Remember this notorious picture?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Imagine it blown up to 10' x 12'!

http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/cmos/i [...] ution.html

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 03:14:59 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>WTF is your problem Rich?

That's something I was wondering too. For someone who (iirc) doesn't
actually own a dSLR, Rich spends an inordinate amount of time finding
reasons to criticise them.

Al
--
[This space intentionally left blank]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:22:53 GMT, John A. Stovall
<johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:08:04 +0100, Alan Bremner <alan@domain.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 03:14:59 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>WTF is your problem Rich?
>>
>>That's something I was wondering too. For someone who (iirc) doesn't
>>actually own a dSLR, Rich spends an inordinate amount of time finding
>>reasons to criticise them.
>
>He suffers form DSLR envy...

Not really. I can buy one tomorrow, or could have when I
chose a P&S instead, but I don't think the current offerings of
DSLR are in any way mature enough yet. They all lack features
that they should have, some have some, others have others.
What I do find interesting is that on (for instance) Dpreview,
most of the posts to the DSLR forums concern equipment and what
lens someone should buy next and not about pictures, while in the P&S
forums you see more pictures or actual output from people. Just an
observation.
-Rich

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rich wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:22:53 GMT, John A. Stovall
> <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:08:04 +0100, Alan Bremner <alan@domain.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 03:14:59 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>WTF is your problem Rich?
>>>
>>>That's something I was wondering too. For someone who (iirc) doesn't
>>>actually own a dSLR, Rich spends an inordinate amount of time finding
>>>reasons to criticise them.
>>
>>He suffers form DSLR envy...
>
>
> Not really. I can buy one tomorrow, or could have when I
> chose a P&S instead, but I don't think the current offerings of
> DSLR are in any way mature enough yet.

And pray tell, how a digital P&S is more "mature" than a DSLR. Is it
the smaller sensor? The fact you're limited to the lens it comes with?
The lack of manual control? Or is it just the lower overall price
that's "mature enough"?

> They all lack features
> that they should have, some have some, others have others.

That still doesn't explain why you feel the need to bash them at every
turn. Just because something doesn't suit YOUR needs means it shouldn't
suit anyone else's either?

> What I do find interesting is that on (for instance) Dpreview,
> most of the posts to the DSLR forums concern equipment and what
> lens someone should buy next and not about pictures, while in the P&S
> forums you see more pictures or actual output from people. Just an
> observation.

Maybe because DSLR users don't feel such an overwhelming need to have
their egos stroked. "Oooo, everybody, love my pictures! I've posted
them all for you to see!"

Hmm, I wonder why P&S forums don't contain threads about what lenses to buy?





---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0537-0, 09/12/2005
Tested on: 9/12/2005 8:40:54 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rich wrote:

> >
> >And pray tell, how a digital P&S is more "mature" than a DSLR. Is it
> >the smaller sensor? The fact you're limited to the lens it comes with?
> > The lack of manual control? Or is it just the lower overall price
> >that's "mature enough"?
>
> P&S cameras have matured, except for the sensor. When I bought my
> C-8080, it cost about $1000. An entry level DSLR could have been had
> for $200 more. As for enough manual control, read the specs, then
> come back.

Specs on what? What do YOU consider a mature camera? You never make a
statement to that effect.


> ... I only bash what needs bashing, unfortunately, nearly all DSLRs
> need bashing for one reason or another and they will until they reach
> a certain stage of evolution.

In whose judgment? Yours?

>
> >> What I do find interesting is that on (for instance) Dpreview,
> >> most of the posts to the DSLR forums concern equipment and what
> >> lens someone should buy next and not about pictures, while in the P&S
> >> forums you see more pictures or actual output from people. Just an
> >> observation.
> >
> >Maybe because DSLR users don't feel such an overwhelming need to have
> >their egos stroked. "Oooo, everybody, love my pictures! I've posted
> >them all for you to see!"
>
> Uh huh. More like, Fret, fret, fret! "What if I don't have the
> latest lens, what will people think of me?!!!" Then talk endlessly
> about this or that spec, hardly bothering to actually take pictures
> much. But not all are like that, some actually do good work.
>
> >Hmm, I wonder why P&S forums don't contain threads about what lenses to buy?
>
> I guess the obvious eludes you.
> -Rich

