Why DSLR still use CF card?

In article
,
krishnananda wrote:

Geez - I didn't think you'd totally miss the point. I used the Canon
winprinter as an EXAMPLE. They make other equipment that is equally
useless for Linux. Another EXAMPLE - their scanners used to be nearly as
bad.

Whatever floats your boat. But while you're busy boycotting Canon you
better boycott HP, Epson, Kodak and Lexmark, because they make way more
GDI printers than Canon does. For example.

facts don't matter to some people.

As I've been using a "minority operating system" for a very long time I
know it is quite useless to whine. The peripheral manufacturers couldn't
care less what Linux and Mac OS users want. All they have to do is look
at the numbers.

actually they do care about mac users, since in some areas macs are
dominant. for example, macs are very common in graphic arts, where
quality printers are important, not to mention that macos comes with
the drivers for just about any printer anyway. a law office on the
other hand is not likely to have any macs, and their printers only need
to be b/w and likely high speed since lawyers generate so much paper.

however, you make a good point in that if a company doesn't bother with
mac os, they are certainly not going to bother with a platform that's
even *smaller*.

Linux: 19 million (the population of Angola)
Mac: 94 million (the population of the Philippines)
Windows: 1.087 billion (the population of India)

It doesn't take a Ph.D. in economics to see that if a manufacturer
****es off _every_ Linux user it's no skin off their nose.

no kidding.

supporting a third platform is a lot of work and there is very little
reason to bother when it's not going to appreciably increase sales,
especially when linux users tend to prefer free options (even when
they're far worse) and have an inherent dislike for anything
mainstream.

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:53:31 -0700, John Navas
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:12:14 +0100, in
, Bruce
wrote:

P.S. ... comparison with film is a red herring. No-one has yet made
a small sensor digital camera whose results even come anywhere near
being close to those from a good quality camera and lens on good
quality ISO 100 film.

Nonsense. I have the images to prove it otherwise.

Here's a teeny tiny sensor with a 10.3 EV dynamic range from quite a few
years ago that doesn't even use the new backlit sensor designs.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg

That beats 100 ISO film all to hell. Considering too that in visual terms,
3 megapixels was already proved to rival the images from 35mm Velvia many
years ago.

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:56:26 -0400, krishnananda wrote:

In article , ray
wrote:

Geez - I didn't think you'd totally miss the point. I used the Canon
winprinter as an EXAMPLE. They make other equipment that is equally
useless for Linux. Another EXAMPLE - their scanners used to be nearly
as bad.

Whatever floats your boat. But while you're busy boycotting Canon you
better boycott HP, Epson, Kodak and Lexmark, because they make way more
GDI printers than Canon does. For example.

As I've been using a "minority operating system" for a very long time I
know it is quite useless to whine. The peripheral manufacturers couldn't
care less what Linux and Mac OS users want. All they have to do is look
at the numbers.

Linux: 19 million (the population of Angola) Mac: 94 million
(the population of the Philippines) Windows: 1.087 billion (the
population of India)

It doesn't take a Ph.D. in economics to see that if a manufacturer
****es off _every_ Linux user it's no skin off their nose.

In my experience, if it works with MAC it will most likely work with
Linux. Yeah - I guess if all you want is access to 90% of the market
instead of 100%, that is your business. If I'm one of the 10%, it's
perfectly within my purview to ignore you.

I'll iterate once more, I'm not here to convert others. I was asked why I
eschew Canon and I replied.

BTW - HP has excellent support for Linux - unlike Canon. Epson likewise.
I have an Epson photo printer that works perfectly well - also have an
older, Apollo (made by HP) - same story.

In article , ray
wrote:

In my experience, if it works with MAC it will most likely work with
Linux.

where in the world did you get that idea?

however, the opposite is true. almost all linux apps run natively on
mac os x. the exceptions are non-portable apps that assume specifics
about linux.

Yeah - I guess if all you want is access to 90% of the market
instead of 100%, that is your business. If I'm one of the 10%, it's
perfectly within my purview to ignore you.

doesn't linux include a calculator?

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , John Navas
wrote:

Even at base ISO, there will be either visible noise or the visible
smudging effects of noise reduction. There will be serious levels of
rectilinear distortion and chromatic aberration thanks to the desire
of the marketing department for ever greater zoom rations.

