Explanation: Nikon 4-Year-Old D40s on Sale Everywhere

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...




Actually, "the vast majority of camera users" have no real need for any of
the cameras discussed in this thread.


Thank you for distinguishing between camera users and photographers.

My sister is a good example of this. She has always loved to take pictures
but has no real interest in the "how it works" part of photography. Back
in the '60s I gave her a Yashica A, a cheap but reasonably capable TLR,
and a lightmeter. She had no problem with that and took lots of pictures,
including 2 1/4" slides. Over the years I gave her a variety of
auto-everything 35s, and more recently compact digicams. The latest one is
a Coolpix P50. She LOVES it. Every year she and my brother-in-law make at
least one trip abroad -- they've been to every continent except
Antarctica -- and she's taken thousands and thousands of pictures. She has
NO interest in any camera with more capabilities than the little P50.
Lightweight, compact, runs on AAs, modest but useful zoom range (28-102mm
equiv.), reliable AF and exposure -- it's perfect for her.

I got a P50 for myself as a matter of fact -- it's a really likeable
little camera. I got the sort-of companion P60 also. Both of these models
have viewfinders (hallelujah), the one in the P60 being an EVF -- must be
one of the smallest cameras to have an EVF.

Most people take pictures to help them preserve fond memories. They are
quite happy with wallet size shots and/or small digital images.

Those of us who take photography seriously are in the minority.

--
Peter

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...




Actually, "the vast majority of camera users" have no real need for any
of the cameras discussed in this thread.


Thank you for distinguishing between camera users and photographers.

You're welcome, but the terms are really to some extent interchangeable.


My sister is a good example of this. She has always loved to take
pictures but has no real interest in the "how it works" part of
photography. Back in the '60s I gave her a Yashica A, a cheap but
reasonably capable TLR, and a lightmeter. She had no problem with that
and took lots of pictures, including 2 1/4" slides. Over the years I gave
her a variety of auto-everything 35s, and more recently compact digicams.
The latest one is a Coolpix P50. She LOVES it. Every year she and my
brother-in-law make at least one trip abroad -- they've been to every
continent except Antarctica -- and she's taken thousands and thousands of
pictures. She has NO interest in any camera with more capabilities than
the little P50. Lightweight, compact, runs on AAs, modest but useful zoom
range (28-102mm equiv.), reliable AF and exposure -- it's perfect for
her.

I got a P50 for myself as a matter of fact -- it's a really likeable
little camera. I got the sort-of companion P60 also. Both of these models
have viewfinders (hallelujah), the one in the P60 being an EVF -- must be
one of the smallest cameras to have an EVF.

Most people take pictures to help them preserve fond memories. They are
quite happy with wallet size shots and/or small digital images.

I don't know anyone who has "wallet size shots" made. The standard nowadays,
at least in the U.S., is the 4 x 6 inch print, which is actually a very
useful size. It's big enough to give a very satisfactory view of the subject
(in most cases) yet small enough to put in albums. And it's very
unexpensive, really a tremendous bargain compared to 5 x 7 and larger
prints.

Anyone else here old enough to remember the old Kodak "2R" size print? That
was a whopping 2.5 x 3.5 inches, and was standard when they first started
putting Kodacolor in 35mm cartridges, back around 1960 or maybe a little
earlier. Kodacolor in those days wasn't really suitable for 35mm, was
generally used in (and intended for) cheap box cameras. Kodak also offered a
"3R" size (3.5 x 5 inches, which became the drugstore standard for 35mm
color negative when better films came along), but that was pushing the
capabilities of the original Kodacolor.

I can remember when standard drugstore photofinishing was always contact
prints. If you wanted a bigger photo you used a camera that made larger
negatives. And that was true for many years. I have on my desk right now
some family photos (c. 1930) that are 2.5 x 3.5 -- including a rather
generous border.

