The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

L.Vicks (aka Keoeeit/anti-dslr-troll/Vern/X-Man/Baumbadier/Casiobear) wrote:
Their virgin mary was just a name they carved over the name of Isis on her
statues. The virgin birth was stolen from a more ancient Pagan Roman legend. The
"resurrection" was a *******ization of the holiday of Eostre, the Pagan Goddess
of spring, to celebrate the resurrection of life in a northern climate, a
holiday over 3500 years old. No mother, no birth, no resurrection = no christ.

But besides that:
(snip)

Just FTR, our troll keeps denying he is 'Keoeeit' and that he hasn't
been banned from forums, and yet.....

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...=299200&page=4

Snap.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:16:27 +1000, Mark Thomas
wrote:

L.Vicks (aka Keoeeit/anti-dslr-troll/Vern/X-Man/Baumbadier/Casiobear) wrote:
Their virgin mary was just a name they carved over the name of Isis on her
statues. The virgin birth was stolen from a more ancient Pagan Roman legend. The
"resurrection" was a *******ization of the holiday of Eostre, the Pagan Goddess
of spring, to celebrate the resurrection of life in a northern climate, a
holiday over 3500 years old. No mother, no birth, no resurrection = no christ.

But besides that:
(snip)

Just FTR, our troll keeps denying he is 'Keoeeit' and that he hasn't
been banned from forums, and yet.....

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...=299200&page=4

Snap.

LOL!!! Where do you think I copied it from?

Gawd are you a ****ing idiot!

LOL!!!!!

Thanks for the Solstice Laugh! At your expense too! LOL!!!!!!!

TrollKillers (aka
Keoeeit/anti-dslr-troll/Vern/X-Man/Baumbadier/Casiobear) wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 10:16:27 +1000, Mark Thomas
wrote:

L.Vicks (aka Keoeeit/anti-dslr-troll/Vern/X-Man/Baumbadier/Casiobear) wrote:
Their virgin mary was just a name they carved over the name of Isis on her
statues. The virgin birth was stolen from a more ancient Pagan Roman legend. The
"resurrection" was a *******ization of the holiday of Eostre, the Pagan Goddess
of spring, to celebrate the resurrection of life in a northern climate, a
holiday over 3500 years old. No mother, no birth, no resurrection = no christ.

But besides that:
(snip)

Just FTR, our troll keeps denying he is 'Keoeeit' and that he hasn't
been banned from forums, and yet.....

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...=299200&page=4

Snap.

LOL!!! Where do you think I copied it from?

Yep, obviously, pure coincidence. That link just pops right up if you
are hunting down info on Eostre or paganism.. oh yes indeedy..

Or maybe you just idolise Keoeeit because of your remarkably similar
interests, and have all his wisdom 'favorited' and ready to go? If so,
you might want to pop over and hook up with him - I'm pretty sure he
runs a hugely successful site under his own name.... (O:

John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 07:01:40 -0600, "HEMI-Powered" wrote
in :

David, I'd rather not get involved in parts of this debate but what
seems to be happening is some disagreement over the interpretation
of one or two specific images that John is somehow translating into
the perception that his choice of camera type is being attacked. Of
course, it is not as best I can see. Quality is quality is quality,
and not is not is not. Since I have no skin in the game, I'm not
going to further engage.

With all due respect, Jerry, there's a world of difference between a
fair and balanced critique, and focusing on just negative issues, real
and imagined.

You can argue that a Ford Escort is just as fast as a Corvette, and
you can argue that a P&S is just as good as an SLR, but the truth
will still be that a bigger engine makes for a faster car and a bigger
sensor makes for better image capture.

--
Ray Fischer

On 28 Dec 2008 07:11:29 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:

With all due respect, Jerry, there's a world of difference between a
fair and balanced critique, and focusing on just negative issues, real
and imagined.

You can argue that a Ford Escort is just as fast as a Corvette, and
you can argue that a P&S is just as good as an SLR, but the truth
will still be that a bigger engine makes for a faster car and a bigger
sensor makes for better image capture.

Fatally flawed analogy that's typical of compact camera denigration by
dSLR fans. You must feel very threatened by them.

--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John

On 12/28/08 10:02 AM, in article ,
"John Navas" wrote:

On 28 Dec 2008 07:11:29 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:

With all due respect, Jerry, there's a world of difference between a
fair and balanced critique, and focusing on just negative issues, real
and imagined.

You can argue that a Ford Escort is just as fast as a Corvette, and
you can argue that a P&S is just as good as an SLR, but the truth
will still be that a bigger engine makes for a faster car and a bigger
sensor makes for better image capture.

Fatally flawed analogy that's typical of compact camera denigration by
dSLR fans. You must feel very threatened by them.
Fish-monger is shaking in his boots, NavASS...

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:19:57 -0600, hank-talden
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:40:17 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:43:04 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:17:01 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:
[]
Please don't be disingenuous and demeaning, David. Even though it
shouldn't matter, I've explained and documented how and why that term
is offensive.

You know perfectly well that if I say P&S it simply refers to a type of
camera by a common nomenclature.

No more than you're wife knows you don't really mean any harm when you
tell her those pants she picked make her look fat.

I use a P&S camera, and the term is not
in the least offensive,

To you. As in the case of Vista, you don't seem to think the
experiences of others are at all important. "No skin off my nose."

so please don't take as such. Just translate it
when you read it to a term you see fit.

In other words, the negative connotation of your term is my problem.
How nice.


The difference, John, is that the term isn't negative. It's you who
interpret it that way.

