Camera costs are misleading and under-estimated

Savageduck wrote in
news:201103101831218930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom:

On 2011-03-10 17:53:21 -0800, otter said:


Adobe has a free RAW converter, if you don't want to upgrade.

Yup!
Nothing wrong in using DNG Converter to produce RAW file usable on any
earlier versions of PS which don't support your latest and greatest.
However, I still wonder why this is a concern for Rich, as after nit
picking, there isn't a camera out there he is going to be satisfied
enough with, to buy.

Yep, there are workarounds that are nice to have. Thank *deity* for those
people who dedicate their time to make things easier.

However;
as for Rich's disdain for many things in camera gear, I'd agree that it's a
greed-driven market of throw-away stuff. Even the chdk development for an
older P&S Canon is a valid aftermarket shortcut for getting more abilities
from disabled, obsoleted products.

I am rather disgusted that most consumers today don't seem to care that
their throw-away technology is exactly that. It's built to be obsolete in
less than a few years time when it could be built to last much longer.
Must be a generational attitude. The thing is, people don't have the
appreciation for well-built stuff like they once did. Instead of insisting
on quality, they buy in to the 'pay your way warranty' programs, that are
worded with tricky legalese that makes it harder to redeem on bad product
designs. It's like that auto warranty of years ago went from a free
offering to a pay your way while you finance it and oh, by the way, there's
now a deductible for repairs on each instance of a failure!

It's sickening what we put up with nowdays.



Fortunately, the lenses for cameras can be interchangeable and last through
generations of camera bodies, right?



--
__
SneakyP
To email me, you know what to do.

Supernews, if you get a complaint from a Jamie Baillie, please see:
http://www.canadianisp.ca/jamie_baillie.html

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 04:10:19 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Mar 11, 5:58*am, SneakyP
wrote:
Savageduck wrote innews:201103101831218930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom:

On 2011-03-10 17:53:21 -0800, otter said:

Adobe has a free RAW converter, if you don't want to upgrade.

Yup!
Nothing wrong in using DNG Converter to produce RAW file usable on any
earlier versions of PS which don't support your latest and greatest.
However, I still wonder why this is a concern for Rich, as after nit
picking, there isn't a camera out there he is going to be satisfied
enough with, to buy.

Yep, there are workarounds that are nice to have. *Thank *deity* for those
people who dedicate their time to make things easier.

However;
as for Rich's disdain for many things in camera gear, I'd agree that it's a
greed-driven market of throw-away stuff. *Even the chdk development for an
older P&S Canon is a valid aftermarket shortcut for getting more abilities
from disabled, obsoleted products.

I am rather disgusted that most consumers today don't seem to care that
their throw-away technology is exactly that.

It's only throw away because they want something better next week,
month or year.


It's built to be obsolete in
less than a few years time when it could be built to last much longer.

I don;t think that's true teh evolution of man made prodicts just
happens
to be faster than *biological evolution, it started with factory
farming,
then on to industrialisation .

Must be a generational attitude. *The thing is, people don't have the
appreciation for well-built stuff like they once did.
You can still plough fields by hand or peel your own potatoes.
You can pick and grow you're own fruit and veg too.
As for camera you don't have to use the latest DSLR you can still use
old DSLRs or even old camera my A1 still works even the battery that's
been in it 6 years now still seems OK.
My first digital camera a was 320X240 and could store ~15 images, if I
could find it, it might still work.

*Instead of insisting
on quality, they buy in to the 'pay your way warranty' programs, that are
worded with tricky legalese that makes it harder to redeem on bad product
designs. It's like that auto warranty of years ago went from a free
offering to a pay your way while you finance it and oh, by the way, there's
now a deductible for repairs on each instance of a failure!

So don;t buy then it's the buyers choice.
There's very little in life you are forced to buy.



It's sickening what we put up with nowdays.

it's because you want to that's all.


Fortunately, the lenses for cameras can be interchangeable and last through
generations of camera bodies, right?

Why do you need to keep buying camera bodies ?


Like all DSLR buyers (and trolls, they're very much the same you know),
they keep hoping and hoping and hoping that the next one they buy might
have a secret "talent-button" hidden on it somewhere. When they find it
does not they get another and check again ... repeat on ad-infinauseum.
They've all still sadly, wrongly, and ignorantly convinced themselves that
it's the camera that defines the ability of the photographer and the value
of his craft.

They could never be more foolish and wrong.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 04:10:19 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Mar 11, 5:58*am, SneakyP
wrote:
Savageduck wrote innews:201103101831218930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom:

On 2011-03-10 17:53:21 -0800, otter said:

Adobe has a free RAW converter, if you don't want to upgrade.

Yup!
Nothing wrong in using DNG Converter to produce RAW file usable on any
earlier versions of PS which don't support your latest and greatest.
However, I still wonder why this is a concern for Rich, as after nit
picking, there isn't a camera out there he is going to be satisfied
enough with, to buy.

Yep, there are workarounds that are nice to have. *Thank *deity* for those
people who dedicate their time to make things easier.

However;
as for Rich's disdain for many things in camera gear, I'd agree that it's a
greed-driven market of throw-away stuff. *Even the chdk development for an
older P&S Canon is a valid aftermarket shortcut for getting more abilities
from disabled, obsoleted products.

I am rather disgusted that most consumers today don't seem to care that
their throw-away technology is exactly that.

It's only throw away because they want something better next week,
month or year.


It's built to be obsolete in
less than a few years time when it could be built to last much longer.

I don;t think that's true teh evolution of man made prodicts just
happens
to be faster than *biological evolution, it started with factory
farming,
then on to industrialisation .

