CHDK P&S Cameras Soar Above All Others Again - Photos From the Stratosphere - Again
P&Ss Win Again & Again
http://chdk.setepontos.com/index.php/topic,3766.0.html
Not too shabby for a $138 camera and a simple script that runs within it,
using the free software add-on CHDK.
Quick to freeze-up brick cameras must be left on the ground, gathering
sensor-dust on shelves -- again.
Rich
wrote:
Yes, we'd better advise NASA to stop investing thousands in state-of-
the-art huge medical grade CCDs for their probes. Time to strap a
$138 P&S on them. Still, nice pictures owing to the venue, no matter
what dung heap of camera took them.
LOL
wrote:
LOL! It really burns you DSLR-TROLLS doesn't it.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not Given
"LOL" <tooto...@noaddress.com> wrote in message
news:ujkh35t8lp5n5sqc4...@4ax.com...
launch? More to the weight and payload of the balloon. He was will to give
up image quality for a smaller package.
Bob Larter
Not to mention the cost if he couldn't recover the balloon.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Let Us Entertain One More DSLR Idiot
Let's see if I can interpret your misspellings and mindless ramblings ...
Did you mean to say:
>Nope, that somebody chose to use a cheap point and shoot for a BALLOON
>launch? More to the weight and payload of the balloon. He was WILLING to give
>up image quality for a smaller package.
Oh do tell, Brainiac. How one would go about getting 8 megapixel resolution
images or higher, AND high-quality video, AND sound recording, all running
on an intervalometer system, all for $138 and with less weight. While
you're crunching your imaginary numbers on your imaginary equipment for all
those necessary requirements in that psychotic mind of yours, don't forget
to find a method where batteries and recording equipment can withstand the
extreme temperatures going through those altitudes too, as low as -56C at
some points of its passage. (Temperatures previously recorded from earlier
P&S Powershot + CHDK stratosphere events.)
Useless DSLR-Trolls are all alike. They never know what they are talking
about. I guess that's why they promote DSLRs too. They never know enough to
know what they are doing ... ever. A safe extrapolation: Only idiots buy
DSLRs. The lunacy from "Not Given" is just more proof of that. I've not
seen a post from a DSLR-Troll yet that qualified to disprove this axiom.
Ray Fischer
>http://chdk.setepontos.com/index.php/topic,3766.0.html
>
>Not too shabby for a $138 camera and a simple script that runs within it,
>using the free software add-on CHDK.
Any camera can take decent pictures in bright sunlight.
>Quick to freeze-up brick cameras must be left on the ground, gathering
>sensor-dust on shelves -- again.
Like those Hasselblad cameras that NASA has used?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
The Stupidity of DSLR-Trolls Never Ends
You're selling yours for $138? Wow! I'm buying!
But wait. Do they have intervalometer settings for recording still-frames
and video too that will last for the duration of the balloon flight? How
many images and videos can I fit on a memory card from them? How heavy are
they with lens? Cost of helium matters too you know. It's not cheap.
I guess you want everyone to build a working space-shuttle too while
they're at it.
Care to show to everyone some more DSLR-idiocy from you?
Deep Reset
"P&Ss Win Again & Again" <hows...@andyouarewho.com> wrote in message
news:9kbh355o78b20kpu5...@4ax.com...
He was lucky it didn't explode from internal pressure - got to seal out that
dust.
Still, for only $138, worth a punt, I guess.
Pity about the UV filter.
Of course, you'd be an utter tw@ to launch anything expensive
Whilst we're being in a (mis-)quoting mood, Johnson's "it is not done well;
but you are surprised to find it done at all" seems apposite.
Pete D
"P&Ss Win Again & Again" <hows...@andyouarewho.com> wrote in message
news:9kbh355o78b20kpu5...@4ax.com...
>
Actually it has been done by a D-SLR plent of times and with much better
results.
http://blog.flickr.net/en/2008/07/28/pentax-k10d-in-space/
Cheers.
Pete
For DSLR Doofi
Where's the video footage? Seems to be missing. How much did that flight
cost? I see no evidence of better results. Image quality from both cameras
is just about identical with the DSLR's kit-lens, could actually be worse
on the DSLR if it was used wide-open. The DSLR only managed to snap off 300
photos too. That's a far cry from the 1,000 photos and 4 videos done by a
$138 camera. There is one thing interesting though, the DSLR owner was
stupid enough to let the balloon go on a day with tons of cloud cover.
Let's hear it for the intelligence of DSLR owners. Right on par with all
other evidence of "intelligence" that I've witnessed from all DSLR owners.
LOL ... interesting comments found about this Pentax flight.
"Since the camera and lens were so cold from the extreme altitude,
condensation started forming on the lens shortly before landing. (It was a
very humid day here since it rained the day before) The camera and lens
were soaked with condensation, but kept happily fireing away with no
problems other than you couldnt see through the water on the lens."
Yeah, DSLRs are SO wonderful! If he had taken the lens off then the shutter
and mirror would have frozen up solid or taken a day to dry out to use it
again, the focusing screen also clouding up solid. Good thing he wasn't
using it near the arctic circle and had to change lenses. LOL!!!! Been
there, done that, never again will I own a DSLR POS total waste of money,
plastic, metal, and glass. Good thing he didn't open up the lens before
lift-off or it would have clouded up and froze-up solid before it even got
up in the air with all that humidity trapped inside. Had to be dumb luck on
his part because he certainly wasn't showing any intelligence with all that
cloud-cover.