Nobody has told you that your choice of camera makes you look fat or
stupid or anything derogatory. The only thing I've seen people take
issue with you over is your claim that your ______ (call it what
makes you feel better) camera gives better results in your hands than
what professional photographers can do with more elaborate and capable
gear. That's all it is, really.

You only think that your favorite imaginary cameras are more "capable" because
you are incapable with other cameras. Many professionals also use P&S cameras
for their work today. Editors and audience none the wiser. People like you who
are too stupid and inexperienced to tell the difference.

But then you, like all the other DSLR-Trolls like you, live in your mommy's
basement. You wouldn't even know what real pros use today. Your only access to
knowledge is what you hear from fellow DSLR-Trolls online.

Many P&S cameras have much more elaborate capabilities in them than any DSLR
ever will. The *only* advantage that the DSLR has over the P&S today is the
larger sensor, which *might* give you a 2 stop ISO advantage at best. That's
hardly anything that will sway a pro's purchasing decision if the camera can
excel in so many other areas (quiet, light, compact, low-cost, high-speed flash
sync, no dirt on sensor, wider apertures at longer focal-lengths, etc. etc... ).

Keep sticking your head up your ass so you won't have to look at reality, it
becomes you.

Even without your boring list, you are all too obvious. Where are
all these pictures of yours that show you know what you are talking
about? Oh, that's right, they've already been posted and shown for
what they are.

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:29:16 -0600, Erin J. R.
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 17:41:03 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 07:47:22 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 07:01:40 -0600, "HEMI-Powered" wrote
in :

David, I'd rather not get involved in parts of this debate but what
seems to be happening is some disagreement over the interpretation
of one or two specific images that John is somehow translating into
the perception that his choice of camera type is being attacked. Of
course, it is not as best I can see. Quality is quality is quality,
and not is not is not. Since I have no skin in the game, I'm not
going to further engage.

With all due respect, Jerry, there's a world of difference between a
fair and balanced critique, and focusing on just negative issues, real
and imagined. Worse, this wasn't about images I posted, it was about
bashing of an image dredged up from my website by someone looking for a
bad image to put down, and after I had explained the image was not
representative of the camera. This was then compounded by posting a
good image claimed to be comparable (on only superficial grounds).
If it's not an "attack", then it's at least an unfair putdown that
strongly suggests bias.

Regardless of your mistaken impression of the motives of others, it is
only a comparison of cameras... NOT you or your ability. Why do you
keep making it to be so?

Many of your pictures do in fact demonstrate a keen eye for
photography. It's just that you could be doing a much better job at
it with a better camera.

You've been told before that the images in question were taken AT
RANDOM from your website. They were NOT chosen to be the worst
possible example in order to put you down. There were many worse
images there to choose from if the goal was just to be nit picking.
(Again, that refers to the CAMERA, not to you.)

And the same comments have applied toward some of the images that you
specifically chose as examples.


When I shoot an event, I often do a lot of snaps for competitors, and
because of limited time between the event and post-event socializing,
put them through a crude automated correction and compression that
results in a pleasing screen/slide-show image, but that degrades the
image at the pixel level. Thus these images are not representative of
the camera, and using them to put it down is unfair bashing.


But don't you see, this just further illustrates the point. Images
from a better camera simply don't need the same level of post
processing correction to make them look acceptable.


Self-evident. You've just proved that DSLR's are not the better camera.

Instead of using the lower quality of DSLR gear where you must resort to tedious
editing of the RAW data to get any image worth using out of it, you can very
often use the properly produced JPG file right from the P&S camera.

By your own comment you have just proved that P&S cameras are better than any
DSLR, otherwise you wouldn't need your camera to produce RAW files.

Get your dslr-troll-schtick worked out. You ****ed-up royally on this one.

It's amazing how you can so consistently stand on your head and then
claim that the rest of the world is upside-down.

We're still waiting for those pictures of yours that are so in demand
as the professional you claim yourself to be.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 08:02:39 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On 28 Dec 2008 07:11:29 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:

With all due respect, Jerry, there's a world of difference between a
fair and balanced critique, and focusing on just negative issues, real
and imagined.

You can argue that a Ford Escort is just as fast as a Corvette, and
you can argue that a P&S is just as good as an SLR, but the truth
will still be that a bigger engine makes for a faster car and a bigger
sensor makes for better image capture.

Fatally flawed analogy that's typical of compact camera denigration by
dSLR fans. You must feel very threatened by them.


John, why do you have such a fixation on the idea that dslr fans are
"threatened" by your camera? That's utter nonsense.

Face the facts, a larger sensor yields better image quality, period.
Perhaps you are the one who feels so threatened that you can't come to
grips with that simple truth?

On 27 Dec 2008 11:06:35 GMT, Chris Malcolm
wrote:

Stephen Bishop wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 09:08:00 -0800, SMS
wrote:

Stephen Bishop wrote:

And if the word "Christmas" offends anyone, too bad. Jesus is the
reason for the season. Deal with it! :-)

It doesn't bug people, it amuses them. Jesus has nothing to do with the
season. Jesus was born in the Spring or Summer. People complain about
the commercialization of Christmas when in reality that's the only part
that makes any sense.

I don't think anyone believes Jesus was born on December 25th. But for
various historical reasons that what has been chosen to celebrate the
event since nobody knows the exact date. There is a reason it is
called CHRIST-mas, after all. Otherwise it would just be a very
expensive way to note the passing of the winter solstice.

Are you sure that the Christian connection is the reason for the
expense?

I didn't say it was.