as circumstances dictate, without bias.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Dale Connors
Then I'm sure you'll step up to the plate and correct all your fellow
DSLR-Trolls every time they say something in error about all P&S cameras,
and incessantly insult all those that use P&S cameras.
I can hardly wait to see this.
Not that you would know when any of them is in error. You don't even know
how to properly use any of the cameras that you claim to have. I've seen
your crapshots.
So far, I have uploaded and shown images that fit all the following claims
of what all the DSLR-Trolls claim cannot be done with P&S cameras:
Low light -- showed images taken of constellations reflecting off still
waters and moonlit forests (the moonlit scene taken hand-held).
Campfires -- showed images of people properly lit by campfire, hand-held
camera again.
Birds in flight -- showed tack-sharp images of birds in flight taken near
sunset in dark cypress-swamp conditions, hand-held. Also showed a
hummingbird taken by available light alone, the shutter speed stopping the
wing motion, no flash required, the whole body in focus with the better DOF
available by P&S cameras.
Better macro-photography -- showed images of subjects with adequate DOF
taken hand-held in available-light conditions that cannot be accomplished
with any DSLR unless they use subject destroying flash.
IR images -- showed images taken hand-held in IR light alone better than
any being shown by DSLR owners. Day or night.
etc. etc. etc. ....
EACH and EVERY time they have made their outlandish anti-P&S claims and
insults, I have posted an image showing the DSLR-Trolls that they are FULL
OF SHIT. Their only ostrich-head-up-their-ass responses? "You stole that
image!" or "It was taken with a DSLR!" I love it when they use the latter
excuse. What a compliment for my talents and the P&S cameras that I always
use. Matching the very findings that those three reviews previously
claimed. That high-quality P&S cameras are every bit as good as any DSLR
for photography. Many times even better, i.e. macro photography, IR
photography, and wildlife photography day or night.
The next time one of your pathetic fellow DSLR-Trolls ever make a claim
contrary to what I have already proved P&S cameras capable of doing, and
doing well, very often doing it better than ANY DSLR camera can accomplish,
it will forever be YOUR responsibility to correct your fellow snapshooting
moron DSLR-Trolls.
Then you useless ass of DSLR snapshooter won't have to whine when I have to
correct them on their stupidity and insults all the time. You'll start to
see how often they do it if you have to correct their blatant
misinformation and anti-P&S bullshit.
But no, you'd never do that. You're every bit as much of a DSLR-Troll as
the rest of them. You just proved it by claiming that I'm the one that
always causes it. I'm only constantly correcting snapshooting ASSHOLES LIKE
YOU that make their imaginary claims about P&S cameras.
Take over the task of correcting them. Prove that you're not what I claim
that you are.
Here's where I win again, you'll never be able to disprove that claim.
You're not a talented enough, nor creative enough, nor experienced enough
photographer to even know when your fellow DSLR-Trolls are in complete and
total error. Yes, I've seen your pathetic point and shoot DSLR crapshot
attempts, that's exactly why I know all that I need to know about you.
Bob Larter
LOL! Every single one of those images were average-looking stolen photos
with no EXIF data, at all of about 640x480 resolution! Get back to us
when you have some *real* photos to show us! Shit, even my own ancient,
crappy P&S shots are better than the crap you've been showing us!
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
bugbear
No; the camera generated the noise, at full res.
But;
Whilst using sub-sampling (such as bilinear or bicubic)
would have greatly reduced the noise (as you appear
to expect when you say "with an image size reduced this much")
nearest neighbour *preserves* the noise.
The practical upshot is that by using nearest neighbour
sampling, the sub-sampled image has the same noise
as a 100% crop of the original image.
BugBear
Bob Larter
*snicker*
Savageduck
<dcon...@spamblockedaddress.com> said:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:12:14 -0800, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The issue is your incessant evangelizing of P&S and insulting many here
>> who use both P&S and DSLR as circumstances dictate, without bias.