The Laws of Physics dictate that, ...

Simply not true.

it is true, as has been shown to you countless times.


Come on guys. Let's have another old fashioned ****ing contest.

--
Peter

Little point in trying to educate those with a closed mind, Peter, however
bright they are.

David

On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:51:44 +0100, Bruce wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 17:04:29 -0500, LOL! wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:12:14 +0100, Bruce wrote:

But every other aspect of that camera's performance would be grossly
inadequate for what I do. Why on earth would I ever want to
jeopardise my business by relying on such inadequate equipment?


Then why do you demonize those that find smaller sensor cameras far far far
superior for the kinds of photography that they do?


People who claim that small sensor cameras are "far far far superior"
demonise themselves without any help from me. It just isn't true.

Apart from macro work, where I agree that the much more extensive
depth of field can be of value (it isn't always) the small sensor
cameras have performance that is inferior in every single respect.

We both know there are people who are prepared to accept low standards
in return for cheapness and compactness and who are prepared to accept
less control over their output through their laziness and ignorance.
Once again, they demonise themselves without any help from me.


When I saw how much small-sensor-camera bashing was going on in these
groups a year ago I vowed I would put an end to it, and expose you
wannabe-"pro" fools for the insecure assholes and idiots that you truly
are. I'm slowly succeeding in my task.


You're like the man who is stuck in a swamp. The more you wriggle and
struggle, the deeper in you get. You are slowly sinking. You are up
to your neck, and still wriggling?

You convince no-one except those who are happy to have their lazy and
ignorant camera choices confirmed by somebody - anybody will do!

Unlike you, I am not a zealot who tries to convince others (and
yourself) that my choices are the only ones available. I don't try to
force my choices down other people's throats. That's probably because
I sell my work and have successfully used a variety of equipment -
small sensor cameras included - to generate an income.

It is important for people to realise the implications of the choices
they make. For the vast majority of unthinking camera users who want
snaps of their friends, family and vacations, a small sensor camera is
fine. These people aren't interested in the technicalities and don't
choose to spend their time learning about photography. They view
their images on a screen and email them to others or put them on
social networking sites. This is the core market for small sensor
cameras.

When people take a creative or technical interest in photography, the
severe limitations of small sensor cameras come into play. The
inability to control depth of field, except in close-up work, the
appalling noise, even at base ISO, the appalling noise reduction that
blurs detail, the over-sharpening that creates weird and undesirable
effects, the chromatic aberration and severe distortion of cheap 30X
zoom lenses, all of these aspects mean that small sensor cameras are
severely crippled. Yes, someone with skill can work around some or
all of these fundamental flaws and still produce a pleasant image, but
only in a very restricted range of circumstances.

But what would you expect from a camera and lens combination that
costs less than a quarter of the price of a pro zoom lens?

In photography, you don't always get what you paid for. But you
almost never get what you didn't pay for. And small sensor cameras
are a prime example of a collection of features that don't perform,
because everything about them is so cheap.

But as I said above, they are good enough for the vast majority of
camera owners who are lazy, ignorant, cheap or simply don't care.


Poor poor pitiful you.

You have JUST revealed EVERY LAST ****ING BIT OF LACK OF SKILL THAT YOU
HAVE.

If I was a client of yours, I'd sue your ass off for misrepresentation.


LOL!

On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:52:46 +0100, Bruce wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:37:30 -0500, Jeff Jones
wrote:

That beats 100 ISO film all to hell. Considering too that in visual terms,
3 megapixels was already proved to rival the images from 35mm Velvia many
years ago.


You have a vivid imagination.

You have a lack of intellect and lack of research.

Another case closed on a DSLR TROLL.

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 20:51:01 -0700, nospam wrote:

In article , ray
wrote:

In my experience, if it works with MAC it will most likely work with
Linux.

where in the world did you get that idea?

however, the opposite is true. almost all linux apps run natively on mac
os x. the exceptions are non-portable apps that assume specifics about
linux.


This idiot seems to be preoccupied with printers. It has been my general
observation that if a printer works with MAC it will most likely work
with Linux - I've yet to see an exception.

Yeah - I guess if all you want is access to 90% of the market instead
of 100%, that is your business. If I'm one of the 10%, it's perfectly
within my purview to ignore you.

doesn't linux include a calculator?