Here's another fun quote from this DSLR Doofus:
"Just an update for those that were interested in the second flight of the
k10d. We flew today, but unfortunately the new remote cut-down system we
were testing malfunctioned after the balloon reached only 2990 ft, and the
whole system came down in an apartment complex. The lens side hit first on
concrete."
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
Deep Reset
"For DSLR Doofi" <f...@fdd.com> wrote in message
news:gehi351gdaaqa0ujj...@4ax.com...
I love your cogent, irrefutable arguments, but someone has to tell you -
your exclamation mark key is stuck.
It sort of makes you look like a 15 year-old chat-room (hey! who remembers
them?) user.
sedrat-almontha
I am happy to be a member of this group and I consider you my friends.
As a friend , I like to share with you some thoughts that I believe
will be useful for your life.
Merits of Islam in the Relationship Between Men &Women
1- Islam encourages marriage to prevent committing adultery, and
considers marriage to be one of the ways of the Messengers;The
Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “O
young people, whoever among you can afford to get married, let him do
so, for it helps one to lower the gaze and protect the private parts
(i.e., remain chaste). Whoever cannot afford it, let him fast, for it
is a protection for him.” 2- If a man wants to get married but is
unable to spend on a wife, then he should adhere to the words of Allah.
24:33 “And let those who find not the financial means for marriage
keep themselves chaste, until Allâh enriches them of His Bounty”
3- Islam urges people to get married, and prohibits celibacy and
castration. It is forbidden to forego getting married even if the
intention is to devote oneself to worship. “There is no monasticism in
Islam.” because they are against his nature, and against having
children.
4- Islam forbids adultery for the sake of reserving lineages, and to
prevent unlawful pregnancies and social problems.17: 32. And come not
near to the unlawful sexual intercourse. Verily, it is a Fâhishah
[i.e. anything that transgresses its limits (a great sin)], and an
evil way (that leads one to Hell unless Allâh forgives him).
5- Islam forbids accusing others of adultery and considers it a great
sin. 24: 15. When you were propagating it with your tongues, and
uttering with your mouths that whereof you had no knowledge, you
counted it a little thing, while with Allâh it was very great.
6- Islam prohibits a man to be alone with a woman who is not a
relative he can’t marry, because that causes temptation to do immoral
and evil actions. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon
him) said: “No man is alone with a (non-mahram) woman but the Satan is
the third one present.”
7- Islam forbids unlawful sexual relationships and marrying a woman
not chaste.5: 5. Made lawful to you this day are AtTayyibât [all kinds
of Halâl (lawful) foods, which Allâh has made lawful (meat of
slaughtered eatable animals, etc., milk products, fats, vegetables and
fruits, etc.). The food (slaughtered cattle, eatable animals, etc.) of
the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) is lawful to you and
yours is lawful to them. (Lawful to you in marriage) are chaste women
from the believers and chaste women from those who were given the
Scripture (Jews and Christians) before your time.
————————–
For more information about Islam
http://www.islambasics.com/index.php
http://www.islamtoday.net/english/
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/MainPage/indexe.php
Contact Us At
J�rgen Exner
>Merits of Islam in the Relationship Between Men &Women
>I am happy to be a member of this group and I consider you my friends.
Friends don't let friends spam newsgroups.
*PLONk*
Ray Fischer
>On 17 Jun 2009 16:30:40 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>P&Ss Win Again & Again <hows...@andyouarewho.com> wrote:
>>>http://chdk.setepontos.com/index.php/topic,3766.0.html
>>>Not too shabby for a $138 camera and a simple script that runs within it,
>>>using the free software add-on CHDK.
>>
>>Any camera can take decent pictures in bright sunlight.
>>
>>>Quick to freeze-up brick cameras must be left on the ground, gathering
>>>sensor-dust on shelves -- again.
>>
>>Like those Hasselblad cameras that NASA has used?
>
>You're selling yours for $138? Wow! I'm buying!
You're always taking small-resolution pictures in bright sunlight?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
The Stupidity of DSLR-Trolls Never Ends
following stupidity:
>
>You're always taking small-resolution pictures in bright sunlight?
Not at all you freakin' DSLR moron. I'd say at least 30% of my P&S images,
all 100% of which are easily printed to 13"x19" or larger, are taken by
moonlight
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3372/3637987532_bdc24d3fd4.jpg
and starlight
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/3637987536_2d5ae1dac8.jpg
alone.
No editing in those other than a minor crop on one of them, no fancy
special effects, no layered patch jobs. That's as the camera saw and
recorded them. Except for the drastic downsizing and compression.
Is it my fault that you and all like you are so damn lame that you don't
know how to use ANY camera properly? Go take some beginner's classes in
photography, or something. All of you just keep making world-wide fools of
yourselves with every comment that you type.
Bob Larter
> On 18 Jun 2009 03:51:16 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) spewed the
> following stupidity:
>
>> You're always taking small-resolution pictures in bright sunlight?
>
> Not at all you freakin' DSLR moron. I'd say at least 30% of my P&S images,
> all 100% of which are easily printed to 13"x19" or larger, are taken by
> moonlight
>
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3372/3637987532_bdc24d3fd4.jpg
That one's not bad, apart from the low resolution.
