CHDK does 1/1,000,000 second, now we are talking.....
Pete D
Mark Thomas
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/3033330611_d6d33a8461_o.jpg
>
>
A cat with a *very* blown nose.
I don't understand why chdk didn't replace the sensor with something
more capable, and why it didn't flash up an 'oversharpen' warning on the
display....
JimPaulson
Just as I fail to understand why virtual-photographer idiots on usenet feel so
threatened when an inexpensive P&S camera can out-perform their psychotically
worshipped DSLR design. What's wrong with you fools? Will you react just as
badly when some new TV show comes along and outdoes your last favorite one?
Get a freakin' grip, you useless psychotics.
RichA
"JimPaulson" <jimpa...@anydomain.com> wrote in message
news:15evh49fufv2n4b4u...@4ax.com...
It's a cute trick, I think that latest Casio piece of overpriced P&S crap
will do movies at 2100fps. BTW, can a Casio buyer actually afford a big
enough memory card to store it?
Pete D
"Mark Thomas" <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote in message
news:gfocu0$fd4$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
Can you blow your cats nose? ;-)
Pete D
Sorry, don't understand what you are talking about, don't you like my shot?
Thanks for looking.
Mark Thomas
I blew *on* my cat's nose when I was about 4 and I still have the scar
to show for it. No picture but I learned something useful.
Pete D
One of my cats this he is a bit of a dog, you can roll him over and rub his
tummy without getting your hand shredded, same cat in the photo actually.
Ray Fischer
>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/3033330611_d6d33a8461_o.jpg
What makes you think that the exposure was just 1 microsecond?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Pete D
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:491fcf9c$0$33593$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Because I said so and you MUST take it on faith that it is SO. If you do not
I will abuse you and swear at you and be a general arse and there will be
nothing you can do about it. Nah just kidding, the original EXIF said it
was.
Nervous Nick
wrote:
> Pete D wrote:
> > "Mark Thomas" <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote in message
> >news:gfocu0$fd4$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
> >> Pete D wrote:
> >>>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/3033330611_d6d33a8461_o.jpg
>
> >> A cat with a *very* blown nose.
>
> >> I don't understand why chdk didn't replace the sensor with something more
> >> capable, and why it didn't flash up an 'oversharpen' warning on the
> >> display....
>
> > Can you blow your cats nose? ;-)
>
> to show for it. No picture but I learned something useful.
IFYPFY.
--
YOP...
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
What was the lighting? Sunlight or flash, or?
calvin-torgen
You're a pretty bad troll. There is no metadata on that photo. Trolls better
than you would have attached some fake EXIF info. Not that it would have
mattered.
I have some burst bracket sequence of shots with CHDK, done when testing for
highest possible shutter speeds using that scanning laser method. Some shots
have up to 1/3,000,000 of a second in the EXIF. But unlike you, and like all
others that know how to use CHDK, knowing what it can do and cannot do, I know
that the fastest speed from my camera is 1/40,000. Getting 1/3,000,000 recorded
in any MakerNotes data doesn't concern me in the least. That automatically means
1/40,000. The physical limit of the camera.
Anyone that has enough intellect to run CHDK has enough intellect to know why
1/1,000,000 of a second is just a MakerNotes artifact and does not reflect what
their camera can truly do.
This is why I know that so many of you DSLR-trolls have never even ran CHDK.
Judging by your posts here you're lucky if you can even find your keyboards let
alone know how to run, use, and take advantage of the hundreds of new features
and immeasurable new creative possibilities that CHDK gives back to the world of
photography.
I think I just figured out something. One simple little program takes the whole
world of photography to a new level, making things available that were once
thought impossible, giving back that much to the world of photography and all
photographers. You're jealous and envious because you've never been able to
contribute a thing but being a relentless pretend-photographer troll in a
newsgroup. I get it now. It's all starting to make sense, why you despise CHDK
so much. 300k of programming does more than your whole existence on this planet
ever has. Makes perfect sense now.
Troll away. It reveals so much about your virtual-life.
Ray Fischer
>>>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/3033330611_d6d33a8461_o.jpg
>>
>> What makes you think that the exposure was just 1 microsecond?
>
>Because I said so and you MUST take it on faith that it is SO. If you do not
>I will abuse you and swear at you and be a general arse and there will be
>nothing you can do about it. Nah just kidding, the original EXIF said it
>was.
1) I see no EXIF data.
2) EXIF data could be faked.
3) The camera might be recording incorrect EXIF data.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Pete D
"calvin-torgen" <c...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:s5e0i414j6k6ev7p3...@4ax.com...
How dare you my good man, all I have done is this about the poor people that
bandwidth challenged, troll indeed.
Pete D
When you push the envelope like I do even CHDK cannot write fast enough as I
was taking shots at 2,000 fps.
Pete D
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <user...@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:49202F2B...@qwest.net...
Yes! I think the shadows give it away...... with CHDK though anything is
probable! Actually I simply pointed my P&S's bum towards what I needed
lit....... just kidding, it was flash!