>>
>
> Then I'm sure you'll step up to the plate and correct all your fellow
> DSLR-Trolls every time they say something in error about all P&S cameras,
> and incessantly insult all those that use P&S cameras.
>
> I can hardly wait to see this.
>
> Not that you would know when any of them is in error. You don't even know
> how to properly use any of the cameras that you claim to have. .......
Well here is a "snap shot' (I am not capable of anything better) of the
cameras I claim to have, a K1000, Yashica Electro 35, D70, D300 & G11.
Taken this morning with that other P&S you seem to think I don't have,
or use, the Fujifilm E-900.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSCF0166w.jpg
Now let's see yours.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
tony cooper
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2009-11-11 22:53:57 -0800, Dale Connors
><dcon...@spamblockedaddress.com> said:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:12:14 -0800, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The issue is your incessant evangelizing of P&S and insulting many here
>>> who use both P&S and DSLR as circumstances dictate, without bias.
>>>
>>
>> Then I'm sure you'll step up to the plate and correct all your fellow
>> DSLR-Trolls every time they say something in error about all P&S cameras,
>> and incessantly insult all those that use P&S cameras.
>>
>> I can hardly wait to see this.
>>
>> Not that you would know when any of them is in error. You don't even know
>> how to properly use any of the cameras that you claim to have. .......
>
>Well here is a "snap shot' (I am not capable of anything better) of the
>cameras I claim to have, a K1000, Yashica Electro 35, D70, D300 & G11.
>Taken this morning with that other P&S you seem to think I don't have,
>or use, the Fujifilm E-900.
>
>http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSCF0166w.jpg
>
>Now let's see yours.
Sure. Mine's a bit lower tech than some of yours, but probably better
than the OP's.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos/711233251_6rqiC-L.jpg
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Savageduck
Nice.
I should have included the old hand-me-down from my Dad.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Argus_C3.jpg
--
Regards,
Savageduck
tony cooper
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
I was playing around with my Kodak #2 Hawk-Eye Model B that is
pictured, and now I understand why some of the old family shots are so
badly composed. You look down on that prism - which is about 3/8"
square - to see what is in the field. The view isn't upside-down as
it was in some cameras, but it is so tiny that figures are barely
discernable. It was truly a point-shoot-and-hope camera.
The photographer did have some controls, though. There's a distance
adjustment, that was only adjustable with a screw-driver, for 8/25
feet, fixed, and 100/300 feet. Shutter speed settings are T,B,25, and
50. Aperture could be set at 1,2,3, or 4 with 1 being wide-open.
This camera was sold between 1926 and 1934.
Despite being around 75 years old, the camera is mint. The bellows is
uncracked, the leather hand grip new looking, and the body unmarked.
If I had some 120 film, it would probably take a decent image.
Savageduck
Talk about old family shots, this was taken with that Argus around 1952
"3 cousins'" the one on the left is yours truly.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Len.Gav.John-E2w.jpg
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Dale Connors
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2009-11-11 22:53:57 -0800, Dale Connors
><dcon...@spamblockedaddress.com> said:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:12:14 -0800, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The issue is your incessant evangelizing of P&S and insulting many here
>>> who use both P&S and DSLR as circumstances dictate, without bias.
>>>
>>
>> Then I'm sure you'll step up to the plate and correct all your fellow
>> DSLR-Trolls every time they say something in error about all P&S cameras,
>> and incessantly insult all those that use P&S cameras.
>>
>> I can hardly wait to see this.
>>
>> Not that you would know when any of them is in error. You don't even know
>> how to properly use any of the cameras that you claim to have. .......
>
>Well here is a "snap shot' (I am not capable of anything better) of the
>cameras I claim to have, a K1000, Yashica Electro 35, D70, D300 & G11.
>Taken this morning with that other P&S you seem to think I don't have,
>or use, the Fujifilm E-900.
>
>http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSCF0166w.jpg
>
>Now let's see yours.
No copy of this post printed up and included with the pile of cameras? How
do we know you took that photo? You must have stole it off the net.
What a sad sad shame if that's true. All that gear with nothing but
beginner's scrapshots to show for it. What a waste of life and lens.