> and starlight
>
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/3637987536_2d5ae1dac8.jpg
*yawn*
The Stupidity of DSLR-Trolls Never Ends
wrote:
>
>*yawn*
I see that I managed to yet again attain my goal. Thanks for the yawn. Post
only the minimum of example needed to totally disprove the DSLR-Trolls'
stupidity while not entertaining all basement-living trolls with anything
worthy. It's a fun fine-line challenge. Though I am a bit disappointed that
you were mildly fond of the other one. I thought for sure it was far enough
down in the scrapshot heap. I'll have to dig deeper into my test scrapshots
so that all examples I might post get yawns, or less, from useless
cretinous trolls like you.
Ray Fischer
>>You're always taking small-resolution pictures in bright sunlight?
>
>Not at all you freakin' DSLR moron.
So you're just soem stupid asshole who likes to argue about things and
prove yourself to be a stupid asshole.
> I'd say at least 30% of my P&S images,
I'd say that you're full of shit.
>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3372/3637987532_bdc24d3fd4.jpg
Low resolution picture of a full moon. BFD.
>and starlight
>
>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/3637987536_2d5ae1dac8.jpg
Whose SLR did you borrow? Or did you just copy the photo from
somewhere else?
>No editing in those other than a minor crop on one of them, no fancy
>special effects, no layered patch jobs.
No honesty, no integrity, no sanity ...
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
The Stupidity of DSLR-Trolls Never Ends
>The Stupidity of DSLR-Trolls Never Ends <tso...@tsodtne.com> wrote:
>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
>>
>>>You're always taking small-resolution pictures in bright sunlight?
>>
>>Not at all you freakin' DSLR moron.
>
>So you're just soem stupid asshole who likes to argue about things and
>prove yourself to be a stupid asshole.
>
>> I'd say at least 30% of my P&S images,
>
>I'd say that you're full of shit.
>
>>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3372/3637987532_bdc24d3fd4.jpg
>
>Low resolution picture of a full moon. BFD.
>
>>and starlight
>>
>>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/3637987536_2d5ae1dac8.jpg
>
>Whose SLR did you borrow?
Sold all my DSLR gear long ago, I'll never go near that crap camera design
ever again. I kept my SLR gear for nostalgia's sake. I've not taken a photo
with that for over 10 years. This image was taken last winter with a P&S
camera.
Thanks for proving just how little you know about how to use any camera if
you think you need an SLR or DSLR to take a shot like that.
> Or did you just copy the photo from
>somewhere else?
The usual DSLR-Troll's mental justification. Even when you rub their nose
in it they claim it's all a lie. They can't handle that everything they've
ever convinced themselves of all their life is the real lie.
Then they wonder why people with any camera skills at all don't care to
post any photos or examples. Why bother? They just claim it's stolen, or it
wasn't shot as claimed. Same Troll's bullshit every day of their uselessly
damned and pathetic lives.
>
>>No editing in those other than a minor crop on one of them, no fancy
>>special effects, no layered patch jobs.
>
>No honesty, no integrity, no sanity ...
Projecting again?
Pete D
>
>>
>>"P&Ss Win Again & Again" <hows...@andyouarewho.com> wrote in message
>>news:9kbh355o78b20kpu5...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> http://chdk.setepontos.com/index.php/topic,3766.0.html
>>>
>>> Not too shabby for a $138 camera and a simple script that runs within
>>> it,
>>> using the free software add-on CHDK.
>>>
>>> Quick to freeze-up brick cameras must be left on the ground, gathering
>>> sensor-dust on shelves -- again.
>>>
>>
>>Actually it has been done by a D-SLR plent of times and with much better
>>results.
>>
>>http://blog.flickr.net/en/2008/07/28/pentax-k10d-in-space/
>>
>>Cheers.
>>
>>Pete
>>
>
> Where's the video footage?
Ha ha, this is a photo group, had you not noticed?????????
Pete D
"The Stupidity of DSLR-Trolls Never Ends" <tso...@tsodtne.com> wrote in
message news:qfjj35pl66pth237r...@4ax.com...
> On 18 Jun 2009 03:51:16 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) spewed the
> following stupidity:
>
>>
>>You're always taking small-resolution pictures in bright sunlight?
>
> Not at all you freakin' DSLR moron. I'd say at least 30% of my P&S images,
> all 100% of which are easily printed to 13"x19" or larger, are taken by
> moonlight
>
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3372/3637987532_bdc24d3fd4.jpg
>
> and starlight
>
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/3637987536_2d5ae1dac8.jpg
>
pleased your self and y'all mom???????????
The Stupidity of DSLR-Trolls Never Ends
LOL! Caught another pure DSLR-TROLL and just proved it! (Just like
yesterday.) Only one of the scrapshot photos was still visible by the time
you posted this reply of yours. You didn't even bother to see if either of
them is still there.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
Had to remove the scrapshot that one of you useless trolls actually liked.
I wouldn't want to ever post something that benefited some lame troll's
basement-life.
Go ahead, invent some more things about photography that doesn't really
exist and that you never saw in your life. You do this all the time. This
is how I can tell when none of you have ever actually held any camera.
LOL!!!!!!!!
Pete D
Hey good one, clever!!!!!!!!!!!!! Love your work!!!!!!!!!
Excellent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sobriquet
<tsod...@tsodtne.com> wrote:
> On 18 Jun 2009 03:51:16 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) spewed the
> following stupidity:
>
>
>
> >You're always taking small-resolution pictures in bright sunlight?
>
> Not at all you freakin' DSLR moron. I'd say at least 30% of my P&S images,
> all 100% of which are easily printed to 13"x19" or larger, are taken by
> moonlight
>
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3372/3637987532_bdc24d3fd4.jpg
>
> and starlight
>
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/3637987536_2d5ae1dac8.jpg
>
> alone.
