Hardware Worship Religion

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:33:28 +1100, "Jeff R." wrote
in :

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:03:41 +1100, "Jeff R."
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
You're grasping at straws -- exaggeration aside, the same applies to
the FZ20, maintaining its advantage. There is no dSLR and lens
combination that can match it at any price.

I don't believe price came into the original question.

That's just what "at any price" means.

Actually, "at any price" means that price should be ignored as a
consideration.
QED

Can't make any sense of that -- sorry.

--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John

Let him go John.
He's a clearly identified trouble maker and an image thief. Trying to talk
reason to him is a total waste of time. "At any price" in the context I
wrote it means it doesn't matter how much you paid for a DSLR it still
can't take a photo silently, even if it could take one in low light.

"Jeff R." wrote in message
u...
Caesar Romano wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 05:40:26 GMT, "Douglas" wrote Re
Hardware Worship Religion:

Douglas wrote:
Under some conditions a Nikon D3 or a Canon D1 will simply not be
able to take pictures of the quality a FZ 20 Panasonic can.

Name one.

--
Jeff R.


Hand held at 1/15th or for that matter at 1/30th.
When you need a DOF at F/2.8 greater than a few Centermeters
When you are told to be quiet in a cathedrial, during a wedding
Panasonic... Switch off the volume = silent shutter
Any DSLR... Don't use it.


Good ones!

Hardly.
Doug describes a social and cultural limit - not a hardware nor mechanical
one.
Not really in the spirit of the original challenge.

(You see, I *can* take pictures better than a Pano can under those
circumstances - I'll just get filthy looks from the congregation, that's
all. Hardly a *technical* limit.)

--
Jeff R.

You'd be used to that sort of response then? It's this sort of behaviour
from cowboys like you that gave birth to my "planning for Weddings" magazine
( http://www.auspub.com.au/ ) People like you are black listed from
advertising in it.

I don't recall any challenge.

Your "technical limit" is centric to you. My technical limits are holistic
and take in the whole wedding, not just what you want to do. If you want to
go around getting a reputation for being an arrogant prick who has no
interest in anything but what he wants... Go ahead. You already have that
reputation anyway.
--
Visit my site: D-Mac.info
My photos, Information about trolls
and a little bit of fun too!

"David J Taylor"
wrote in
m:

wrote:
[]
Certainly there is not only room for both, but IMO there
should be a fusion of both. My original observation was that there
are many people who appear, from what they post here, to be far more
obsessed with the hardware than in the art of photography.

I think that immediately springs from the name of the group - it's
concerned with those aspects which are "digital", and not those which
are artistic. Perhaps if more people took an interest in the
technical aspects of the appliances we use every day - TV, mobile
phones, even cars - we would have a better-informed society?

In real life, I see far more need for learning to use the
tools at hand, then trying to find new tools when you don't
understand how to best use what you have.

Agreed.

In the" real world" I refereed to few people ever learn to use
the tools they have. I am no exception to that rule. The stress
placed on hardware, I believe leads most people to believe that the
answer to how to get better results is better hardware, while in
reality new hardware may make the situation worse.

Agreed. But I also blame the instruction manuals a little, as they
are not as helpful as they could be. Oh, and perhaps I blame scene
modes as well! G

This is nothing new with digital. It was every bit the same
with film photography.

When working in retail photography many years ago, I saw the
results of many of my customers and it was not surprising to see
someone with an Instamatic 104 do better than someone with a Lecia.

Oh, yes, having an "eye" for a photo is a great gift.

Perhaps the rec.photo.technique hierarchy contains the artistic
discussions missing here?

David



No, the lazy attitudes of most in the U.S. are WHY people are so pig-
ignorant about anything scientific. Curiosity eludes them, they just sit
and watch TV all day. Also explains the resurgence of idiot-level
superstitious beliefs, quack medicine usage, etc. Please see Carl
Sagan's:
"Demon Haunted World."

RichA wrote:
[]
No, the lazy attitudes of most in the U.S. are WHY people are so pig-
ignorant about anything scientific. Curiosity eludes them, they just
sit and watch TV all day. Also explains the resurgence of idiot-level
superstitious beliefs, quack medicine usage, etc. Please see Carl
Sagan's:
"Demon Haunted World."

... and probably not just in the U.S.A. either.

David

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 23:23:48 +1100, Jeff R. wrote:

Neil Ellwood wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:53:53 +1100, Jeff R. wrote:

D.Mac wrote:
3, 2, 1, that's the ratio of sand, gravel and cement to make
concrete.

If you want it weak and sandy.

3,2,1 gravel, sand, cement works better.

Still too much cement.

Depends how strong you want it.
Less cement will do, but it will be weaker.

It will be a lot less brittle


--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851

RichA wrote:
No, the lazy attitudes of most in the U.S. are WHY people are so pig-
ignorant about anything scientific. Curiosity eludes them, they just sit
and watch TV all day. Also explains the resurgence of idiot-level
superstitious beliefs, quack medicine usage, etc. Please see Carl
Sagan's:
"Demon Haunted World."

And it explains a lot of the crap that you post as well. Again and
again we see you resort to one absurd logical fallacy after the other.

--
Ray Fischer