Olympus Point and Shoot out performs DSLRs

On Nov 16, 7:46 am, John Navas wrote:
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/captains-cabin.htm
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/panasonic-red.htm

Broken links, at the moment. (Which is probably a good thing.)

Using professional web-hosting for these sites, OP? Maybe you should
ask for your money back.

Those links have worked every time I've tried them.
And how *exactly* does that prove they were working when I checked?
And how *exactly* does that prove they were working when Pete D had
the same problem:

Newsgroups: aus.photo, rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Pete D"
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:50:49 +1100
Local: Wed, Nov 14 2007 6:50 pm
Subject: More Panasonic P&S perfection

Sorry but you don't seem to exist!
Server not found
Firefox can't find the server at www.douglasjames.com.au.

Oh look, "evidence". Can you see that it wasn't just me?

You seem to be the only one.
Oh, really? So I guess that thing above was just my imagination.
Shall I post the exact link? Do you want another?

Apology forthcoming?

I can guarantee that at the time I posted my reply they were
down, and yes, for me. So it *could* have been my connection. But
given the other reports, what do you think is more likely?

I think an ISP or Internet transit problem or even just cockpit error
are as likely as a server problem in the complete absence of any
evidence. Instead of adding evidence, you added an insult.

My 'insult' was "Sheesh." Your reply was "Insults are childish and
inappropriate at best, and just make you look
foolish when you're so far off the mark". Go ask an *unbiased
observer* which one is the most insulting... Hint - would you be
insulted if I called you a childish fool..?

instead done some checking, you might have found:
The use of "done some checking" is rather funny, given that *you*
didn't. Then you post a quote that shows absolutely ****-all about
what was happening when Pete and I had a problem, along with some
domain provider advertising spiel that has sweet FA to do with it.

Actually, that line:
Internap and Dotster are both "professional" operations, and
the multiple IP addresses are a load-balancing server farm
...makes you sound so much like Doug, you could be a pigeon pair.

Sheesh.

Insults are childish and inappropriate at best, and just make you look
foolish when you're so far off the mark

"Sheesh" upsets you so? A little fragile, by chance? (O: And just
who was off the mark again?

But, anyway, if it floats your boat to decide there wasn't a problem
because:
- *you* didn't see it
- you worship Doug
- you worship Internap and Dotster
- you doubt the word of at least 2 others
... then your position and approach to life is quite clear. Do carry
on!

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 02:45:03 -0800, mark.thomas.7 wrote:

On Nov 16, 7:46 am, John Navas wrote:
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/captains-cabin.htm
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/panasonic-red.htm

Broken links, at the moment. (Which is probably a good thing.)

Using professional web-hosting for these sites, OP? Maybe you
should ask for your money back.

Those links have worked every time I've tried them.
And how *exactly* does that prove they were working when I checked? And
how *exactly* does that prove they were working when Pete D had the same
problem:

Newsgroups: aus.photo, rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Pete D"
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:50:49 +1100 Local: Wed, Nov 14 2007 6:50 pm
Subject: More Panasonic P&S perfection

Sorry but you don't seem to exist!
Server not found
Firefox can't find the server at www.douglasjames.com.au.

Oh look, "evidence". Can you see that it wasn't just me?

You seem to be the only one.
Oh, really? So I guess that thing above was just my imagination. Shall
I post the exact link? Do you want another?

Apology forthcoming?

I can guarantee that at the time I posted my reply they were down, and
yes, for me. So it *could* have been my connection. But given the
other reports, what do you think is more likely?

I think an ISP or Internet transit problem or even just cockpit error
are as likely as a server problem in the complete absence of any
evidence. Instead of adding evidence, you added an insult.

