I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!

ray wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:16:37 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:

ray wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:58:16 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:

John Navas wrote:

They must either have crap cameras or be clueless. My own compact
digital photos are often _better_ than those shot by dSLR luggers.
Agreed; we've seen good results from your compact camera. Now,
imagine, if you can- or if you will- how much better they'd have been
with superior equipment.
Interestingly enough, I've seen good photos come from lesser equipment
and poor photos come from the best equipment. It's the operator more
than the camera.
No, that's not interesting at all: Almost everyone else, including
myself, has made this observation years ago, in writing, in these ng's.
Both of them. Plus r.p.e-35mm., alt.photog etc.

It doesn't in anyway negate what I and others have stated about top
gear.

I don't have a DSLR and the only point I'm trying to make is that for the
photography I generally do, it would not help - because I'd probably wind
up leaving it home in favour of a more managealbe P&S. Different folks
have different needs and requirements - there is not one camera style
that is perfect for everyone - if there were, the others would not be
there.

Yes, ray, I understand. This latter point has also been made here ad
nauseum.

--
john mcwilliams

"Bob Larter" wrote in message


[...]

I don't have the slightest problem with people who prefer a P&S to a
DSLR. The bit that confuses me is why they feel the need to post about
P&Ses to a *DSLR specific* newsgroup.

Bob, Bob, Bob. The answer lies in your own signature.

Awesome dude, took you four posts before you changed your nym.

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:04:36 +1000, Bob Larter
wrote:

DRS wrote:
"Bob Larter" wrote in message


[...]

I don't have the slightest problem with people who prefer a P&S to a
DSLR. The bit that confuses me is why they feel the need to post about
P&Ses to a *DSLR specific* newsgroup.

Bob, Bob, Bob. The answer lies in your own signature.

You could be right. Sometimes, people are just ****wits.

Proving that neither of you have one lick of intellect (nor how to even use
something as simple as a mirror). You need look no further than any
DSLR-Troll that doesn't have a clue about photography and cross-posts to
make you DSLR-Trolls eventually look like the completely asinine fools that
you really are. Therein lies your real answer. Catch up! Oh, but that's
right, you can't. I love how DSLR-Trolls keep proving to the world that
they can't think clearly. After all, their camera and lens choices alone
prove that. I've yet to see even ONE intelligent post made by even ONE DSLR
proponent.

I LOVE IT!

Headline: Fools and Idiots Buy DSLRs! Proved Daily on Usenet, by
Themselves!

LOL!

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:14:23 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:

John McWilliams wrote:
ray wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:16:37 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:

ray wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:58:16 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:

John Navas wrote:

They must either have crap cameras or be clueless. My own compact
digital photos are often _better_ than those shot by dSLR luggers.
Agreed; we've seen good results from your compact camera. Now,
imagine, if you can- or if you will- how much better they'd have
been with superior equipment.
Interestingly enough, I've seen good photos come from lesser
equipment and poor photos come from the best equipment. It's the
operator more than the camera.
No, that's not interesting at all: Almost everyone else, including
myself, has made this observation years ago, in writing, in these
ng's. Both of them. Plus r.p.e-35mm., alt.photog etc.

It doesn't in anyway negate what I and others have stated about top
gear.

I don't have a DSLR and the only point I'm trying to make is that for
the photography I generally do, it would not help - because I'd
probably wind up leaving it home in favour of a more managealbe P&S.
Different folks have different needs and requirements - there is not
one camera style that is perfect for everyone - if there were, the
others would not be there.

Yes, ray, I understand. This latter point has also been made here ad
nauseum.

I don't have the slightest problem with people who prefer a P&S to a
DSLR. The bit that confuses me is why they feel the need to post about
P&Ses to a *DSLR specific* newsgroup.

Let me see: rec.photo.digital == DSLR - interesting hypothesis.

ray wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:14:23 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:

I don't have the slightest problem with people who prefer a P&S to a
DSLR. The bit that confuses me is why they feel the need to post about
P&Ses to a *DSLR specific* newsgroup.

Let me see: rec.photo.digital == DSLR - interesting hypothesis.

ray-

Do you not see that the post has been going to two NGs? Since the o.p.??

--
john mcwilliams

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:26:54 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:

ray wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:14:23 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:

I don't have the slightest problem with people who prefer a P&S to a
DSLR. The bit that confuses me is why they feel the need to post about
P&Ses to a *DSLR specific* newsgroup.

Let me see: rec.photo.digital == DSLR - interesting hypothesis.

ray-

Do you not see that the post has been going to two NGs? Since the o.p.??

Yeah - I noticed. I've only read and responded here hence, IMHO, I'm not
having a need to post to a dslr specific newsgroup.

ray wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:26:54 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:

ray wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:14:23 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:
I don't have the slightest problem with people who prefer a P&S to a
DSLR. The bit that confuses me is why they feel the need to post about
P&Ses to a *DSLR specific* newsgroup.
Let me see: rec.photo.digital == DSLR - interesting hypothesis.
ray-

Do you not see that the post has been going to two NGs? Since the o.p.??

Yeah - I noticed. I've only read and responded here hence, IMHO, I'm not
having a need to post to a dslr specific newsgroup.

Whatever. Your posts have all been going to whatever groups are in the
headers, in this case two NGs. In other words, you are posting a dslr
group.

--
john mcwilliams

In rec.photo.digital Helping the Clueless wrote:
On 16 Oct 2009 15:38:25 GMT, ray wrote:

Frankly I think you overstate the situation somewhat - I agree with the
point, it's just a matter of degree.

Not overstated at all, maybe even understated. When I did the comparison I
also used the most inexpensive lenses I could find for the DSLR (for the
budget-conscious photographer). I'm not sure that would even provide image
quality from the DSLR equal to what already exists in the P&S camera. To
get the same focal-length range, aperture, and image quality as already
exists in the P&S camera for under $350 it will take over 23 lbs. of glass,
REQUIRED tripod, and DSLR, costing upward of $6,000.

I can't imagine how you got anywhere near that weight or cost if as
you say you were choosing the cheapest DSLR lenses. Can you itemise
the shopping list that tots up to 23 lbs weight and $6,000?

--
Chris Malcolm

Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital Helping the Clueless wrote:
On 16 Oct 2009 15:38:25 GMT, ray wrote:

Frankly I think you overstate the situation somewhat - I agree with the
point, it's just a matter of degree.

Not overstated at all, maybe even understated. When I did the comparison I
also used the most inexpensive lenses I could find for the DSLR (for the
budget-conscious photographer). I'm not sure that would even provide image
quality from the DSLR equal to what already exists in the P&S camera. To
get the same focal-length range, aperture, and image quality as already
exists in the P&S camera for under $350 it will take over 23 lbs. of glass,
REQUIRED tripod, and DSLR, costing upward of $6,000.

I can't imagine how you got anywhere near that weight or cost if as
you say you were choosing the cheapest DSLR lenses. Can you itemise
the shopping list that tots up to 23 lbs weight and $6,000?

You're simply encouraging the pest to continue here. In this case, he's
trolling with a slow hook. But it's the same pest......

--
john mcwilliams