Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 4 topics

rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Canon Reliability - 10 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/744b5f8d8994cb7d?hl=en
* A newbie request help selecting digital camera - 11 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4222610fecc12359?hl=en
* low light movie works better than low light still photos why? - 2 messages,
2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/fd33b306beae64ab?hl=en
* New Mandate: The Road Less Travelled, Due July 19th, 2009 - 2 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b358cb0f0fb31833?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canon Reliability
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/744b5f8d8994cb7d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 7:09 pm
From: John Navas

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:08:25 +1000, Doug Jewell
<ask@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote in
<4a32d1da$0$32392$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>>> Of course, if you have a bias against Canon then you ignore the
>>> statistics which shows them to be reliable and you focus instead on
>>> the inevitable problems that every manufacturer has.
>>
>> I have experience, not bias.

>My experience of reliability, having sold the things, and
>then dealing with sending them away for repair:
>1. Sony (surprisingly, for similar faults they had the
>lowest non-warranty repair costs too)
>2. Pentax / Olympus (small sample size though, so hard to
>qualify for sure).
>4. Canon
>5. Nikon

My experience on service and support:
1. Nikon
2. Sony
2. Pentax / Olympus
5. Canon

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)

== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 7:16 pm
From: Stephen Henning

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> as i understand it, consumer reports reliability ratings are based on
> subscribers sending in surveys. people with problems are more likely
> to respond, skewing the numbers higher.

First you are picked at random to and asked to be surveyed. Then you
must respond about most everything you own from cars and TVs to
household appliances and cameras. So the sample is very large and
respondents can't just answer one part of the survey.

I am not a CR subscriber but was included in one of their surveys
because I use their online products.

It might not be statistically perfect, but it certainly is much better
than anything else that is out there.

Some brands which were not included in the results had too few users to
form a valid statistical sample. Some brands which are not sold now were
sold to people who took the survey this past year.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA - http://rhodyman.net

== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 8:05 pm
From: John McWilliams

John Navas wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:08:25 +1000, Doug Jewell
> <ask@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote in
> <4a32d1da$0$32392$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>
>>>> Of course, if you have a bias against Canon then you ignore the
>>>> statistics which shows them to be reliable and you focus instead on
>>>> the inevitable problems that every manufacturer has.
>>> I have experience, not bias.
>
>> My experience of reliability, having sold the things, and
>> then dealing with sending them away for repair:
>> 1. Sony (surprisingly, for similar faults they had the
>> lowest non-warranty repair costs too)
>> 2. Pentax / Olympus (small sample size though, so hard to
>> qualify for sure).
>> 4. Canon
>> 5. Nikon
>
> My experience on service and support:
> 1. Nikon
> 2. Sony
> 2. Pentax / Olympus
> 5. Canon

Statistically not relevant, with all due respect.
Personal biases tend to skew perceptions.

--
John McWilliams

== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 8:08 pm
From: John Navas

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:05:30 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
wrote in <h0v51r$gc9$1@news.eternal-september.org>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:08:25 +1000, Doug Jewell
>> <ask@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote in
>> <4a32d1da$0$32392$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Of course, if you have a bias against Canon then you ignore the
>>>>> statistics which shows them to be reliable and you focus instead on
>>>>> the inevitable problems that every manufacturer has.
>>>> I have experience, not bias.
>>
>>> My experience of reliability, having sold the things, and
>>> then dealing with sending them away for repair:
>>> 1. Sony (surprisingly, for similar faults they had the
>>> lowest non-warranty repair costs too)
>>> 2. Pentax / Olympus (small sample size though, so hard to
>>> qualify for sure).
>>> 4. Canon
>>> 5. Nikon
>>
>> My experience on service and support:
>> 1. Nikon
>> 2. Sony
>> 2. Pentax / Olympus
>> 5. Canon
>
>Statistically not relevant, with all due respect.
>Personal biases tend to skew perceptions.

It's just as valid as all the other anecdotal information here. ;)

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)

== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 8:55 pm
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>out of 77 photographers, 8 canon dslrs, 2 canon g9s, 1 hasselblad and
>zero nikon cameras (1 nikon lens, however) failed.

77 out of how many millions?