My 'insult' was "Sheesh." Your reply was "Insults are childish and
inappropriate at best, and just make you look foolish when you're so far
off the mark". Go ask an *unbiased observer* which one is the most
insulting... Hint - would you be insulted if I called you a childish
fool..?

instead done some checking, you might have found:
The use of "done some checking" is rather funny, given that *you*
didn't. Then you post a quote that shows absolutely ****-all about what
was happening when Pete and I had a problem, along with some domain
provider advertising spiel that has sweet FA to do with it.

Actually, that line:
Internap and Dotster are both "professional" operations, and
the multiple IP addresses are a load-balancing server farm
..makes you sound so much like Doug, you could be a pigeon pair.

Sheesh.

Insults are childish and inappropriate at best, and just make you look
foolish when you're so far off the mark

"Sheesh" upsets you so? A little fragile, by chance? (O: And just who
was off the mark again?

But, anyway, if it floats your boat to decide there wasn't a problem
because:
- *you* didn't see it
- you worship Doug
- you worship Internap and Dotster
- you doubt the word of at least 2 others .. then your position and
approach to life is quite clear. Do carry on!

Ha, ha ha. ROTFL.
The DNS you are hooked into and Pete's ISP leaches off is notourious for
taking anything up to 2 weeks to refresh itself. Saves Singapore head
office money. Not unlike AOL and their "keep it within" attitude.

Appology? LOL. what about *MY* appology for the lies and defamation you
spread about me? You don't seem to like it when someone else points out
your childish and pedantic rantings are just that.

Douglas
--
If you don't defend your rights... You end up without any!

Off topic crap.

On Nov 16, 6:55 am, Douglas wrote:
Hullo Charlie... Pop out and take a photo of an incandecent lamp
Do you mean "incandescent", oh illiterate one?

Once again, Mr talentless, it's the area *around* the lamp that is
blown to hell, and a *simple* HDR technique would have tidied that
area up - if you did stitching, why on earth didn't you take different
exposures for the *real* problem?
Do you *really* need an example??? If anyone else needs one, say so,
and I'll do it. I might even see if I can do the same shot, if that
room is still available for viewing on the Diamantina..

I get the idea your
frequent trips back to SA are probably for access visits.
Check that one with your legal team for defamation, did you Doug? As
an expert on bullying, what would *you* call a comment like that? I'd
call it .. pretty foolish.

And you don't
seem to live at the address on file with Optus.
Well, now, assuming Optus was my ISP, you would have to have a court
order to get that info from them. If that was the case, how could the
address possibly be wrong - do you understand how broadband
connections work, Douglas? In other words, you just proved you are a
liar. Again. Your fantasy world is just plain sad and ridiculous,
Doug.

I've got a package of stuff for you.
You already have a valid address for me, Doug. Why have you *never*
sent anything to it?

The photos on your web site really are rubbish mate
I know I'm on the right track then.

You see, Doug, the difference between you and me, and the reason no-
one else joins in with your tirades (still haven't noticed that?), is
that I don't flog my site here, nor do I post stupid claims and even
stupider examples, nor do I pontificate about how I know everything.
Hey, I even enjoy being proved wrong! - it means I learn stuff.

See if *you* can do that one day, Doug. (As in, try to prove me
wrong, and also you could try to actually learn something.)

Right now you are just a laughing stock
showing jealousy and poor photography.

When someone *I respect* says the same thing.. I will listen.
When you say it, I know I'm going great!

You only have to look around to see the 'respect' *you* now have.
Enjoy!

On Nov 16, 9:08 am, "Martin Riddle" wrote:
All other negative comments beside. Olympus makes damm good PS's. I've been impressed for many years with them.

Agreed. But I think they may have faltered after the C5050 and C8080,
which remains one of my favorite cameras ever. The new 550 (?) has
fallen into the same trap that every manufacturer seems to have - they
just want to add pixels and let the noise increase... And they pushed
the lens a little too far.

There's something wonderful about a good Olympus lens, and they have
made quite a few that fall into that category.