On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:42:53 -0400, krishnananda wrote:

In article , ray
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:56:26 -0400, krishnananda wrote:

In article , ray
wrote:

Geez - I didn't think you'd totally miss the point. I used the Canon
winprinter as an EXAMPLE. They make other equipment that is equally
useless for Linux. Another EXAMPLE - their scanners used to be
nearly as bad.

Whatever floats your boat. But while you're busy boycotting Canon you
better boycott HP, Epson, Kodak and Lexmark, because they make way
more GDI printers than Canon does. For example.

As I've been using a "minority operating system" for a very long time
I know it is quite useless to whine. The peripheral manufacturers
couldn't care less what Linux and Mac OS users want. All they have to
do is look at the numbers.

Linux: 19 million (the population of Angola) Mac: 94
million (the population of the Philippines) Windows: 1.087 billion
(the population of India)

It doesn't take a Ph.D. in economics to see that if a manufacturer
****es off _every_ Linux user it's no skin off their nose.

In my experience, if it works with MAC it will most likely work with
Linux. Yeah - I guess if all you want is access to 90% of the market
instead of 100%, that is your business. If I'm one of the 10%, it's
perfectly within my purview to ignore you.

I'll iterate once more, I'm not here to convert others. I was asked why
I eschew Canon and I replied.

BTW - HP has excellent support for Linux - unlike Canon. Epson
likewise. I have an Epson photo printer that works perfectly well -
also have an older, Apollo (made by HP) - same story.

Just a few of the HP printers with "excellent support" for only Windows,
as they are _all_ GDI printers (and don't work with HP's own DirectJet
print server, or any HP-UX machine either):

HP DeskJet 7xx series
HP LaserJet 3100 series
HP Color LaserJet 1500 series
HP Color LaserJet 2600 series
HP Color LaserJet 3500 series
HP Color LaserJet 3550 series

1) I don't recall saying that I would not do business with any company
who ever produced a product that did not work with Linux - please stop
trying to put words into my mouth.

2) and there are plenty of HP printers, scanners, multi units that DO
work with Linux.


Not trying to convert anyone, just pointing out that if you don't like
Canon, you ought to really hate HP.

Since HP has support for Linux and Canon has none, I don't see why.


canon does make plenty of _non_ GDI printers, such as the PIXMA Pro9500
Mark II and the PIXMA iX7000 11x14 6-color printer, for example. You're
not going to buy these for $99.95 like you can the low-end
"winprinters", but then again that is the whole point of host-based GDI
printers -- they are cheap as dirt.

Yes they are cheap (in every sense of the word) to produce - not so cheap
to develop.


And once more to the calculator:

Total personal computers currently in use: 1.2 billion Number of Linux
users: 19 million Linux market sha
1.58%

That probably isn't even high enough to show up on Canon's weekly error
calculations. In fact:


Didn't recall stating that Linux was the only non-MS OS. As stated
before, if a printer works with MAC, it will most likely work with Linux.

"Net income at the world’s largest camera maker will probably rise 52
percent to 200 billion yen ($2.24 billion) in the 12 months ending Dec.
31, the Tokyo-based company said in a statement today, in line with the
200 billion yen median of 20 analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg."

But I'm not trying to convince anyone not to boycott anyone. I recommend
"The Mouse That Roared" starring Peter Sellars for an interesting
parallel.

For example.

Here's another thought -- I often walk past a "Big & Tall" clothing
store. Since I am neither big nor tall nothing they sell will fit me.
Should I boycott them?

Don't really give a rat's ass if you do or don't. Why are you so adamant
that I should 'shop Canon'?

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 20:51:01 -0700, nospam wrote:

In article , ray
wrote:

In my experience, if it works with MAC it will most likely work with
Linux.

where in the world did you get that idea?

however, the opposite is true. almost all linux apps run natively on mac
os x. the exceptions are non-portable apps that assume specifics about
linux.

Yeah - I guess if all you want is access to 90% of the market instead
of 100%, that is your business. If I'm one of the 10%, it's perfectly
within my purview to ignore you.

doesn't linux include a calculator?

Yes, but don't need one here. His numbers (which I don't necessarily
believe anyway) show Linux and MAC with 113 million vs MS at 1.087
billion. So, MAC plus Linux (those NOT able to use a winprinter) would
seem to come to 10.395584% - I guess I was fairly close.