Anecdotal claims are crap.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 8:57 pm
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 06:57:18 -0400, Stephen Henning <pighash@aol.com>
>wrote in <pighash-7F5327.06571812062009@news.isp.giganews.com>:
>
>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>> Of course, if you have a bias against Canon then you ignore the
>>> statistics which shows them to be reliable and you focus instead on
>>> the inevitable problems that every manufacturer has.
>>
>>The most reliable SLR cameras are Fuji with 3% serious problems.
>>
>>The least reliable SLR cameras are Nikon with 7% serious problems.
>>
>>Olympus, Canon and Sony SLRs are in the middle with 4-5% serious
>>problems.
>>
>>Some people will say this is crap, they have a modern Nikon SLR and
>>haven't had any problems.
>
>There's much more to this than these "statistics", which are relatively
>small differences. Also important are factors like how well the
>manufacturer backs and supports the product, how durable the product is,
>how easy it is to service, cost of typical servicing, etc.
>
>>Remember, with a 7% problems rate, you would
>>need to have 15 before you would expect one to be bad, so anecdotal
>>evidence doesn't apply with these numbers.
>
>That's not how these statistics work.
>I'm guessing you're thinking MTBF?
>
>>Data: July 2009 Consumer Reports
>
>CR (CU) has its place, but it's reliability methodology is not
>statistically valid.

Why not?

And their statistics are better than anything you've got.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 9:05 pm
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
>>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>>You have experience with the manufacturer if you've bought from that
>>>manufacturer before,
>>
>>Do you know what you call people who rely upon a sample size of one or
>>two to make judgements about millions of items?
>>
>>Suckers.
>
>How nice.
>
>iMy own sample size with Canon is literally dozens, which is
>statistically valid,

And do you compare "dozens" of Canon cameras against "dozens" of Nikon
cameras and "dozens" of Sony cameras? Do you ensure that the cameras
get an equal workout? Do you consider major failues to be the same as
minor issues?

If you think that dozens out of millions is "statistically valid"
then you clearly know nothing about statistics. If you haven't
controlled for usage and sample size then your opinions are no more
valid than any other opinions.

> and I also use the experience of many others.

And to think that you were just saying that self-selected reports
weren't valid.

>Regardless, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

I'm not fooled by your claims.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 9:07 pm
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:05:30 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
>wrote in <h0v51r$gc9$1@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:08:25 +1000, Doug Jewell
>>> <ask@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote in
>>> <4a32d1da$0$32392$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>:
>>>
>>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, if you have a bias against Canon then you ignore the
>>>>>> statistics which shows them to be reliable and you focus instead on
>>>>>> the inevitable problems that every manufacturer has.
>>>>> I have experience, not bias.
>>>
>>>> My experience of reliability, having sold the things, and
>>>> then dealing with sending them away for repair:
>>>> 1. Sony (surprisingly, for similar faults they had the
>>>> lowest non-warranty repair costs too)
>>>> 2. Pentax / Olympus (small sample size though, so hard to
>>>> qualify for sure).
>>>> 4. Canon
>>>> 5. Nikon
>>>
>>> My experience on service and support:
>>> 1. Nikon
>>> 2. Sony
>>> 2. Pentax / Olympus
>>> 5. Canon
>>
>>Statistically not relevant, with all due respect.
>>Personal biases tend to skew perceptions.
>
>It's just as valid as all the other anecdotal information here. ;)

Which is why we rely on large surveys such as those done by Consumer
Reports.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 9:49 pm
From: daveFaktor

John Navas wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:15:10 +1000, Doug Jewell
> <ask@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote in
> <4a32d36e$0$32392$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>
>>> With all due respect, the size of the sample is not helpful -- a larger
>>> sample with a certain bias or error is no more representative of the
>>> universe than a smaller sample with that same bias or error, and could
>>> even be worse, since the smaller sample might actually be closer to the
>>> universe.
>>>
>> But the sample should remain consistent between brands.
>> Because people who have had a fault are more likely to
>> respond, it will likely show a higher failure rate than the
>> acual failure rate. But that higher failure rate should
>> remain fairly consistent across brands.
>> ie, the sample might show an fault rate of 3% Canon 7%
>> Nikon, when the actual fault rate is 1.5% and 3.5% respectively.
>> It is unlikely that owners of one brand would be more likely
>> to report faults than owners of other brands.
>
> Unfortunately, unless you just care about the CR population, it just
> doesn't work that way. The reason is that you have no way of knowing if
> the CR sample is biased for or against a particular manufacturer as
> compared to the universe.
>
> For example, let's suppose CR published a scathing review of product C
> and a glowing review of product N. That might not only bias the buying
> habits of the CR sample as compared to the universe, it might also
> influence how they report -- when people are told a product is crappy
> then they tend to be more vocal about issues and vice versa.
>
> If you can't control sampling bias and error, as in the case of CR, then
> you simply can't make any sort of valid generalization of the universe
> from the results. All you have is interesting data.
>