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 06:27:01 -0800 (PST), Don Stauffer in Minnesota
wrote in
:

On Nov 15, 5:55 am, Jake Helms wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 06:32:48 -0500, "Mark B."
wrote:
I find it amusing that you feel the need to put down an entire group of
owners with every post. Why are you so insecure?

The DSLR fools can dish it out, but they can't take it, eh?

Why must this group be so competitive? It used to be the "film
forever" folks vs the "digital is the only way to go" folks. Now it
is DSLR vs P & S! Sort of leaves rangefinder folks out in the cold,
though.

It comes from childish mine-is-better bragging by DSLR advocates who
feel the need to feed their egos by putting down non-DSLRs and those who
use them at every opportunity, like wearing a (fake) Rolex to be more
cool.


But the truth is this thread - and others like it - are typically started by
P&S users, actually one particular P&S user who seems obsessed with
criticizing DSLR users and baiting them into a pointless debate.

Mark

On Nov 16, 9:00 pm, Douglas wrote:
Ha, ha ha. ROTFL.
The DNS you are hooked into and Pete's ISP leaches off is notourious
Is that meant to be "notorious", Mr Illiterate? Nice grammar, too.

Anyway, then there was SMS:
Newsgroups: aus.photo, rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: SMS $B;[h\J8(B* $B2F(B
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:52:56 -0800
Local: Thurs, Nov 15 2007 12:52 am
Subject: More Panasonic P&S perfection
...
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/more-panasonic.htm
No such site.

But as usual, you are right, Doug (and John N). Everyone else is just
imagining it.

Some folks like to keep their head in their sand. They just don't
want to get it.

Carry on ignoring reality, Doug.

wrote:
On Nov 16, 9:08 am, "Martin Riddle" wrote:
All other negative comments beside. Olympus makes damm good PS's. I've been impressed for many years with them.

Agreed. But I think they may have faltered after the C5050 and C8080,
which remains one of my favorite cameras ever. The new 550 (?) has
fallen into the same trap that every manufacturer seems to have - they
just want to add pixels and let the noise increase... And they pushed
the lens a little too far.
In the current range, all the FE and mju series are made by
Sanyo, not Olympus. Not 100% sure on the SP550/560, but have
my suspicions on them as well. Funny how the Olympus,
Pentax, Nikon and Kodak cameras share the same battery, have
many other similarities (such as button position), and all
release cameras with basically the same specifications at
the same time.

There's something wonderful about a good Olympus lens, and they have
made quite a few that fall into that category.

On Nov 16, 10:26 pm, Doug Jewell wrote:
In the current range, all the FE and mju series are made by
Sanyo, not Olympus. Not 100% sure on the SP550/560, but have
my suspicions on them as well. Funny how the Olympus,
Pentax, Nikon and Kodak cameras share the same battery, have
many other similarities (such as button position), and all
release cameras with basically the same specifications at
the same time.

You've noticed? (O;

Yes, point taken about the FE's and mju's.

I was referring to their top-of-range P&S cameras. I owned (two!)
C8080's, and they *definitely* were Olympus products (albeit with Sony
sensor).. The lens on the 8080 (28-140 equiv) was superb.

On Nov 15, 11:33 pm, Douglas wrote:
It sort of reminds me of when you got your nackers in a twist over this
pictu http://www.pbase.com/image/88926155
because I'd folded 15% of the left side out to make it more interesting.

Yeah, that's a great shot. Look at it again and see for yourself.


Not only have these two "photoshoped images" sold out from the first
edition but the gorge is currently being printed as I write ...on
wallpaper!

Did they bring a high bid from your London auction at Suckaby's?

How much did this beauty go for?
http://www.pbase.com/helens/image/89020739

Mark B. wrote:

But the truth is this thread - and others like it - are typically started by
P&S users, actually one particular P&S user who seems obsessed with
criticizing DSLR users and baiting them into a pointless debate.

It's only _one_ person that believes it (and even he doesn't really
believe it). By responding, instead of kill-filing, people are
encouraging him to keep trolling.