Uh, yeah. Like even the Minolta Dimage 7i I used to have not coming at
all close to the range of lenses I have for my current DSLR, with a
16mm fisheye (effective 24mm) to a 300mm (effective 450mm). The shots
out of my Pentax *istD allow me to quickly and easily print up to 11x14
with no worries about noise. I can shoot in dim light, and see through
the viewfinder with no problem. I don't get a hang and hold when
shooting moving horses, kids, pets, vehicles.

Tell me about what constitutes mature in your little world, Rich? My
Dimage would do none of that, and it was better than pretty good as
small sensor cameras go. Will your 8080 do all those things? Tell us
about how mature your camera is, about how hard it will work, tell us
what you expect to get from a DSLR that you're not getting, why you
expect that, and why you think you should get it.

Then discuss what camera is mature or not.

Oh, yeah. Tell us why the sensor in the P&S/prosumer lines is not yet
mature.

Rich, WTF do you mean by mature? Define your terms, don't just make
statements that are in their essence meaningless because you don't
explain what you're writing about.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

no_name wrote:
> Matt Ion wrote:
>
> > And pray tell, how a digital P&S is more "mature" than a DSLR.
>
> In this context "mature" is defined as "has been around longer"; more
> generations of development cycle.

Cycles may come and go, but where are the developments that make the
camera more mature? Or is it just an older concept, vis a vis digital
cameras, thus deserving of respect because it is creaky in both concept
and implementation.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rich wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:22:53 GMT, John A. Stovall

>>He suffers form DSLR envy...
>
> Not really.

M. Stovall is right. Your spew has no other purpose but to expose your
inadequacies in almost all areas. (So far you have demonstrated an
excellence only in being a moron.)

> I can buy one tomorrow, or could have when I
> chose a P&S instead, but I don't think the current offerings of
> DSLR are in any way mature enough yet.

"Oh, I could have bought that Ferrari, but, like, given the quality of
the roads around here, what rational choice did I have? Toyota Echo
(used) just makes more sense."

> They all lack features
> that they should have, some have some, others have others.

The only feature you are looking at is price, and you can't afford it.
HA HA HA.

> What I do find interesting is that on (for instance) Dpreview,
> most of the posts to the DSLR forums concern equipment and what
> lens someone should buy next and not about pictures, while in the P&S
> forums you see more pictures or actual output from people.

Yes, and we all know that you are only posting images in this forum,
and that absolutely none of your irrational rants are in any way
connected to equipment. When you blather on about "metal" and
"plastic", that's just Art! It has everything to do with the images!
When you babble about how Nikon low-end optics are slightly better than
Canon low-end optics, this isn't equipment you are referring to, but
imagery! Your legacy in this forum is a stream of breathtaking images
you have gathered, and your insightful commentary on the images of
others. You have spoken not one word about equipment per se. A
stellar record of intellectual honesty and restraint!

> Just an observation.

.... that you are an ineducable nitwit. Yes, Rich, I think at this
point everyone is aware of that.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

no_name wrote:

> With respect to Point & Shoot digital cameras, they're simply a MORE
> mature technology than DSLRs.

Please make sense. The P&S camera is an artifact of a market (a human
need) not a technology (the means to satisfy the need). So is the
dSLR. The underlying _technology_ is more or less the same for both,
and hasn't changed much for decades beyond getting slightly better.

> There have been more 12 - 18 month product
> cycles since the introduction of point & shoot digitals than since the
> introduction of DSLRs, although the DSLR started with a leg up since
> many of the engineering problems were already solved in creating the
> point & shoot camera sensors and others were already solved for the 35mm
> film camera.

As soon as you use the word "product", you aren't talking tech, you are
just regurgitating the technobabble from a marketing meeting.

Anyways, this is all foolishness to begin with: this "mature
technology" business is a red-herring being floated by the dingbat
Rich. He doesn't care one way or the other: the problem, from his
perspective, is that he can't _afford_ the equipment.