How about this for unreliability statistics?

When I took my new 20D into Canon for repair of a known fault when
changing 70 - 200 lenses and a grip that only provided power when it
felt like it; There was a meter (4 feet)square crate of DSLRs mine was
added to that was the week's 'take' and nearly ready to send off to
Canon's only Australian repair centre.

A year or so later I took my 5D in for repairs and the same thing... A
seriously large crate of cameras, all with warranty documentation held
in place by rubber bands only this time instead of being full it was
only 3/4 full. It still took over 2 weeks for them to attend to the repairs.

Nikon contract out repairs. The local repair centre (Andersons) have
only 4 technicians. I took my then new s5 Fuji to them for repair
because it got dropped. They rang 2 days later and said it was ready...
New case and all. Now it got a little badge that says it's a D200!

Earlier this year Nikon announced a firmware upgrade for the SB900. I
couldn't update it because at the time I only had Fuji cameras so I took
it to Andersons. They did it the same day. When my new D700 had a
problem it was pretty much the same story except it took them 3 days to
repair because they "had to get part from Sydney"!

Now my seat of the pants statistical generator tells me anyone who owns
a Canon can look forward to long queues at the repair shop. Visual
evidence = high unreliability.

If however you are a Nikon owner, without ever needing to send your
camera back to Nikon you can get it fixed in a few days = Either the
local repair centre is unique or Nikon cameras don't break as often as
Canon ones do.

There will never be statistics released to confirm or deny any one brand
as being unreliable but there seemed to be a heck of a lot of Canon
firmware upgrades and flakey problems reported on the Internet but fewer
updates and no recalls for Nikon stuff. For all it's life, The Fuji s5
has only ever had one firmware update released. The 20D had at least four!

Surely common sense would suggest the sheer volume of Canon owners
complaining of 10D, 20D, 5D and 1D camera problems but relative silence
for the Nikon camp must mean something?

Owning Canon cameras has been a kaleidoscope of horrors for me.
Everything from back focus errors (in them all) to mirrors falling out,
lockups when changing lenses and grip failure have surfaced with all of
them. Both my 5Ds had the mirror fall out! All the cameras (6 of them)
wouldn't focus properly until Canon serviced them under warranty. None
of my Fuji's or Nikon's have had any problems I didn't cause.

It might sound like a bit of Canon bashing but what happened to my Canon
cameras is not unique. I haven't come across anyone yet who's had Nikon
warranty issues.

== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 11:21 pm
From: John McWilliams

John Navas wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:05:30 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>

>>> My experience on service and support:
>>> 1. Nikon
>>> 2. Sony
>>> 2. Pentax / Olympus
>>> 5. Canon

>> Statistically not relevant, with all due respect.
>> Personal biases tend to skew perceptions.
>
> It's just as valid as all the other anecdotal information here. ;)

Probably more so, fwiw! :)

--
jpmcw

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A newbie request help selecting digital camera
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4222610fecc12359?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 7:15 pm
From: Savageduck

On 2009-06-12 18:08:19 -0700, Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com> said:

> Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls <nocontact@noaddress.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>
> Dear Ignoring
>
> Would you mind keeping to a single ID? It becomes tiresome to killfile
> you over and over again.