Got a link to the flickr page with those pics perhaps?
Flickr tends to block direct links to high-res versions of pictures
after they have reached a certain limit of hits.
Ray Fischer
>On 18 Jun 2009 06:29:04 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>The Stupidity of DSLR-Trolls Never Ends <tso...@tsodtne.com> wrote:
>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
>>>
>>>>You're always taking small-resolution pictures in bright sunlight?
>>>
>>>Not at all you freakin' DSLR moron.
>>
>>So you're just soem stupid asshole who likes to argue about things and
>>prove yourself to be a stupid asshole.
>>
>>> I'd say at least 30% of my P&S images,
>>
>>I'd say that you're full of shit.
>>
>>>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3372/3637987532_bdc24d3fd4.jpg
>>
>>Low resolution picture of a full moon. BFD.
>>
>>>and starlight
>>>
>>>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/3637987536_2d5ae1dac8.jpg
>>
>>Whose SLR did you borrow?
>
>Sold all my DSLR gear long ago,
Then who did you steal the photo from?
>> Or did you just copy the photo from
>>somewhere else?
>
>The usual DSLR-Troll's mental justification. Even when you rub their nose
That isn't an answer, asshole.
>>>No editing in those other than a minor crop on one of them, no fancy
>>>special effects, no layered patch jobs.
>>
>>No honesty, no integrity, no sanity ...
>
>Projecting again?
No, bigot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Bob Larter
> On 18 jun, 07:36, The Stupidity of DSLR-Trolls Never Ends
> <tsod...@tsodtne.com> wrote:
>> On 18 Jun 2009 03:51:16 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) spewed the
>> following stupidity:
>>
>>
>>
>>> You're always taking small-resolution pictures in bright sunlight?
>> Not at all you freakin' DSLR moron. I'd say at least 30% of my P&S images,
>> all 100% of which are easily printed to 13"x19" or larger, are taken by
>> moonlight
>>
>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3372/3637987532_bdc24d3fd4.jpg
>>
>> and starlight
>>
>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/3637987536_2d5ae1dac8.jpg
>>
>> alone.
>
> Got a link to the flickr page with those pics perhaps?
> Flickr tends to block direct links to high-res versions of pictures
> after they have reached a certain limit of hits.
It's not that, it's just that he's a cowardly little fuck, who's
embarrassed to have anyone criticise his very average shots, so he pulls
them off the website quickly. Just like a certain Brisbane wedding
photographer we all know.
The Stupidity of DSLR-Trolls Never Ends
>sobriquet wrote:
>> On 18 jun, 07:36, The Stupidity of DSLR-Trolls Never Ends
>> <tsod...@tsodtne.com> wrote:
>>> On 18 Jun 2009 03:51:16 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) spewed the
>>> following stupidity:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> You're always taking small-resolution pictures in bright sunlight?
>>> Not at all you freakin' DSLR moron. I'd say at least 30% of my P&S images,
>>> all 100% of which are easily printed to 13"x19" or larger, are taken by
>>> moonlight
>>>
>>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3372/3637987532_bdc24d3fd4.jpg
>>>
>>> and starlight
>>>
>>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/3637987536_2d5ae1dac8.jpg
>>>
>>> alone.
>>
>> Got a link to the flickr page with those pics perhaps?
>> Flickr tends to block direct links to high-res versions of pictures
>> after they have reached a certain limit of hits.
Do read the rest of the posts in this thread. It explains exactly why the
links lead to photos as small and compression ruined as possible but still
retain enough information to wholly prove the point intended. And exactly
why they get pulled off the net after they've served their immediate
usefulness and purpose. In fact I only post links to the smaller of the
sizes offered by Flickr to let their software ruin the photos just a bit
further than I had intentionally degraded them.
After you've read the whole thread and understood the above paragraph, then
read Bob-Larter-The-Resident-DSLR-Troll's reply just below this to see how
much this posting style does exactly the job required on all counts. I
never do just one thing when I can accomplish dozens of tasks with the same
brush-stroke. :-)
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:05:52 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>It's not that, it's just that he's a cowardly little fuck, who's
>embarrassed to have anyone criticise his very average shots, so he pulls
>them off the website quickly. Just like a certain Brisbane wedding
>photographer we all know.
One time I briefly wondered what it must be like living in that basement of
yours "Bobby Larter". With you so desperately trying to manipulate everyone
to give you a glimpse of the real world with their cameras for free, day
after day, year after year. Beyond that you weren't worth another thought.
Keep begging Bobby Boy, it becomes you.
Ray Fischer
>Do read the rest of the posts in this thread. It explains exactly why the
>links lead to photos as small and compression ruined as possible but still
>retain enough information to wholly prove the point intended.
"Prove" the point that anybody can steal a low-res photo with tons of
compression artifacts.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Si...@mash.com
<hows...@andyouarewho.com> wrote:
>
>http://chdk.setepontos.com/index.php/topic,3766.0.html
>
>Not too shabby for a $138 camera and a simple script that runs within it,
>using the free software add-on CHDK.
>
>Quick to freeze-up brick cameras must be left on the ground, gathering
>sensor-dust on shelves -- again.
What makes you think you can tell other people what to do? Or what to buy? What
gives you the right to dictate anything to any other person?
What does anyone's camera choice have to do with you? Are you the inventor of
the point & shoot camera?
When it comes to people buying cameras, what business is it of yours? Do their
actions cost you in some way?