Ray Fischer
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> Pete D <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>> Pete D <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/3033330611_d6d33a8461_o.jpg
>>>>
>>>> What makes you think that the exposure was just 1 microsecond?
>>>
>>>Because I said so and you MUST take it on faith that it is SO. If you do
>>>not
>>>I will abuse you and swear at you and be a general arse and there will be
>>>nothing you can do about it. Nah just kidding, the original EXIF said it
>>>was.
>>
>> 1) I see no EXIF data.
>> 2) EXIF data could be faked.
>> 3) The camera might be recording incorrect EXIF data.
>
>was taking shots at 2,000 fps.
I'd be truly astonished if you could record a significant number of
photos at that rate. 1GB/sec? That's faster than a high-end PC.
I'm pretty sure that only very specialized cameras can handle that
data rate.
I still see nothing that would indicate that your exposure was
anywhere near 1 microsecond. It's looks like a photo that could be
done with almost any camera and a flash.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Steve
I think you're missing his tongue being firmly planted in his cheek.
But yes, a flash like my SB600 has a duration of only 1/25000 sec on
it's lowest power setting, which should be just fine for getting water
droplet shots like that. And an SB800 goes down to 1/41600 sec.
Steve
GerryThomas
Now do it out in bright sunlight with that setup. Won't happen. But you already
knew this didn't you. Or not. If you had known this simple fact, you wouldn't
have brought it up. Knowing full well that the usefulness of your DSLR+flash
could be so easily discounted and disproved with such a simple real-world
example.
Go buy a camera, learn how to use it. Then those of us who know more than you
ever will don't have to waste countless hours trying to correct your
pretend-photographer troll's ignorance and misinformation.
Ray Fischer
Maybe so. It's often hard to tell the difference between the crazies,
the clueless, and the comics.
>But yes, a flash like my SB600 has a duration of only 1/25000 sec on
>it's lowest power setting, which should be just fine for getting water
>droplet shots like that. And an SB800 goes down to 1/41600 sec.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Steve
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:32:18 -0600, GerryThomas <ge...@thomas.com>
wrote:
Hey dummy, the picture we're talking about was done with a flash. But
obviously you're too stupid to notice that.
Howard Johansen
No shit Sherlock. Now, as stated, try composing the exact same scene in full
sunlight while using flash with your last-century's DSLR mechanics. Mind if I
laugh while you try?
Eric Stevens
And make sure you get the pattern of shadows from the water droplets
radiating out from a point near the lens. You will be so close to the
sun that I will be laughing while you fry. :-)
Its a flash.
Eric Stevens
Pete D
I would have thought that you would have noticed that I use the same ID all
the time and have done so for many years mate, what would that tell you? Oh
yes and I wasn't abusive every second word.
Cheers.
Pete
>
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <user...@qwest.net> wrote in
> message news:49202F2B...@qwest.net...
>> Pete D wrote:
>>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/3033330611_d6d33a8461_o.jpg
>>>
>>>
>> Pete,
>> What was the lighting? Sunlight or flash, or?
>
> Yes! I think the shadows give it away...... with CHDK though anything is
> probable!
Pete,
Actually no. The photons collected by a digital camera from
a 20% reflectance target in full sunlight at f/2 is about
100,000 to 160,000 photons per second per square micron
of a pixel. At 1/1,000,000,000 second, and a 2-micron square
pixel (larger than many modern P&S cameras), would
give you only 0.4 to 0.8 photons per pixel on average.
Not enough to make a decent image.
In general, one does not need super fast shutter speeds when
using flash, only a fast enough shutter speed to not get
ambient light contributing significantly. The flash can be
extremely short in duration and takes the place if fast
shutters.
Roger
Paul Furman
> Steve wrote:
>>
>>>> I think you're missing his tongue being firmly planted in his cheek.
>>>> But yes, a flash like my SB600 has a duration of only 1/25000 sec on
>>>> it's lowest power setting, which should be just fine for getting water
>>>> droplet shots like that. And an SB800 goes down to 1/41600 sec.
>>>>
>>> knew this didn't you. Or not. If you had known this simple fact, you wouldn't
>>> have brought it up. Knowing full well that the usefulness of your DSLR+flash
>>> could be so easily discounted and disproved with such a simple real-world
>>> example.
>>
>
> ...Now, as stated, try composing the exact same scene in full
> sunlight while using flash...
No problem unless you want a closeup with a fast lens wide open which
would be really strange. Up close you'll want to be stopped down.
Pete D
Get a life Roger, I was having a bloody joke.
George Kerby
On 11/16/08 5:13 PM, in article 4920a92f$0$33600$742e...@news.sonic.net,
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
For you, yes.
For most, not true.
Liberals were born without a particular sense.
The Sense of Humor...
Ray Fischer
Gee, there's kerby doing his "imitation" of a stupid asshole again.
>For most, not true.
>
>Liberals were born without a particular sense.