J,
Don't worry about using a KF for our P&S troll. It is easy enough to
recognize him from his verbiage, the clues in his full headers and his
twisted agenda.
Just recognize him for what he is, ignore and move on.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 7:48 pm
From: Savageduck

On 2009-06-12 17:08:20 -0700, Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls
<nocontact@noaddress.com> said:

> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>
>> Hello!
>>
>> I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest telephoto
>> lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but have had
>> trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and more to
>> develop "experiments".
>>
>> So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st century, and
>> go digital.
>> <--------->

<-----Diatribe snipped------>

> If still in doubt about what you can do with any of the 45+ models of CHDK
> equipped P&S cameras just browse a few pages of the 9,500+ "World's Best
> CHDK Photos" at this link:
>
> http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk
>
> It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot
> type" P&S cameras.

If you actually take the trouble to check on the great majority of
these admittedly fine images, the metadata reveals that most of them
were captured with D300's & D700's nary a P&S in the bunch.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 8:01 pm
From: J.K.

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:48:09 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2009-06-12 17:08:20 -0700, Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls
><nocontact@noaddress.com> said:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest telephoto
>>> lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but have had
>>> trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and more to
>>> develop "experiments".
>>>
>>> So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st century, and
>>> go digital.
>>> <--------->
>
><-----Diatribe snipped------>
>
>> If still in doubt about what you can do with any of the 45+ models of CHDK
>> equipped P&S cameras just browse a few pages of the 9,500+ "World's Best
>> CHDK Photos" at this link:
>>
>> http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk
>>
>> It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot
>> type" P&S cameras.
>
>If you actually take the trouble to check on the great majority of
>these admittedly fine images, the metadata reveals that most of them
>were captured with D300's & D700's nary a P&S in the bunch.

Yet another POS deceptive liar DSLR-Troll.

== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 8:46 pm
From: Savageduck

On 2009-06-12 20:01:06 -0700, J.K. <jk@place.org> said:

> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:48:09 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-06-12 17:08:20 -0700, Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls
>> <nocontact@noaddress.com> said:
>>
>>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello!
>>>>
>>>> I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest telephoto
>>>> lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but have had
>>>> trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and more to
>>>> develop "experiments".
>>>>
>>>> So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st century, and
>>>> go digital.
>>>> <--------->
>>
>> <-----Diatribe snipped------>
>>
>>> If still in doubt about what you can do with any of the 45+ models of CHDK
>>> equipped P&S cameras just browse a few pages of the 9,500+ "World's Best
>>> CHDK Photos" at this link:
>>>
>>> http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk
>>>
>>> It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot
>>> type" P&S cameras.
>>
>> If you actually take the trouble to check on the great majority of
>> these admittedly fine images, the metadata reveals that most of them
>> were captured with D300's & D700's nary a P&S in the bunch.
>
> Yet another POS deceptive liar DSLR-Troll.

Oh well! Check on the metadata on any of thes right from the site you provided:
http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/nikon/Interesting

--
Regards,

Savageduck

== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 9:02 pm
From: Savageduck is a fucking idiot and just proved it

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:46:52 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2009-06-12 20:01:06 -0700, J.K. <jk@place.org> said:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:48:09 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-06-12 17:08:20 -0700, Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls
>>> <nocontact@noaddress.com> said:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest telephoto
>>>>> lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but have had
>>>>> trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and more to
>>>>> develop "experiments".
>>>>>
>>>>> So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st century, and
>>>>> go digital.
>>>>> <--------->
>>>
>>> <-----Diatribe snipped------>
>>>
>>>> If still in doubt about what you can do with any of the 45+ models of CHDK
>>>> equipped P&S cameras just browse a few pages of the 9,500+ "World's Best
>>>> CHDK Photos" at this link:
>>>>
>>>> http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk
>>>>
>>>> It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot
>>>> type" P&S cameras.
>>>
>>> If you actually take the trouble to check on the great majority of
>>> these admittedly fine images, the metadata reveals that most of them
>>> were captured with D300's & D700's nary a P&S in the bunch.
>>
>> Yet another POS deceptive liar DSLR-Troll.
>
>Oh well! Check on the metadata on any of thes right from the site you provided:
>http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/nikon/Interesting

You STUPID FUCKING MORON! Can't you even see that you changed the search
URL to all Nikon tags? NO Nikons are supported by CHDK. NO DSLRS are
supported by CHDK.

Holy fuck are you ever a useless idiot. After you were born how the hell
did you even manage to find a tit to suckle on. Darwinism should have taken
you out, right then and there.

== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 9:19 pm
From: Savageduck

On 2009-06-12 21:02:11 -0700, Savageduck is a fucking idiot and just
proved it <sdiafi@address.com> said:

> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:46:52 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-06-12 20:01:06 -0700, J.K. <jk@place.org> said:
>>
>>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:48:09 -0700, Savageduck
>>> <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2009-06-12 17:08:20 -0700, Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls
>>>> <nocontact@noaddress.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest telephoto
>>>>>> lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but have had
>>>>>> trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and more to
>>>>>> develop "experiments".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st century, and
>>>>>> go digital.
>>>>>> <--------->
>>>>
>>>> <-----Diatribe snipped------>
>>>>
>>>>> If still in doubt about what you can do with any of the 45+ models of CHDK
>>>>> equipped P&S cameras just browse a few pages of the 9,500+ "World's Best
>>>>> CHDK Photos" at this link:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk
>>>>>
>>>>> It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot
>>>>> type" P&S cameras.
>>>>
>>>> If you actually take the trouble to check on the great majority of
>>>> these admittedly fine images, the metadata reveals that most of them
>>>> were captured with D300's & D700's nary a P&S in the bunch.
>>>
>>> Yet another POS deceptive liar DSLR-Troll.
>>
>> Oh well! Check on the metadata on any of thes right from the site you provided:
>> http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/nikon/Interesting
>
> You STUPID FUCKING MORON! Can't you even see that you changed the search
> URL to all Nikon tags? NO Nikons are supported by CHDK. NO DSLRS are
> supported by CHDK.
>
> Holy fuck are you ever a useless idiot. After you were born how the hell
> did you even manage to find a tit to suckle on. Darwinism should have taken
> you out, right then and there.

Hey! It's your site.
Methinks you doth protest too much. Sort of hoisted on your own petard.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 10:55 pm
From: Bob Larter

Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>> Kris K.
>
>
> Go with any of the excellent super-zoom P&S cameras (and ditch your old

Kris, please ignore this loon. He hangs out in this group purely to
complain about DSLRS. If you're already used to an SLR, you really don't
want to downgrade to a digicam.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 10:59 pm
From: Bob Larter

Savageduck wrote:
> On 2009-06-12 17:08:20 -0700, Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls
> <nocontact@noaddress.com> said:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest
>>> telephoto
>>> lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but
>>> have had
>>> trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and
>>> more to
>>> develop "experiments".
>>>
>>> So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st
>>> century, and
>>> go digital.
>>> <--------->
>
> <-----Diatribe snipped------>
>
>> If still in doubt about what you can do with any of the 45+ models of
>> CHDK
>> equipped P&S cameras just browse a few pages of the 9,500+ "World's Best
>> CHDK Photos" at this link:
>>
>> http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk
>>
>> It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot
>> type" P&S cameras.
>
> If you actually take the trouble to check on the great majority of these
> admittedly fine images, the metadata reveals that most of them were
> captured with D300's & D700's nary a P&S in the bunch.

Gee, so the P&S troll was talking through his arse again? What a surprise.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 11:00 pm
From: DSLR-Troll Killer

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:55:31 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>>> Kris K.
>>
>>
>> Go with any of the excellent super-zoom P&S cameras (and ditch your old
>
>Kris, please ignore this loon. He hangs out in this group purely to
>complain about DSLRS. If you're already used to an SLR, you really don't
>want to downgrade to a digicam.

Dear Resident-Troll,

Many (new & improved) points outlined below completely disprove your usual
resident-troll bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or
don't read it and continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a
virtual-photographer newsgroup-troll and a fool.

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 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."

== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 11:03 pm
From: Bob Larter

J.K. wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:48:09 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-06-12 17:08:20 -0700, Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls
>> <nocontact@noaddress.com> said:
>>
>>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello!
>>>>
>>>> I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest telephoto
>>>> lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but have had
>>>> trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and more to
>>>> develop "experiments".
>>>>
>>>> So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st century, and
>>>> go digital.
>>>> <--------->
>> <-----Diatribe snipped------>
>>
>>> If still in doubt about what you can do with any of the 45+ models of CHDK
>>> equipped P&S cameras just browse a few pages of the 9,500+ "World's Best
>>> CHDK Photos" at this link:
>>>
>>> http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk
>>>
>>> It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot
>>> type" P&S cameras.
>> If you actually take the trouble to check on the great majority of
>> these admittedly fine images, the metadata reveals that most of them
>> were captured with D300's & D700's nary a P&S in the bunch.
>
> Yet another POS deceptive liar DSLR-Troll.