You have a real mental problem, my friend, and I think you should seek
professional help. You're driving yourself crazy worrying about the actions of
strangers; that doesn't affect your life in the least... but you think it
does...
I know the mentally ill never think that they have a problem, so ask yourself
the question, "Am I a brain-case that has to comment on other peoples choices
even though it doesn't affect me and is none of my business?"
If you answer 'no' to that question, it's time to make an appointment with your
doctor. And if you answer 'yes', then stop the sick behavior NOW!
When 100 out of 100 people tell you something, it's time to listen.
Twibil
>
> I know the mentally ill never think that they have a problem... (snip)
Usually true of psychotics such as our P&S troll, but not at all true
of depressives, phobics, and others.
The problem in their case is getting them to ask for help in a society
that still treats most forms of psychological problems as anathema.
P&Ss Win Again & Again
>On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 04:18:39 -0500, P&Ss Win Again & Again
><hows...@andyouarewho.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>http://chdk.setepontos.com/index.php/topic,3766.0.html
>>
>>Not too shabby for a $138 camera and a simple script that runs within it,
>>using the free software add-on CHDK.
>>
>>Quick to freeze-up brick cameras must be left on the ground, gathering
>>sensor-dust on shelves -- again.
>
>
>What makes you think you can tell other people what to do? Or what to buy? What
>gives you the right to dictate anything to any other person?
My my my! He's reading "dictator" into that simple news announcement! Have
you ever been asked, "Do you read and see things that nobody else ever
sees?" "Do you often think that newspaper articles are all about you?" "Are
messages on the internet or over the radio important messages from the
government or secret agency telling you what to do all the time?" "Does
your pet tell you what to do too?" "Does your aquarium speak to you?"
LOL!
>
>What does anyone's camera choice have to do with you? Are you the inventor of
>the point & shoot camera?
>
>When it comes to people buying cameras, what business is it of yours? Do their
>actions cost you in some way?
>
>You have a real mental problem, my friend, and I think you should seek
>professional help. You're driving yourself crazy worrying about the actions of
>strangers; that doesn't affect your life in the least... but you think it
>does...
>
>I know the mentally ill
I'm sure that you do know the mentally ill. Your post speaks volumes about
your familiarity with their problems, by perfect example. They tend to pal
around together or only socialize in treatment programs and support groups.
The lesser distressed ones are probably given access to the internet until
they start reading into things and inventing wild and outlandish beliefs
from what they read. Then their meds are likely readjusted and they are
given a time-out from net-access. Is that how it works for you? :-)
> never think that they have a problem, so ask yourself
>the question, "Am I a brain-case that has to comment on other peoples choices
>even though it doesn't affect me and is none of my business?"
>
>
>
>If you answer 'no' to that question, it's time to make an appointment with your
>doctor. And if you answer 'yes', then stop the sick behavior NOW!
>
>When 100 out of 100 people tell you something, it's time to listen.
In total your post is THE perfect over-reaction! Love it! Missed one of
your meds dosages today, is that it? It only shows the desperate insecurity
that's going through your head, is all. Do you doubt your camera choices
much? Are you that insecure when someone shows you what can be done better,
further, faster, for less than anything you've ever done before with your
choices in life? I'm guessing you dumped about $30,000 on DSLRs and glass
for them and are now desperately trying to justify why you did so. I've
seen this reaction 1,000's of times when they realize how much money
they've wasted on camera gear and never had one damn thing to show for all
that wasted time and expense.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
Troll Killer
wrote:
Dear Resident, Pretend-Photographer, DSLR-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics
that befit these newsgroups. Please consider them for future discussions
and posts:
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (telextender) add-on lenses for many makes and
models of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your
photography gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can
far surpass any range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or
will ever be made for larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than
any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used
with high-quality telextenders, which do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm
f/3.5 P&S lens increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two
high-quality teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the
photographer also added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage
of the RAW sensor's slightly greater detail retention when upsampled
directly in the camera for JPG output. As opposed to trying to upsample a
JPG image on the computer where those finer RAW sensor details are already
lost once it's left the camera's processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally
empty zoom, contrary to all the net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD
2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera (downsized only, no crop):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that
any in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA
whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and
sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any
decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with
more powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5
aperture achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm equivalent).
Only DSLRs suffer from loss of aperture due to the manner in which their
teleconverters work. P&S cameras can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than
any DSLR and its glass for far less cost. Some excellent fish-eye adapters
can be added to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic
aberration nor edge softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this
allows you to seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm
equivalent focal-length up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own
lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than
larger sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic
Range vs. an APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent)
sensors used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much
smaller. Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures
and are more easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for
DSLRs. This also allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than
DSLR glass which usually performs well at only one aperture setting per
lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best
DSLR glass ever made. See this side-by-side comparison for example
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that
the P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the
amount of detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x
P&S zoom lens easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens.
After all is said and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th
the price on a P&S camera that you would have to spend in order to get
comparable performance in a DSLR camera. To obtain the same focal-length
ranges as that $340 SX10 camera with DSLR glass that *might* approach or
equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over $6,500 to accomplish that (at
the time of this writing). This isn't counting the extra costs of a
heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those longer
focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR investment
to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S camera. When you buy a DSLR
you are investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips,
external flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc.
etc. The outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial
DSLR body purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their
banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera
plus one small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing
just a couple pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would
require over 15 pounds of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in
the previous example is only 1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that
*might* equal it in image quality comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to
lug around all day (not counting the massive and expensive tripod, et.al.)
