26 Reasons to Choose a P&S Over a DSLR

A Glimmer of Hope wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:07:45 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

Finally - A Glimmer of Hope wrote:

A real pro is anyone who advances to the point where they find out it's not
the camera at all that is responsible for their great photography.

I did something similar in how I sold off all my dSLR bricks. Barely
finding any use for them, the P&Ss always being used more, not finding any
difference in image quality, the vastly wider array of circumstances
So direct us to your superb photography.

Sorry. For purchase only, and only then by people I have personally met and
found that I like. So few qualify to buy my photography, let alone get to
enjoy viewing it, much less own it.

Total BS. Actually you sound like Tony Polson, another wordy sort void
of photographic talent (and a few of his have leaked onto the net for us
all to, er, admire.)

I would really be happy if you'd keep to one posting name so that you
can be filtered out. Is that too much to ask?

Alan Browne wrote:
Glimmer wrote:

So few qualify to buy my photography, let alone get to
enjoy viewing it, much less own it.

Total BS.

Can be entertaining though ;-)


There's only a rare handful of humans (relatively speaking)

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:56:16 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

I would really be happy if you'd keep to one posting name so that you
can be filtered out. Is that too much to ask?


blignorance - n. the state of bliss reached and or retained by trying to
remain ignorant through self-imposed distractions, red-herring arguments,
sticking their fingers in their ears and humming a tune, poking their own
eyes out with a newsreader filter, etc.

Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Finally - A Glimmer of Hope wrote:

A real pro is anyone who advances to the point where they find out
it's not
the camera at all that is responsible for their great photography.

I did something similar in how I sold off all my dSLR bricks. Barely
finding any use for them, the P&Ss always being used more, not
finding any
difference in image quality, the vastly wider array of circumstances

So direct us to your superb photography.

"A HAND-HELD
2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera (downsized only, no crop):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/...1dbdb8ac_o.jpg "

:-)

Simply astonishing!!!!
If only we had superman skills & clever inexpensive gear like that.

I remember that crappy photo. It has not gotten better with age.

Fish In A Barrel wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:56:16 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

I would really be happy if you'd keep to one posting name so that you
can be filtered out. Is that too much to ask?


blignorance - n. the state of bliss reached and or retained by trying to
remain ignorant through self-imposed distractions, red-herring arguments,
sticking their fingers in their ears and humming a tune, poking their own
eyes out with a newsreader filter, etc.

Ignorance of the fallacies you post is a blessing.

Paul Furman wrote:

"A HAND-HELD 2197mm f/3.5 image ..."

So that's a lens with a 2197/3.5mm = 628mm apperture?
Amazing!

from a P&S camera (downsized only, no crop):

I'd like to see a picture of that camera. Must look pretty interesting
with a lens with a diameter of almost 2/3 of a meter on a P&S body.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/...1dbdb8ac_o.jpg "

If only we had superman skills & clever inexpensive gear like that.

Indeed :-)

jue

Jürgen Exner wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

"A HAND-HELD 2197mm f/3.5 image ..."

So that's a lens with a 2197/3.5mm = 628mm apperture?
Amazing!

Oh, BTW, checking the EXIF it says:
"Focal Length = 72000/1000 mm = 72 mm"

So much for the claimed 2197mm from our favourite troll.

jue

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:09:27 -0700, Jürgen Exner
wrote:

Paul Furman wrote:

"A HAND-HELD 2197mm f/3.5 image ..."

So that's a lens with a 2197/3.5mm = 628mm apperture?
Amazing!


Yes, it would be amazing to someone as stupid as you that doesn't realize
that that's the 35mm equivalent. This is why you can't have that much
aperture at that focal length in a 35mm camera lens on a DSLR sized sensor.
Catching on yet? No, of course not. You'd rather wallow in your
blignorance. (bliss borne of ignorance)

Gawd you DSLR trolls are such hugely ****ing idiots. No wonder you choose
the cameras that you do. The shoe fits, perfectly.

trOL spittled:
Jürgen Exner wrote:
Paul quotethed superman:

"A HAND-HELD 2197mm f/3.5 image ..."

So that's a lens with a 2197/3.5mm = 628mm apperture?
Amazing!

that's the 35mm equivalent.

Vern likes to attribute that to what he calls the "CROP FACTOR" ;-)

We've played this game before...
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons3is/
432mm (eq) plus 5x worth of front mounted teleconverters.
"Of course the reason that such a wide ranging focal length, long reach,
and wide aperture is possible is because the camera's sensor is so
small; 4.3 X 5.7mm, vs 24 X 36mm for full frame 35mm. This makes the
focal length multiplier about 6X."

CROP FACTOR!!

....so 432mm = 72mm and 2197mm = 366mm focal length and the front element
of the final $80 teleconverter should be 105mm, a bit smaller than a
300mm f/2.8. Which is still very very very unlikely... uh I mean clever
of him to locate such a marvelous device. But I have no doubt with those
diffraction limited optics, it would hold up flawlessly under 5x of
teleconverters (three 1.7x converters for example, each one a larger
size, and I have no doubt the lens stabilizer could keep up with this in
the hands of a supernatural being such as His Majesty. I don't know why
you would doubt this.

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:26:35 -0700, Paul Furman
wrote:

trOL spittled:
Jürgen Exner wrote:
Paul quotethed superman:

"A HAND-HELD 2197mm f/3.5 image ..."

So that's a lens with a 2197/3.5mm = 628mm apperture?
Amazing!

that's the 35mm equivalent.

Vern likes to attribute that to what he calls the "CROP FACTOR" ;-)

We've played this game before...
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons3is/
432mm (eq) plus 5x worth of front mounted teleconverters.
"Of course the reason that such a wide ranging focal length, long reach,
and wide aperture is possible is because the camera's sensor is so
small; 4.3 X 5.7mm, vs 24 X 36mm for full frame 35mm. This makes the
focal length multiplier about 6X."

CROP FACTOR!!

...so 432mm = 72mm and 2197mm = 366mm focal length and the front element
of the final $80 teleconverter should be 105mm, a bit smaller than a
300mm f/2.8. Which is still very very very unlikely... uh I mean clever
of him to locate such a marvelous device. But I have no doubt with those
diffraction limited optics, it would hold up flawlessly under 5x of
teleconverters (three 1.7x converters for example, each one a larger
size, and I have no doubt the lens stabilizer could keep up with this in
the hands of a supernatural being such as His Majesty. I don't know why
you would doubt this.

Nearly every bit of what you just stated is completely wrong. But then
you'd know this if you had read the text that initiated his and your
glaringly obvious displays of stupidity. GIGO

Bow and beg forgiveness, you ridiculous snapshooting knave. Oh, and while
you're down there, do what you do so often and so well ...