Still waiting to see a few of your no-doubt magnificent photos, kook.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 11:03 pm
From: Educating the Idiots

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:59:43 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2009-06-12 17:08:20 -0700, Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls
>> <nocontact@noaddress.com> said:
>>
>>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello!
>>>>
>>>> I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest
>>>> telephoto
>>>> lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but
>>>> have had
>>>> trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and
>>>> more to
>>>> develop "experiments".
>>>>
>>>> So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st
>>>> century, and
>>>> go digital.
>>>> <--------->
>>
>> <-----Diatribe snipped------>
>>
>>> If still in doubt about what you can do with any of the 45+ models of
>>> CHDK
>>> equipped P&S cameras just browse a few pages of the 9,500+ "World's Best
>>> CHDK Photos" at this link:
>>>
>>> http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk
>>>
>>> It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot
>>> type" P&S cameras.
>>
>> If you actually take the trouble to check on the great majority of these
>> admittedly fine images, the metadata reveals that most of them were
>> captured with D300's & D700's nary a P&S in the bunch.
>
>Gee, so the P&S troll was talking through his arse again? What a surprise.

Dear Resident-Troll,

Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics
that befit this newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and
posts:

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."

==============================================================================
TOPIC: low light movie works better than low light still photos why?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/fd33b306beae64ab?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 10:30 pm
From: Bob Larter

John Navas wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:18:52 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
> wrote in <4a31d72c$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:42:25 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
>>> wrote in <4a308b31$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>>
>>>> John Navas wrote:
>
>>>>> Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact
>>>>> camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of
>>>>> low light stage photography. <http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg>
>>>> That's very good for a compact camera, but only ISO 800. I routinely
>>>> shoot at ISO 1600, then push the RAW image another stop or two.
>>> I routinely shoot at 1-2 stops wider than a roughly comparable dSLR
>>> lens, which makes up for the difference.
>> In my case, I'm usually also shooting wide open with F1.4 or F1.8
>> primes. It's more case of available darkness than available light. ;^)
>
> Had you checked the EXIF data of my image, you would have found that
> I was much too far away to use a 50 mm lens. ;)

According to your EXIF, your 35mm equivalent FL was 200mm. On my 1Dmk2,
I could've used my EF135mm/F2L for an equivalent 175mm @ F2. Or I
could've dug out the 10D, used the same lens for an effective 216mm @
F2. ;^)

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 10:49 pm
From: A Parade of DSLR-Idiots

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:30:50 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:18:52 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
>> wrote in <4a31d72c$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:42:25 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote in <4a308b31$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>>>
>>>>> John Navas wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Another solution, less radical and expensive, is to upgrade to a compact
>>>>>> camera with better low light performance. My FZ28 does a good job of
>>>>>> low light stage photography. <http://i42.tinypic.com/2wfsqo6.jpg>
>>>>> That's very good for a compact camera, but only ISO 800. I routinely
>>>>> shoot at ISO 1600, then push the RAW image another stop or two.
>>>> I routinely shoot at 1-2 stops wider than a roughly comparable dSLR
>>>> lens, which makes up for the difference.
>>> In my case, I'm usually also shooting wide open with F1.4 or F1.8
>>> primes. It's more case of available darkness than available light. ;^)
>>
>> Had you checked the EXIF data of my image, you would have found that
>> I was much too far away to use a 50 mm lens. ;)
>
>According to your EXIF, your 35mm equivalent FL was 200mm. On my 1Dmk2,
>I could've used my EF135mm/F2L for an equivalent 175mm @ F2. Or I
>could've dug out the 10D, used the same lens for an effective 216mm @
>F2. ;^)

While having to haul another 4 lbs. of weight (3 to 4 times more weight
than any whole P&S camera alone), this isn't even considering the annoying
weight and size of your DSLR brick added in. Then being stopped at the door
because they're not going to let you use it during a public performance.
Preventing you from disturbing everyone with the loud and obnoxious
clattering mirror and shutter.