You can carry the whole P&S kit + accessory lenses in one roomy pocket of a
wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy backpack. You
also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.
6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer,
you will not be barred from using your camera at public events,
stage-performances, and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots
you won't so easily alert all those within a block around, by the obnoxious
clattering noise that your DSLR is making, that you are capturing anyone's
images. For the more dedicated wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not
endanger your life when photographing potentially dangerous animals by
alerting them to your presence.
7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you
may capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where
any evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance.
Without the need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware
into remote areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time
allotted for bringing back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for
unattended time-lapse photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you
may capture those unusual or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a
rare slime-mold's propagation, that you happened to find in a
mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest laptop or other time-lapse
hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that CHDK brings to the
creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to list them all
here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast
subject motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the
need of artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone.
Nor will their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane
shutter distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when
photographed with all DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions
example-image link in #10.)
9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including
shutter-speeds of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync
without the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter
flash-units that must pulse their light-output for the full duration of the
shutter's curtain to pass slowly over the frame. The other downside to
those kinds of flash units is that the light-output is greatly reduced the
faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed used that is faster than your
camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the flash output. Not so when
using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash is recorded no matter
the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK capable cameras
where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the lightning-fast
single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is 1/10,000 of
a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a second,
then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also don't
require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may be
used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that
can compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground,
90-degrees from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously
loud slapping mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily
damaged, expensive repair costs, etc.
11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments; or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street;
you're not worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot
(fewer missed shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete
while you do; and not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos
that day from having gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous
photographer you're no longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of
unneeded glass, allowing you to carry more of the important supplies, like
food and water, allowing you to trek much further than you've ever been
able to travel before with your old D/SLR bricks.
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available at longer
focal-lengths allow for the deep DOF required for excellent
macro-photography when using normal macro or tele-macro lens arrangements.
All done WITHOUT the need of any image destroying, subject irritating,
natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the planet can compare in the
quality of available-light macro photography that can be accomplished with
nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera. (To clarify for DSLR owners/promoters
who don't even know basic photography principles: In order to obtain the
same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly. When you do
then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held
macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even
your highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the
DSLR user is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and
the image; turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.)
13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo
audio recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature
where a still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong.
E.g. recording the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living
field-mice. With your P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't
miss that once-in-a-lifetime chance to record some unexpected event, like
the passage of a bright meteor in the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion,
or any other newsworthy event. Imagine the gaping hole in our history of
the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras there at the time. The mystery
of how it exploded would have never been solved. Or the amateur 8mm film of
the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready P&S camera being with
you all the time might capture something that will be a valuable part of
human history one day.
14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your
final image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your
composition by trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With
the ability to overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area
alerts (and dozens of other important shooting data) directly on your
electronic viewfinder display you are also not going to guess if your
exposure might be right this time. Nor do you have to remove your eye from
the view of your subject to check some external LCD histogram display,
ruining your chances of getting that perfect shot when it happens.
15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and
sensors that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as
light-levels drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in
total darkness by using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other
multi-purpose cameras are capable of taking still-frame and videos of
nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as well. Shooting videos and still-frames
of nocturnal animals in the total-dark, without disturbing their natural
behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is
not only possible, it's been done, many times, by myself. (An interesting
and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly stomped to death by an
irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash come from.)
16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly
100% silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither
scaring it away nor changing their natural behavior with your existence.
Nor, as previously mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your
direction. You are recording nature as it is, and should be, not some
artificial human-changed distortion of reality and nature.
17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the
greatest degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence,
with its inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving
subject will EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A
leaf-shutter or electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will
capture your moving subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S
photography will no longer lead a biologist nor other scientist down
another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all
the popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those
agonizingly slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the
shot is recorded. In the hands of an experienced photographer that will
always rely on prefocusing their camera, there is no hit & miss
auto-focusing that happens on all auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This
allows you to take advantage of the faster shutter response times of P&S
cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that if you really want to get every
shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in any camera.
19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately
relay the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate
preview of what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3
seconds or 1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the
crisp sharp outlines of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100%
accurately depicted in your viewfinder before you even record the shot.
What you see in a P&S camera is truly what you get. You won't have to guess
in advance at what shutter speed to use to obtain those artistic effects or
those scientifically accurate nature studies that you require or that your
client requires. When testing CHDK P&S cameras that could have shutter
speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was amazed that I could
half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a Dremel-Drill's
30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real time, without
ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when lowering shutter
speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls, instantly
seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never realize
what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use
of its own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender
on the front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would
with a DSLR. Framing and the included background is relative to the subject
at the time and has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens
in use. Your f/ratio (which determines your depth-of-field), is a
computation of focal-length divided by aperture diameter. Increase the
focal-length and you make your DOF shallower. No different than opening up
the aperture to accomplish the same. The two methods are identically
related where DOF is concerned.
21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs
with just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up
on ISO25 and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S
camera can't go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S
camera can have larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in
existence. The time when you really need a fast lens to prevent
camera-shake that gets amplified at those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs
you can take perfectly fine hand-held images at super-zoom settings.
Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures at long focal lengths
require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They need high ISOs,
you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are some
excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.
22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any
way determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of
around $100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer
today. IF they have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award
winning photograph with a cardboard Brownie Box Camera made a century ago.
