If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#331
|
|||
|
|||
So Ken is now down to this - $150 beats $5000 (sic)?
On 08 Dec 2006 00:14:54 EST, John Turco wrote:
You're baffling me, once again, dawg. Where did you finally end up buying this A620/Pixma 6220D combo, eh? C'mon, make my day! :-J I mentioned the store in one of my other replies. It was Staples. I wandered in earlier this evening and they are still on sale. When I checked their website last weekend before purchasing it, I couldn't find it, and I checked the listed specials and closeouts. Weird place, Staples. Earlier this evening I noticed a Sandisk 2GB Ultra II SD card that appeared to be on sale for $54, and asked one of Staple's employees if the SD card was really on sale, since the store's sale tag identified it as a CF card. He said it was probably a mistake, but he'd try to get it for me for that price instead of their regular price of $124. A manager came over to open the case that the cards were in, and gave the guy a bit of a hard time, saying that the SD card would *not* be sold for the CF sale price, even though it was hanging in front of the SD card. As there were no prices indicated for the SD version, he said that he'd check it if I was interested in getting the SD card. "Sure", sez me, innocently. We trotted off to an unmanned register where the manager scanned it, and up popped $54. g |
#332
|
|||
|
|||
So Ken is now down to this - $150 beats $5000 (sic)?
ASAAR wrote:
On 08 Dec 2006 00:14:54 EST, John Turco wrote: You're baffling me, once again, dawg. Where did you finally end up buying this A620/Pixma 6220D combo, eh? C'mon, make my day! :-J I mentioned the store in one of my other replies. It was Staples. I wandered in earlier this evening and they are still on sale. When I checked their website last weekend before purchasing it, I couldn't find it, and I checked the listed specials and closeouts. Weird place, Staples. Earlier this evening I noticed a Sandisk 2GB Ultra II SD card that appeared to be on sale for $54, and asked one of Staple's employees if the SD card was really on sale, since the store's sale tag identified it as a CF card. He said it was probably a mistake, but he'd try to get it for me for that price instead of their regular price of $124. A manager came over to open the case that the cards were in, and gave the guy a bit of a hard time, saying that the SD card would *not* be sold for the CF sale price, even though it was hanging in front of the SD card. As there were no prices indicated for the SD version, he said that he'd check it if I was interested in getting the SD card. "Sure", sez me, innocently. We trotted off to an unmanned register where the manager scanned it, and up popped $54. g Hello, ASAAR: This past Wednesday, I stumbled upon an "Impact" 1GB SD card, at Wal-Mart. It was a mere $19.74, on clearance, and I really thought I'd made a good buy. Then, I came home and saw a "Simple Tech" item, of the same type and capacity, in an Office Max flyer...on sale, at $13.99! Still, I decided to keep the Impact - even if it cost me an extra $6 or so - as I'd just returned a Lexar 256MB SD to Wal-Mart, a few weeks ago. Cordially, John Turco |
#334
|
|||
|
|||
So Ken is now down to this - $150 beats $5000 (sic)?
"Aaron" wrote in message ... And lo, emerged from the ether and spake thus: snip "Ask you favorite musician if he's as good as he is because of the brand of instrument he plays, or ask your favorite author if he writes as well as he does because of the typewriter he uses. Good tools just make it easier for people who do it all the time." big snip In the blues genre, some of the most influential musicians in history were impoverished, southern guitar players, self-taught, using any old junker guitar they could lay hands on. These are the guys who formed the genre, who influenced the world. Unfortunately, like many artists, most of them died before they were truly appreciated. Granted, there will always be *some* technical argument for having better equipment, but you have to crawl before you can walk. -- Aaron http://www.fisheyegallery.com http://www.singleservingphoto.com One needs to evaluate Rockwell's statement within its proper context. He was not suggesting that better equipment was of no consequence. He was pointing out that there are lots of mediocre photographers that blame their inability to take engaging images on the limitations of their equipment. If they could only get their hands on that latest advanced toy, they too could be great photographers . . . Unfortunately, that argument has been advanced so often that many photographers today accept it as a truism. Rockwell was simply saying that it "ain't necessarily so." Every camera, no matter how unsophisticated, has a range where it can produce credible images. Work within that range, create good images, and feel free to upgrade as finances warrant. But stop insisting that your deficiencies as a photographer are solely the result of having less-than-the-best equipment. Frankly, I see nothing that should raise any eyebrows in that. Rockwell mentions an incident involving master photographer Ernst Haas, who was giving a workshop where a couple of the students were praising Leica gear (which Haas used). "Leica schmeika!" Haas said. "Leica is only a camera. It is up to you to SEE!" That sentiment seems perfectly logical to me. Why all the fuss? |
#335
|
|||
|
|||
So Ken is now down to this - $150 beats $5000 (sic)?
jeremy wrote: Rockwell mentions an incident involving master photographer Ernst Haas, who was giving a workshop where a couple of the students were praising Leica gear (which Haas used). "Leica schmeika!" Haas said. "Leica is only a camera. It is up to you to SEE!" That sentiment seems perfectly logical to me. Why all the fuss? His words might have rang louder had he not been using a Leica himself. Reminds me of when Thomas Witte (a very good sports photographer) was posting here downplaying the importance of better equipment even though he used the top pro gear. How many pros still use old manual focus Minolta SRT-101s? |
#336
|
|||
|
|||
So Ken is now down to this - $150 beats $5000 (sic)?