So yes, you could have used it, but certainly not to get any photos. You
could have obtained exercise and disappointment perhaps, but no photos.

You DSLR fools are all alike. Never once considering reality.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: New Mandate: The Road Less Travelled, Due July 19th, 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b358cb0f0fb31833?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 11:20 pm
From: Bob Larter

Critic wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:51:48 -0400, tony cooper
> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:50:31 -0400, "Bowser" <up@gone.now> wrote:
>>
>>> "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:de619d8b-92d0-4676-bdba-1e7182b7700b@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> A literal interpretation of this mandate will produce a lot of tired,
>>>> cliched photographs of dirt roads, walking paths, etc..
>>>> The prohibition against archived shots might make this one, "The
>>>> Mandate Less Entered."
>>> Like most of them now...
>>>
>>> We tried Filters, and got marginal response. Punography, the mandate many
>>> considered to be awful, got 11 entries while Filters, something deemed to be
>>> easier, got 18. Wow. I'm at a loss as to how to encourage participation,
>>> given my time constraints. Aside from making it completely open week to week
>>> with no restriction on archive shots, that is...
>>>
>> I doubt if there is anything you can do to encourage participation.
>> There are posters here who are willing to post their photographs and
>> be subjected to praise or criticism, and there are posters here who
>> are afraid to do so. The latter group includes some posters who
>> natter on and on about the techniques of photography, but never post
>> their own work to show that they can actually put those techniques
>> into practice. They are usually adamant about being right about
>> everything, but won't show the pudding.
>
>
> I'll only use my valuable time on critiquing the rare few photographers
> that might show a hint of prowess, deserving of a bit of apprenticeship.
> ("When the student is ready the teacher will appear.") Otherwise I'm busy
> creating my own photography.

None of which you have the courage to show us. Gee, I wonder why?

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 11:21 pm
From: Bob Larter

Critic wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:06:14 -0400, tony cooper
> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 04:45:25 -0500, Critic <critique@someaddress.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:51:48 -0400, tony cooper
>>> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:50:31 -0400, "Bowser" <up@gone.now> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:de619d8b-92d0-4676-bdba-1e7182b7700b@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> A literal interpretation of this mandate will produce a lot of tired,
>>>>>> cliched photographs of dirt roads, walking paths, etc..
>>>>>> The prohibition against archived shots might make this one, "The
>>>>>> Mandate Less Entered."
>>>>> Like most of them now...
>>>>>
>>>>> We tried Filters, and got marginal response. Punography, the mandate many
>>>>> considered to be awful, got 11 entries while Filters, something deemed to be
>>>>> easier, got 18. Wow. I'm at a loss as to how to encourage participation,
>>>>> given my time constraints. Aside from making it completely open week to week
>>>>> with no restriction on archive shots, that is...
>>>>>
>>>> I doubt if there is anything you can do to encourage participation.
>>>> There are posters here who are willing to post their photographs and
>>>> be subjected to praise or criticism, and there are posters here who
>>>> are afraid to do so. The latter group includes some posters who
>>>> natter on and on about the techniques of photography, but never post
>>>> their own work to show that they can actually put those techniques
>>>> into practice. They are usually adamant about being right about
>>>> everything, but won't show the pudding.
>>>
>>> I'll only use my valuable time on critiquing the rare few photographers
>>> that might show a hint of prowess, deserving of a bit of apprenticeship.
>>> ("When the student is ready the teacher will appear.") Otherwise I'm busy
>>> creating my own photography. I let the scrapshooters try to drag themselves
>>> up by their own bootstraps. They'll figure it out someday--or not.
>>>
>>> Most likely not, judging by the dreck that is routinely posted for SI.
>> I am extremely flattered that you took some of your valuable time and
>> read my post. I am practically hugging myself with joy over the fact
>> that you've taken even *more* time and crafted an individual reply to
>> my post.
>
> Finally. One of the multitudes of crapshooter internet-cretins that knows
> their real position in life. About time. You show promise by this alone,
> little of it, but little is better than none.

*Whooosh!*

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en