But I'm not sure what you mean by "quite happy with . . . small digital
images." You mean small in resolution? That's probably true. Personally,
with compact cameras I usually set the resolution to 5 MP, regardless of how
many megapixels the camera offers. That's more than enough for me since I
view them mostly on a 22" monitor, 1680 x 1050, which is about 1.76 MP. With
HDMI ports now showing up on digicams it's easy to view the results on a
widescreen TV, but that's still only about 2.07 MP.

I am not convinced that higher resolutions on a small-sensor camera make any
difference in most cases anyway, except to reduce the number of pix you can
get on a card, increase in-camera processing time, use up more HDD space,
etc.

With SLRs though I use full resolution in almost all cases.


Those of us who take photography seriously are in the minority.

Of course there are various shades of meaning to "seriously" too.
Photography has been a lot of fun for me over the last 60 years, and I take
my fun seriously. But I do not take it *grimly* seriously. :-)

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 04:44:56 -0700 (PDT), Bubba
wrote:

On Sep 17, 9:47*am, "Peter" wrote:

Most people take pictures to help them preserve fond memories. They are
quite happy with wallet size shots and/or small digital images.

Those of us who take photography seriously are in the minority.

Most people who post here are middle-class folk who would take
photography very seriously indeed if they could afford the tantalizing
digital carrots manufacturers dangle for a year or two, and then
toss.

People who take photography seriously could care less about the "carrots".
The can create award winning photographs with even a pinhole box-camera.

Apparently you, among many other fools, are not one of those who take the
subject seriously.

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 04:44:56 -0700 (PDT), Bubba
wrote:

On Sep 17, 9:47*am, "Peter" wrote:

Most people take pictures to help them preserve fond memories. They are
quite happy with wallet size shots and/or small digital images.

Those of us who take photography seriously are in the minority.

Most people who post here are middle-class folk who would take
photography very seriously indeed if they could afford the tantalizing
digital carrots manufacturers dangle for a year or two, and then
toss.

People who take photography seriously could care less about the "carrots".
They can create award winning photographs with even a pinhole box-camera.

Apparently you, among many other fools, are not one of those who take the
subject seriously.

Bubba wrote:
On Sep 17, 9:47 am, "Peter" wrote:

Most people take pictures to help them preserve fond memories. They
are quite happy with wallet size shots and/or small digital images.

Those of us who take photography seriously are in the minority.

Most people who post here are middle-class folk who would take
photography very seriously indeed if they could afford the tantalizing
digital carrots manufacturers dangle for a year or two, and then
toss.

I ended up buying a Canon cheapo 10MP Digital Rebel with an extra
lens.

"Don't make hasty judgments; sometimes those judgments may be wrong."

The great thing about photography is that it can be many different things to
many different people. All that's really important about it, from my point
of view, is that you enjoy doing it.

My first 35mm SLR, about 50 years ago, was probably the cheapest camera of
that type on the market. It had no automatic diaphragm, nothing at all
automatic in fact, no instant-return mirror, no focusing aids of any kind in
the viewfinder, not even a Fresnel screen to brighten the corners, and of
course no lightmeter. It did at least have a pentaprism, which not all SLRs
at that time did. Brand new it was pretty primitive even by 1960ish
standards. But it was what I could afford at that time, it gave me a lot of
enjoyment and it taught me a great deal.

On 9/18/2010 7:44 AM, Bubba wrote:
On Sep 17, 9:47 am, wrote:

Most people take pictures to help them preserve fond memories. They are
quite happy with wallet size shots and/or small digital images.

Those of us who take photography seriously are in the minority.

Most people who post here are middle-class folk who would take
photography very seriously indeed if they could afford the tantalizing
digital carrots manufacturers dangle for a year or two, and then
toss.


Did I limit my comment to those who post here, or are you saying that
most people who buy cameras: "take photography very seriously?"

I ended up buying a Canon cheapo 10MP Digital Rebel with an extra
lens.

I hope you get a lot of enjoyment form it.


"Don't make hasty judgments; sometimes those judgments may be wrong."

Yup! Especially when a judgment is based upon an out of context misquote.

--
Peter