On 6/13/2018 2:56 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:


smartphones can do *much* more than any p&s camera could ever dream of,
other than having an optical zoom lens.

That depends on what one considers a p&s camera.

the normal and widely accepted definition, i.e., not an slr or
mirrorless and not a phone.

That includes a lot of cameras that are much better than smartphones and
even some DSLRs, so it makes your statement false.

Generalizations are
useless.

that is a generalization itself, so therefore, by your own definition,
it's useless.

It is when it's troll-snipped like that. The context is in refutation of
your usage, which, as once again, you've shown that your usage of "p&s"
is false.

the reality is that generalizations are useful, but one must understand
what the message is and not try to find a lone exception just to argue.

Which is exactly what your troll-snipping accomplishes, so you should
follow your own advice.

There are some DSLRs that have less capability than what some
people would call "p&s" cameras because they have better lenses, more
control options, and their limitations may not matter for the intended use.

or their limitations prevent the intended use or the difference in
quality isn't anything anyone would ever notice.

Which is the opposite of what I stated, so I don't know why you want to
argue about it.

the comparison was not between an slr and a p&s, but rather a
smartphone and p&s.

someone choosing to use a p&s or a smartphone isn't interested in
better lenses, more control options, etc.

False. Someone choosing a good quality p&s probably knows what they're
buying and what they'll do with it.

--
best regards,

Neil