Must be a generational attitude. *The thing is, people don't have the
appreciation for well-built stuff like they once did.
You can still plough fields by hand or peel your own potatoes.
You can pick and grow you're own fruit and veg too.
As for camera you don't have to use the latest DSLR you can still use
old DSLRs or even old camera my A1 still works even the battery that's
been in it 6 years now still seems OK.
My first digital camera a was 320X240 and could store ~15 images, if I
could find it, it might still work.

*Instead of insisting
on quality, they buy in to the 'pay your way warranty' programs, that are
worded with tricky legalese that makes it harder to redeem on bad product
designs. It's like that auto warranty of years ago went from a free
offering to a pay your way while you finance it and oh, by the way, there's
now a deductible for repairs on each instance of a failure!

So don;t buy then it's the buyers choice.
There's very little in life you are forced to buy.



It's sickening what we put up with nowdays.

it's because you want to that's all.


Fortunately, the lenses for cameras can be interchangeable and last through
generations of camera bodies, right?

Why do you need to keep buying camera bodies ?


Like all DSLR buyers (and trolls, they're very much the same you know),
they keep hoping and hoping and hoping that the next one they buy might
have a secret "talent-button" hidden on it somewhere. When they find it
does not they get another and check again ... repeat on ad-infinauseum.
They've all still sadly, wrongly, and ignorantly convinced themselves that
it's the camera that defines the ability of the photographer and the value
of his craft.

They could never be more foolish and wrong.


Do you want a perfect example of this? Take Blind Dudley. He has convinced
himself that ONLY if he gets a more expensive camera, then this will
miraculously bestow upon him the ability to take stunning photographs.
Those who have a functioning mind know that this is not true, but that's
not going to stop a blind man from believing this and pursuing it. He can't
even see his own photographs, so he's safe in convincing himself even
further that his photos are improving with more expensive cameras. We've
all seen his results to know that that's not true, not in the least.

How then is the DSLR buyer any different? They have blindly and ignorantly
convinced themselves that only if they get a better camera, a newer camera,
a more expensive camera then their snapshots will eventually become
masterpieces; and will be appreciated by all who are lucky enough to gaze
upon them. We've all seen the SI entries only degrade greatly as cameras
improved over the years to know that this is not true as well.

How much more proof does anyone need.

You will never find a talent-button on any camera, no matter how much it
costs nor how many features it has.

Time for all of you to wake up from your own sad and pitiable delusions.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 05:56:43 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:


That's because it is true it can help, with focusing and exposure.

Then explain why Blind Dudley's snapshots are never in proper focus nor
properly exposed. His first shots with the least expensive cameras were
actually more often closer to the mark. Though just as sadly misaligned
with poor subject matter, and their usual random-chance
nothing-worth-seeing compositions.

The rest of your reply is just nonsense, like this one comment of yours
above. No need to address the rest, it was all equally foolish. Like the
TROLL that you are. I played your nonsense TROLL's game last time, when you
couldn't even figure out why it was important to determine the working
temperature of LCDs. To confirm the temperature of the camera body at the
time of those deceptive and erroneous lens-performance reports in cold
temperatures. That's still far beyond your grasp, and always will be. Just
like this thread. Just like all of them that you reply to--far beyond your
comprehension.

Better Info wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 05:56:43 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:


That's because it is true it can help, with focusing and exposure.

Then explain why Blind Dudley's snapshots are never in proper focus nor
properly exposed. His first shots with the least expensive cameras were
actually more often closer to the mark. Though just as sadly misaligned
with poor subject matter, and their usual random-chance
nothing-worth-seeing compositions.


Just keep telling yourself that ...

Someday you might even believe it yourself ...


Take Care,
Dudley

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 06:50:34 -0600, Better Info
wrote:

Like all DSLR buyers (and trolls, they're very much the same you know),
they keep hoping and hoping and hoping that the next one they buy might
have a secret "talent-button" hidden on it somewhere. When they find it
does not they get another and check again ... repeat on ad-infinauseum.
They've all still sadly, wrongly, and ignorantly convinced themselves that
it's the camera that defines the ability of the photographer and the value
of his craft.

Looking for one with a talent-buttom must be why you own (or claim you
own) several point-and-shoot cameras. Is talent not a chkdsk add-on?

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 08:27:53 -0600, Dudley Hanks
wrote:

Better Info wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 05:56:43 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:


That's because it is true it can help, with focusing and exposure.

Then explain why Blind Dudley's snapshots are never in proper focus nor
properly exposed. His first shots with the least expensive cameras were
actually more often closer to the mark. Though just as sadly misaligned
with poor subject matter, and their usual random-chance
nothing-worth-seeing compositions.


Just keep telling yourself that ...

Someday you might even believe it yourself ...


Take Care,
Dudley

Unlike you, I can actually see and confirm what I know to be true. You can
only psychotically imagine what you desperately wish to be true, but is
not.

Don't quit your day-job.

Oh, that's right, you don't have one. You'd rather beg for donations from
unaware people because you aren't even man enough to get a paying job to
afford your wasted toys.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 09:32:01 -0500, tony cooper
wrote:


--

Huh, I could have sworn that resident-troll spewed more of his usual
glaring ignorance ... must have missed it.

Better Info wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 05:56:43 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:


That's because it is true it can help, with focusing and exposure.

Then explain why Blind Dudley's snapshots are never in proper focus nor
properly exposed. His first shots with the least expensive cameras were
actually more often closer to the mark. Though just as sadly misaligned
with poor subject matter, and their usual random-chance
nothing-worth-seeing compositions.



How would you know how in focus my latest pics are? You haven'
t looked at them, remember...?

Take Care,
Dudley

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 07:44:38 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:



It's now quite clear. All that alcohol has cause your irreparable
brain-damage. But then, you're incapable of detecting that. (I.e., how
would you know?) Much like others here who advertise their neurological
decay and damage. It runs much deeper than they know or suspect.