If you can't take excellent photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able
to get good photos on a DSLR either. Never blame your inability to obtain a
good photograph on the kind of camera that you own. Those who claim they
NEED a DSLR are only fooling themselves and all others. These are the same
people that buy a new camera every year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only
had the right camera, a better camera, better lenses, faster lenses, then I
will be a great photographer!" If they just throw enough money at their
hobby then the talent-fairy will come by one day, after just the right
offering to the DSLR gods was made, and bestow them with something that
they never had in the first place--talent. Camera company's love these
people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will make their
photography better, because they never were a good photographer to begin
with. They're forever searching for that more expensive camera that might
one day come included with that new "talent in a box" feature. The irony is
that they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real problem has been
all along. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why
these self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras
instantly reveal to them their piss-poor photography skills. It also
reveals the harsh reality that all the wealth in the world won't make them
any better at photography. It's difficult for them to face the truth.
23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera
gear. They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile
and tell them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the
look on their face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that
lost money, and a sadness just courses through every fiber of their being.
Wondering why they can't get photographs as good after they spent all that
time and money. Get good on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun
experience.
24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth
mentioning the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that
is instantly ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more
award-winning photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home,
collecting dust, and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack
or camera bag, hoping that you'll lug it around again some day.
25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you.
That's like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS
STUPID AND I DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only
take it out when needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with
all your photos. And should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're
not out $20,000. They are inexpensive to replace.
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more
than enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras
are just better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of the pretend-photographer usenet trolls yelling "You NEED
a DSLR!" can be summed up in just one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains
a foolish thing."
Twibil
>
> >> I know the mentally ill never think that they have a problem... (snip)
>
> >Usually true of psychotics such as our P&S troll, but not at all true
> >of depressives, phobics, and others.
>
> >The problem in their case is getting them to ask for help in a society
> >that still treats most forms of psychological problems as anathema.
>
> Dear Resident, Pretend-Photographer, DSLR-Troll,
Yawn. See below.
"Psychotic: A group of symptoms in major mental illness that include
loss of contact with reality, breakdown of normal social functioning,
and extreme personality changes. Psychotic episodes may be short-lived
or chronic and worsening. ..."
www.geodon.com/b_Glossary.aspx
Now go take your Thorazine and shuffle off to bed like a good little
troll.
Troll Killer
wrote:
>On Jun 19, 8:17�pm, Troll Killer <t...@trollkillers.org> wrote:
Bob Larter
Except of course that nobody would want to.
Deep Reset
"Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a3cdc89$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> The Stupidity of Anit-DSLR-Trolls Never Ends <tso...@tsodtne.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Do read the rest of the posts in this thread. It explains exactly why
>>> the
>>> links lead to photos as small and compression ruined as possible but
>>> still
>>> retain enough information to wholly prove the point intended.
>>
>> "Prove" the point that anybody can steal a low-res photo with tons of
>> compression artifacts.
>
> Except of course that nobody would want to.
I think, like Neil Armstrong's famous pronouncement, this sentence is
missing a definite article:
"a nobody"
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Not at all you freakin' DSLR moron. I'd say at least 30% of my P&S images,
> all 100% of which are easily printed to 13"x19" or larger, are taken by
> moonlight
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3372/3637987532_bdc24d3fd4.jpg
> and starlight
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/3637987536_2d5ae1dac8.jpg
> alone.
You mean
http://l.yimg.com/g/images/photo_unavailable.gif
and
http://l.yimg.com/g/images/photo_unavailable.gif
? Yes, that's what usually happens when a P&S tries to shoot
by moon- or starlight. Nothing to see, nothing worth to see.
Of course you can easily print *any* image at *any* size. It
may not be worth it, but you can.
> No editing in those other than a minor crop on one of them, no fancy
> special effects, no layered patch jobs. That's as the camera saw and
> recorded them.
Oh the irony.
> Except for the drastic downsizing and compression.
Here's the Mona Lisa, exactly as painted by Leonardo (presenting
a undistinguishable blob of colour) ... except for the drastic
downsizing and compression. Yes, that's *just* what one needs
to compare quality and detail. The stupidity of you never ends.
> Is it my fault that you and all like you are so damn lame that you don't
> know how to use ANY camera properly? Go take some beginner's classes in
> photography, or something. All of you just keep making world-wide fools of
> yourselves with every comment that you type.
Next time, do properly quote what is spoken *to* you.
-Wolfgang
LOL
LOL!!
Another pretend-photographer DSLR TROLL caught dead in the act.
LOL!!!!!!!!!
Only a full 2 days late this time! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!! Fuckin' HILARIOUS!
John Navas
<bn9vg6-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>:
>The Stupidity of this Troll Never Ends <tso...@tsodtne.com> wrote:
>
>> Not at all you freakin' DSLR moron. I'd say at least 30% of my P&S images,
>> all 100% of which are easily printed to 13"x19" or larger, are taken by
>> moonlight
>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3372/3637987532_bdc24d3fd4.jpg
>> and starlight
>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/3637987536_2d5ae1dac8.jpg
>> alone.
>
>You mean
> http://l.yimg.com/g/images/photo_unavailable.gif
>and
> http://l.yimg.com/g/images/photo_unavailable.gif
>? Yes, that's what usually happens when a P&S tries to shoot
>by moon- or starlight. Nothing to see, nothing worth to see.
Only when the camera and/or photographer are mediocre.
Lots of dSLR images are likewise crappy.