You don't want to see my collection, it would only make you envious and
jealous.
Now, get to work correcting all your fellow DSLR-Trolls instead of going
off-topic with your red-herring manipulations again, as trolls usually do.
Savageduck
<dcon...@spamblockedaddress.com> said:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:23:55 -0800, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-11-11 22:53:57 -0800, Dale Connors
>> <dcon...@spamblockedaddress.com> said:
>>
>>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:12:14 -0800, Savageduck
>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The issue is your incessant evangelizing of P&S and insulting many here
>>>> who use both P&S and DSLR as circumstances dictate, without bias.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then I'm sure you'll step up to the plate and correct all your fellow
>>> DSLR-Trolls every time they say something in error about all P&S cameras,
>>> and incessantly insult all those that use P&S cameras.
>>>
>>> I can hardly wait to see this.
>>>
>>> Not that you would know when any of them is in error. You don't even know
>>> how to properly use any of the cameras that you claim to have. .......
>>
>> Well here is a "snap shot' (I am not capable of anything better) of the
>> cameras I claim to have, a K1000, Yashica Electro 35, D70, D300 & G11.
>> Taken this morning with that other P&S you seem to think I don't have,
>> or use, the Fujifilm E-900.
>>
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSCF0166w.jpg
>>
>> Now let's see yours.
>
> No copy of this post printed up and included with the pile of cameras? How
> do we know you took that photo? You must have stole it off the net.
I wasn't holding them for ransom. The EXIF is included and you will see
the shot was taken a few minutes before posting.
>
> What a sad sad shame if that's true. All that gear with nothing but
> beginner's scrapshots to show for it. What a waste of life and lens.
>
> You don't want to see my collection, it would only make you envious and
> jealous.
Surprise me. I am curious, as are many others.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Dale Connors
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
The only thing I'm curious about is why you think you can ever manipulate
anyone far smarter and more talented than you'll ever be into performing
some unneeded task that only entertains a troll. But then you are nothing
but a scrapshooting troll. Nothing more than that can ever be expected of
you. This is all you do, this is all you are, this is all you'll ever be.
If I wanted to I bet I could manipulate you into putting a chicken in a
brown-paper bag, going to the mall, and swinging it over your head while
singing a Liza Minnelli song and then clucking like a chicken. Just to
prove to everyone what a loser and idiot you are. But why waste my time
doing that? You already prove it with all your posts here.
Show us some images where any P&S camera beats DSLR gear, as I have always
done. Then you'll be on topic again. But more importantly, you'll be
proving you are not just another pathetic red-herring DSLR-Troll. (What?
you didn't think anyone wouldn't notice you doing that AGAIN? LOL! You
foolish little troll-boy you.)
If you don't then you admit to being nothing but another pathetic
crapshooting red-herring DSLR-Troll.
Now awaiting for him to swing that chicken on a matter that counts.
Savageduck
<dcon...@spamblockedaddress.com> said:
> <------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>
> Now awaiting for him to swing that chicken on a matter that counts.
Oh well I guess you will just have to wait.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Outing Trolls is FUN!
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
Wait, let me use the same lame excuse that all you DSLR-Trolls always
use...
YOU EDITED THE EXIF INFO! YOU LOUSY TROLL AND LIAR!
See how that works? See why what you ask is senseless? But then you don't
even know how to even use a simple dressing-mirror, let alone a camera.
When you get good enough at knowing how to use any camera only then will
you be able to see that your P&S cameras are far better than all the DSLR
gear that you have wasted your time and money on. Guaranteed. It's why I
sold (or gave away) all my DSLR gear long ago. Their awkward and ungainly
usefulness was superseded by better technology, talent, experience, and
intellect.
Bob Larter
He can't do it, obviously, so I predict that he'll make up same lame excuse.
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
Bob Larter
*fart*
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Hello, "the Liar" ...
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:26:20 -0800, Savageduck
>>On 2009-11-12 13:08:43 -0800, Dale Connors
>>> You don't want to see my collection, it would only make you envious and
>>> jealous.
