PhotoBanter.com - View Single Post

**John McWilliams** · September 25th 09, 10:15 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems

wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:
wrote: Neil Harrington wrote:
wrote in message
...

I think MOST guys don't think about the fact women has smaller
hands and we like a smaller camera.

Right. Why would we?

Uh, maybe because 50% of the population might find this size works
for them? What you have suggested here is there is no reason for this
camera to exist since it doesn't fit your hands.

Hello, Stephanie! Welcome!

It's notable to see a [new?] [lady?] in the NG feel so comfortable
taking on long time posters in such a confrontational manner. Or have
you posted here before under a different name?

New yes. Lady yes.

I guess after reading Neil personally attacking people in other threads
for their opinions being different than his narrow minded view of the
world, this comment he made here was no different. Seems quite a few
people are guilty of this? Like Allen seems to assume EVERYONE wants to
make prints 30X40 or larger! It's my experience that -MOST- people
rarely print larger than 4X6 or 5X7. Given the size of my home, I have
no interest in printing larger than 11X14. The main reason I use a Dslr
is shutter lag and having some control.

It seems some people can't accept that MAYBE just because something
doesn't fit their needs, this same thing might be perfect for someone
else. Whether it's health care or a small camera.

Some people have smaller hands (like 50% of the population) so these
smaller form factor cameras are much nicer to use. It might not fit in a
man pocket, but some of these will fit into a womans purse. To try to
argue that some are too small, yet not small enough and shouldn't be
considered, is assuming EVERYONE is just like them.

The other thing that gets old is people trying to argue about something
either you can't see in the final print or you'd (seriously) have to
take a loupe to a print to see. Maybe the math and numbers would prove
their argument (pixel peeping anyone?), but if you can't SEE this in the
results, who cares? Last I checked photography was a visual art form :-)

Instead of seeing people discussing various optics or something you CAN
see, 90% of the threads are about "My canon has less noise at 1600iso
than your nikon" sorta things. That really doesn't help anyone.

You are right in each and every paragraph, although I don't experience
Neil as generally on the attack. There's no one with a perfect posting
style here, except maybe you and me.

I am wont to make absurd statements without a smiley, seeing where the
whoosh may fall....

I hope the 'extras' here won't deter you.

--
john mcwilliams

Usenet is dead; film at eleven.