Better compact digital cameras can do excellent long exposure
photography by moonlight or starlight.
Your argument would be more persuasive if you didn't have to stoop to
straw man images.
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
Alan Browne
> Your argument would be more persuasive if you didn't have to stoop to
> straw man images.
Wolfie's pattern is always to take any discussion to an absurd or
carefully chosen limit and then stand his ground there.
--
-- 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.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> The Stupidity of Anit-DSLR-Trolls Never Ends <tso...@tsodtne.com> wrote:
>>> Do read the rest of the posts in this thread. It explains exactly why the
>>> links lead to photos as small and compression ruined as possible but still
>>> retain enough information to wholly prove the point intended.
>>
>> "Prove" the point that anybody can steal a low-res photo with tons of
>> compression artifacts.
>
>Except of course that nobody would want to.
Except for some idiot worshiping his P&S cult.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Wilba
> Bob Larter wrote:
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Do read the rest of the posts in this thread. It explains exactly why
>>>> the links lead to photos as small and compression ruined as possible
>>>> but still retain enough information to wholly prove the point intended.
>>>
>>> "Prove" the point that anybody can steal a low-res photo with tons of
>>> compression artifacts.
>>
>> Except of course that nobody would want to.
>
> I think, like Neil Armstrong's famous pronouncement, this sentence is
> missing a definite article:
>
> "a nobody"
Um, that's an indefinite article.
Si...@mash.com
<hows...@andyouarewho.com> wrote:
>I'm sure that you do know the mentally ill. Your post speaks volumes about
>your familiarity with their problems, by perfect example. They tend to pal
>around together or only socialize in treatment programs and support groups.
>The lesser distressed ones are probably given access to the internet until
>they start reading into things and inventing wild and outlandish beliefs
>from what they read. Then their meds are likely readjusted and they are
>given a time-out from net-access. Is that how it works for you? :-)
Well, you know a lot more about the specifics than I do... you've obviously
spent time inside. I only know what I'm told by my friends in the business.
I bet you don't even realize you are arguing about yourself!
>> never think that they have a problem, so ask yourself
>>the question, "Am I a brain-case that has to comment on other peoples choices
>>even though it doesn't affect me and is none of my business?"
>>
>>If you answer 'no' to that question, it's time to make an appointment with your
>>doctor. And if you answer 'yes', then stop the sick behavior NOW!
Since you ignored the question, you fall into group 'A'... you don't know you're
sick. But I kinda thought that...
>
>In total your post is THE perfect over-reaction! Love it! Missed one of
>your meds dosages today, is that it? It only shows the desperate insecurity
>that's going through your head, is all. Do you doubt your camera choices
>much?
Not anymore, but I do regret buying a few of the lenses I did... they become
redundant sometimes.
> Are you that insecure when someone shows you what can be done better,
>further, faster, for less than anything you've ever done before with your
>choices in life?
I'm not insecure at all, but no one has done the things you speak of...
> I'm guessing you dumped about $30,000 on DSLRs and glass
>for them and are now desperately trying to justify why you did so.
No, I "dumped" about $5000 on DSLR's and glass, and I LOVE the great photo's I'm
getting.
What I do regret is having bought a couple of 'P&S' cameras for $2500 over the
last few years, and getting the worst shit pictures I've ever seen! I regret
only getting $150 for a Minolta Dimage I paid $1500 for. I regret having shit
photos of my late Sister and Father taken on P&S crap cameras. I wish I had
better images of the past. I wish I had got a DSLR in 2000 instead of the P&S
shit.
> I've
>seen this reaction 1,000's of times when they realize how much money
>they've wasted on camera gear and never had one damn thing to show for all
>that wasted time and expense.
I agree, I wasted a fortune on P&S CRAP before I got a DSLR.
John Navas
<p5rt3596rs1qhgo5k...@4ax.com>:
>No, I "dumped" about $5000 on DSLR's and glass, and I LOVE the great photo's I'm
>getting.
>
>What I do regret is having bought a couple of 'P&S' cameras for $2500 over the
>last few years, and getting the worst shit pictures I've ever seen! I regret
>only getting $150 for a Minolta Dimage I paid $1500 for. I regret having shit
>photos of my late Sister and Father taken on P&S crap cameras. I wish I had
>better images of the past. I wish I had got a DSLR in 2000 instead of the P&S
>shit.
"A poor workman blames his tools." [Proverb]
John Turco
<heavily edited for brevity>
> What I do regret is having bought a couple of 'P&S' cameras for $2500 over the
> last few years, and getting the worst shit pictures I've ever seen! I regret
> only getting $150 for a Minolta Dimage I paid $1500 for. I regret having shit
> photos of my late Sister and Father taken on P&S crap cameras. I wish I had
> better images of the past. I wish I had got a DSLR in 2000 instead of the P&S
> shit.
<edited>
Hello, Sidny:
You're looking at things, the wrong way. With cherished pictures - such as those,
of your deceased loved ones - what's most meaningful, by a large margin, is the
fact they >exist<, at all.
That's why digital photography is so wonderful...it's far cheaper and much easier,
than film ever was. The small and affordable P&S digicams, in particular, allow
users to capture a wider variety of images, than a bulky DSLR could typically
manage.
Just be glad that you have so many (supposedly) crummy shots of your late father
and sister; and even more importantly, continue taking pix of the relatives and
friends, who are still alive.
Hence, for posterity's sake, as well as your own happiness -- keep on snappin',
brother! <g>
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>