Yeah, we would be jealous of your inability to make photos with
any gear and envious of your non-existent cameras.
>>Surprise me. I am curious, as are many others.
> The only thing I'm curious about is why you think you can ever manipulate
> anyone far smarter and more talented than you'll ever be into performing
> some unneeded task that only entertains a troll.
You would be entertained, but refuse to act, slime?
And you think yourself *smart*?
Talented you are: in lying, evading, name changing, name calling ...
-Wolfgang
John Turco
<edited for brevity>
> >> Well here is a "snap shot' (I am not capable of anything better) of the
> >> cameras I claim to have, a K1000, Yashica Electro 35, D70, D300 & G11.
> >> Taken this morning with that other P&S you seem to think I don't have,
> >> or use, the Fujifilm E-900.
> >>
> >> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSCF0166w.jpg
> >>
> >> Now let's see yours.
> >
> > Sure. Mine's a bit lower tech than some of yours, but probably better
> > than the OP's.
> >
> > http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos/711233251_6rqiC-L.jpg
>
> Nice.
>
> I should have included the old hand-me-down from my Dad.
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Argus_C3.jpg
I own a few old Argus 35mm film cameras, including a couple of C3 specimens.
Occasionally, I've daydreamed about converting a C3 into a digicam. Imagine,
a full-frame image sensor in such a precision rangefinder, and the capability
of using all of those sharp, interchangeable Argus lenses!
Of course, this would be a project requiring considerable technical know-how
and great craftsmanship, as well as the acquisition of an expensive FF sensor;
that's why it'll always remain a fantasy, as far as I'm concerned.
--
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>
Robert Sneddon
<jt...@concentric.net> writes
>Occasionally, I've daydreamed about converting a C3 into a digicam. Imagine,
>a full-frame image sensor in such a precision rangefinder, and the capability
>of using all of those sharp, interchangeable Argus lenses!
Someone of my acquaintance was an early adopter of the new Olympus Pen
camera, in part because he has a collection of older rangefinder camera
lenses (Voigtlander etc.) which fit on the Pen body with suitable
adapters. He enjoys photographing "retro" scenes (steam trains, 1930s
architecture etc.) with these lenses but it usually takes a bit of
digital post-processing to make the pictures appear as if they were
taken fifty years ago with the original equipment.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
Fred McKenzie
wrote:
> First Argus C3 I ever saw was owned by a missionary woman giving a slide
> presentation at a summer church camp back in the early 50s but I don't
> remember its lens being interchangeable.
There is a gear between the focus wheel and the lens. You unscrew the
cover over the gear, remove the gear and unscrew the lens. You attach
the alternate lens, and replace the gear so the focus wheel stops when
rotated to infinity.
I have two or three of the C3 cameras. A few years ago someone gave me
a set of the two optional C3 lenses, a wide angle and a telephoto I
think. The only reason I haven't used them is that they require film to
take pictures. The last film I used was back in 2004.
I would be interested in that digital modification for the C3!
Fred
John Turco
>
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:43:38 -0600, John Turco wrote:
>
> > Occasionally, I've daydreamed about converting a C3 into a digicam.
> > Imagine, a full-frame image sensor in such a precision rangefinder, and
> > the capability of using all of those sharp, interchangeable Argus
> > lenses!
>
> presentation at a summer church camp back in the early 50s but I don't
> the versatility of exposure, the focusing aide, and thinking at the time
> this was the be all and end all of photography. Sorta like what I felt a
> few years ago when I got an S2-IS. <g>
The Argus C3 - a fairly high-quality instrument, containing superb coated
optics - was really responsible for popularizing 35mm photography, among
the masses. Being the first truly affordable rangefinder, it carved out
a niche that will never be forgotten.
Although, somewhat ungainly in appearance (fully earning its nickname
of "The Brick"), the once-ubiquitous C3 certainly must be considered
a major breakthrough in 35mm market penetration...the "Model T" of
such still cameras, one may argue.