Want to see how bad P&S's really are?

"HalLarson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 08:13:53 -0600, RichA wrote:

"Dudley Hanks" wrote in
news:0Iq6l.144$Db2.139@edtnps83:


"RichA" wrote in message
...
tony cooper wrote in
:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:20:03 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:15:42 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote in it86l.1239$z%.642
@edtnps82:

"tony cooper" wrote in message
news:061il4l9j76oa7tni8ri5da1mspvoq0bad@4ax .com...

That has more to do with the market being saturated with
inexpensive P&S cameras and the fact that the P&S was the first
inexpensive way for the average snapshot-taker to shoot digital
and make their own prints at home. That market was bound to
level off.

Many of the early buyers of P&S cameras have become more
interested in, and proficient in, photography because of P&S
cameras. They're now upgrading to dslrs.

Saying "upgrading" is not intended to denigrate the P&S. The

Saying "P&S" is denigrating to better compact cameras, intended or
not.

That's nonsense, John. "P&S" is the accepted and recognizable term
to describe a particular style of camera. It carries no baggage.
"Compact" is not an accepted and recognizable term.

I understand that you are particularly sensitive to perceived slurs
about P&S cameras, but trying to extend your perception to the world
in general is silly.



P&S is perfectly apt. It implies a lazy attitude toward the hobby of
photography and that is what P&S'ers are. They are no different than
snap shooters of long ago with their Kodak X-15s and 25s. "Look,
honey, only 4 out of 24 shots are sharp or properly framed, but we
don't care, because we are lazy SLOBS!"


Rich, you would dramatically lower your stress level if you wouldn't
project your mindset onto others...

Because I want a cheap, ultra portable pocket cam to document
obstacles while I am out walking with my guide dog doesn't mean I'm a
lazy slob; it means I want a camera I can afford to lose if I
accidentally drop it down a sewer...

We don't all shoot by your rationale.

Take Care,
Dudley

You know what? Dropping it down the sewer isn't such a bad...just
kidding! Seriously, I picked up a Nikon D100 and a Sigma zoom lens in a
pawn shop in perfect working order for $200.00. That is a much better
deal than paying $300 or more for a P&S, I think. I converted the D100
to IR, but I could have easily accepted it as a main DSLR. I've seen
numerous used but excellent condition DSLRs for $200-$300. There is no
shortage of good deals out there, IF someone wants to take really good
pictures and isn't bothered by a little bulk.



That's because people are trying to dump their bulky DSLRs. Many are
waking up
to what's really going on. They're finding out why a DSLR isn't needed nor
wanted today after they've done their own tests and comparisons. If
they're a
bad choice at $2000 they're still a bad choice at $200.

I take it economics / business management isn't your forte...

Take Care,
Dudley

"RichA" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Hanks" wrote in
news:0Iq6l.144$Db2.139@edtnps83:


"RichA" wrote in message
...
tony cooper wrote in
:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:20:03 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:15:42 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote in it86l.1239$z%.642
@edtnps82:

"tony cooper" wrote in message
news:061il4l9j76oa7tni8ri5da1mspvoq0bad@4ax. com...

That has more to do with the market being saturated with
inexpensive P&S cameras and the fact that the P&S was the first
inexpensive way for the average snapshot-taker to shoot digital
and make their own prints at home. That market was bound to
level off.

Many of the early buyers of P&S cameras have become more
interested in, and proficient in, photography because of P&S
cameras. They're now upgrading to dslrs.

Saying "upgrading" is not intended to denigrate the P&S. The

Saying "P&S" is denigrating to better compact cameras, intended or
not.

That's nonsense, John. "P&S" is the accepted and recognizable term
to describe a particular style of camera. It carries no baggage.
"Compact" is not an accepted and recognizable term.

I understand that you are particularly sensitive to perceived slurs
about P&S cameras, but trying to extend your perception to the world
in general is silly.



P&S is perfectly apt. It implies a lazy attitude toward the hobby of
photography and that is what P&S'ers are. They are no different than
snap shooters of long ago with their Kodak X-15s and 25s. "Look,
honey, only 4 out of 24 shots are sharp or properly framed, but we
don't care, because we are lazy SLOBS!"


Rich, you would dramatically lower your stress level if you wouldn't
project your mindset onto others...

Because I want a cheap, ultra portable pocket cam to document
obstacles while I am out walking with my guide dog doesn't mean I'm a
lazy slob; it means I want a camera I can afford to lose if I
accidentally drop it down a sewer...

We don't all shoot by your rationale.

Take Care,
Dudley

You know what? Dropping it down the sewer isn't such a bad...just
kidding! Seriously, I picked up a Nikon D100 and a Sigma zoom lens in a
pawn shop in perfect working order for $200.00. That is a much better
deal than paying $300 or more for a P&S, I think.

Good deal, but it won't fit in my pocket...

Although, on the other hand, it probably wouldn't fall between the sewer
grates either...

Take Care,
Dudley

"Stephen Bishop" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 03:09:29 -1100, "D.Mac"
wrote:


"HEMI - Powered" wrote in message
...
Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

Now, with all due respect, why the Hell are you trying to reason
with a fool here? Thank you, and Happy New Year!

Probably because I have a weakness of wanting to give others the
benefit of the doubt even when they sometimes appear like they
don't deserve it.

That's fair, but this one's been going on for days and has gotten
so silly and so truclent and vile that I stopped reading most of
the posts except from the more even tempered people like you that I
think I can learn from.

And Happy New Year to you as well!

And, Happy New Year's Day it is! Best Wishes to you and your
family, Stephen.

--

You are making a mistake "Hemi" if you think you can "learn" from some one
who admits he has no experience and relied on what he reads to put up an
argument against those who display actual evidence and post examples.


Actually, that's not the case. If you're referring to me, I've
referred to actual examples to to illustrate my points.


But that's OK. Plenty of people think everything they read in the papers
or
get from the Internet is the gospel truth!

Looking at your childish rants and net-stalking tactics toward Mr.
Thomas, it would appear that you think you're king of the internet...
LOL And your self-proclaimed title as "the man they love to hate"
makes me wonder just how much you think of yourself. Maybe you could
also learn something from others here.


If you think exposing a cyber stalker, their lies and defamation is a
"childish rant" or net stalking... You yourself are a cyber bully.
http://www.flayme.com/troll/newsgroups.shtml

Have an opinion by all means, just express that and don't do as you've done
throughout this thread and attack whoever you are responding to. It's
classic Net stalker and troll behaviour. And don't think for a single second
my retaliation and exposure of a stalker who's been trying to interfer with
my business and reputation for nearly 6 years is in any way related to net
stalking... It's retaliation and there's plenty more where the last lot
camer from.

Instead of becoming an obnoxious troll, why not stop behaving like a thug
and at least try some respectful behaviour?
--
Visit my site: D-Mac.info
My photos, Information about trolls
and a little bit of fun too!