As opposed to fascists killing people who dare to disagree?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Shane Landers
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your post is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
newsgroup. 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 (tel-extender) 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 tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which
their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any
DSLR and its glass in existence. 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 is
only good for one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S
glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. After all is said and
done, you will spend 1/4th to 1/50th the price that you would have to in order
to get comparable performance in a DSLR 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 10 to 20
pounds of DSLR body and lenses. You can carry the whole P&S kit 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, from the obnoxious 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 strobe for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass 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 allow for the deep DOF
required for excellent macro-photography, 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.
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!" 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. The irony is that by them thinking that they only need to throw
money at the problem, they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real
problem is. 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.
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 everyone 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."
George Kerby
On 11/18/08 12:39 AM, in article 4922630e$0$2815$742e...@news.sonic.net,
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
Golly, there is Fish-breath doing himself again.
You should offer your posting style to hospital operating theatres as a
highly-effective alternative to unconsciousness-inducing medications.
HowieDalkin
wrote:
Dear Resident-Troll,
begin with. The irony is that, by them thinking that they only need to throw
Pete D
George Kerby
On 11/18/08 12:01 PM, in article fk06i4ldc62hii64h...@4ax.com,
"HowieDalkin" <hda...@pleasekeepyourspam.org> wrote:
Dear nym-shifting asshole:
That post is written by something that is so stupid, if I took its tiny
brain and rolled it down the edge of a razor blade, it would be like a lone
car going down a six lane highway. Try learning elementary grammar before
attempting to inflict your next literary abomination on this message board.
You would be out of your depth in a parking lot puddle. You wouldn't know Up
from Down if you had three guesses. Well, you're certainly thoughtless; I
just wish that you were keyboard-less, too. As Robert Wilensky said: "We've
all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will
eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the
Internet, we know this is not true."
When god was handing out personalities, you must have been holding the door.
You're so boring, even a boomerang wouldn't come back to you. Looking at
you, Darwin would NOT be pleased to see how inefficiently evolution
sometimes works. Maybe you wouldn't be such a Jerk-In-The-Box if didn't lack
even the dim flicker of sentience needed to qualify as a imbecile; if your
weren't so fat from all that cheap beer you spend your Welfare payments on
that your belly jiggle is the first ever perpetual motion machine, or if you
weren't uglier than the north-facing end of a south-bound mule. No, come to
think of it, you would.
Thank you! We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view,
you ridiculous little carnival freak. Try learning elementary grammar before
attempting to inflict your next literary abomination on this message board.
If there's an idea in your head, it's in solitary confinement. If ignorance
were a disability, you'd get the full pension. Anyway, who was talking to
you or even taking you under consideration? To quote Martin Luther King,
Jr.: "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity."
You are a bore, and a very dull one at that. You are the kind of person who,
when one first meets you, one doesn't like you. But when one gets to know
you better, one hates you. Maybe you wouldn't read like such a pathetic
loser if that pimple on your ass hadn't turned out to be a brain tumor; if
your weren't so fat that when you stand on the Speaking Scale, it screams,
or if you didn't have a face like a bulldog chewing a stinging nettle while
taking a constipated dump in a heat wave. Nah, of course you would.
You are nothing more than 3 grams of bottled syphilitic whore spit. If you
had any sense of decency, you'd do a triple summersault through the air, and
disappear up your own asshole, you bucktoothed bubble-brained butthead.
Anyway, I'm not really good with fools, but a friend who is good with fools
wrote something down for me. Oh, yeah, "Shut your cake-hole, stupid!"
Finally, why don't you go and get lost somewhere where they don't have a
"found" department?
Herve Coleston
wrote:
>Dear nym-shifting asshole:
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
Pete D
Erin Claymore
>Hilarious, even George owns you.........
>
Pete D
YAWH2
Pete D
George Kerby
On 11/19/08 4:59 AM, in article
4923f191$0$7571$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au, "Pete D"
<n...@email.com> wrote:
> And again.
>
>
I think it's asleep now...
Perry L
BTFranks
Ray Fischer
>On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:59:29 +1100, "Pete D" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>And again.
>>
>
>
>Dear Resident-Troll,
>
> Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
Dance, puppet, dance.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Darren M Crowell
>Perry L <p...@domainhere.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:59:29 +1100, "Pete D" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>And again.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Dear Resident-Troll,
>>
>> Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
>
>Dance, puppet, dance.
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
(think they'll be bright enough to figure it out? nah....)
George Kerby
On 11/19/08 12:50 PM, in article 9pn8i4he4ovaer38l...@4ax.com,
"Darren M Crowell" <dmcr...@removeddomain.org> wrote:
> On 19 Nov 2008 18:42:51 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> Perry L <p...@domainhere.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:59:29 +1100, "Pete D" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And again.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Resident-Troll,
>>>
>>> Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
>>
>> Dance, puppet, dance.
>
>
> Dear Resident-Troll,
>
One of your many sock-puppet names should be "Pavlov's Dog"...
Wallace baiels
wrote:
>
>
>
Dear Resident-Troll,