jeremy wrote:
"Aaron" wrote in message ... And lo, emerged from the ether and spake thus: snip "Ask you favorite musician if he's as good as he is because of the brand of instrument he plays, or ask your favorite author if he writes as well as he does because of the typewriter he uses. Good tools just make it easier for people who do it all the time." big snip In the blues genre, some of the most influential musicians in history were impoverished, southern guitar players, self-taught, using any old junker guitar they could lay hands on. These are the guys who formed the genre, who influenced the world. Unfortunately, like many artists, most of them died before they were truly appreciated. Granted, there will always be *some* technical argument for having better equipment, but you have to crawl before you can walk. -- Aaron http://www.fisheyegallery.com http://www.singleservingphoto.com One needs to evaluate Rockwell's statement within its proper context. He was not suggesting that better equipment was of no consequence. He was pointing out that there are lots of mediocre photographers that blame their inability to take engaging images on the limitations of their equipment. If they could only get their hands on that latest advanced toy, they too could be great photographers . . . Unfortunately, that argument has been advanced so often that many photographers today accept it as a truism. Rockwell was simply saying that it "ain't necessarily so." Every camera, no matter how unsophisticated, has a range where it can produce credible images. Work within that range, create good images, and feel free to upgrade as finances warrant. But stop insisting that your deficiencies as a photographer are solely the result of having less-than-the-best equipment. Frankly, I see nothing that should raise any eyebrows in that. Rockwell mentions an incident involving master photographer Ernst Haas, who was giving a workshop where a couple of the students were praising Leica gear (which Haas used). "Leica schmeika!" Haas said. "Leica is only a camera. It is up to you to SEE!" That sentiment seems perfectly logical to me. Why all the fuss? Part of what the fuss is can be explained in a very simple example. My wife likes to photograph but she is pretty much not interested in the details and differences between cameras. So when it was clear that the point and shoot was not serving her needs I got her a 20D and a few lenses. That one simple thing, just going from a point and shoot to a DSLR improved her photography tremendously. So from where I stand I see a big impact on the equipment used but there we have Ken trying to tell people that if their photographs are not coming out the way they want it must be something wrong that they are doing. The problem is some people will believe this, when my wife tried to take photos indoors in fairly low light with a point and shoot camera the photos all came out very dark, she asked me what she did wrong, the answer was simple "you used the wrong camera" Note my wife never blamed the point and shoot camera, she blamed herself when her photos did not come out the way she had hoped for. But true this a new camera made all the difference in the world Scott |
#337
|
|||
|
|||
So Ken is now down to this - $150 beats $5000 (sic)?
On 11 Dec 2006 10:56:06 -0800, Scott W wrote:
Part of what the fuss is can be explained in a very simple example. My wife likes to photograph but she is pretty much not interested in the details and differences between cameras. So when it was clear that the point and shoot was not serving her needs I got her a 20D and a few lenses. That one simple thing, just going from a point and shoot to a DSLR improved her photography tremendously. So from where I stand I see a big impact on the equipment used but there we have Ken trying to tell people that if their photographs are not coming out the way they want it must be something wrong that they are doing. The problem is some people will believe this, when my wife tried to take photos indoors in fairly low light with a point and shoot camera the photos all came out very dark, she asked me what she did wrong, the answer was simple "you used the wrong camera" That's a very creative reinterpretation of what Ken has been saying, but it is most definitely NOT his message. His point is that for people that are pleased with what they are shooting, wouldn't use a better camera's potential to produce better pictures, and might even occasionally miss shots or produce inferior ones because they wouldn't have wanted to put in the effort needed to effectively understand and use a much more sophisticated camera. If you think that Ken was saying that your wife, or anyone else in the same position, butting up against the limits imposed by a P&S and wanting to do better shouldn't consider a good DSLR, then you're completely mistaken. Criticizing what he's said is fair, but criticizing what you think he said or want him to have said isn't. Note my wife never blamed the point and shoot camera, she blamed herself when her photos did not come out the way she had hoped for. But true this a new camera made all the difference in the world I'm sure that it did, but then your wife isn't one of those that Ken's point was about. If you think it was, then you could extend it and say that Ken thinks that nobody needs anything other than a P&S, and that's just as inaccurate, but evidently what a number Ken-ophobes want or need to believe. I'm very surprised that you appear to be one of them. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Maya Unlimited 7, and Alias MotionBuilder Pro 7, Maya Plugins Collection, Gnomon Maya eTutorials & Manuals, Maya training, ARTBEATS, Art Beats, | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | February 2nd 06 07:53 AM |
Canon Kit Lens beats Nikon in every test. | Steve Franklin | Digital SLR Cameras | 17 | August 19th 05 10:31 PM |
ARTBEATS, Art Beats for LightWave & Maya, COREL professional PHOTOS, Mixa Pro, Datacraft Sozaijiten, Datacraft Otojiten, ImageDJ, PHOTODISCS, and EYEWIRE CDs | futa | Digital Photography | 0 | March 2nd 05 08:50 PM |
Considering Coolpix 5000 | Larry R Harrison Jr | Digital Photography | 3 | February 16th 05 03:59 AM |
Minolta AF 5000 | Tom McGarr | General Equipment For Sale | 1 | July 2nd 03 04:49 PM |