A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

So Ken is now down to this - $150 beats $5000 (sic)?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #331  
Old December 8th 06, 07:36 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
ASAAR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,057
Default 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  
Old December 11th 06, 07:00 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
John Turco
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,436
Default 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  
Old December 11th 06, 06:37 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
jeremy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 984
Default 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  
Old December 11th 06, 07:32 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Annika1980
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,898
Default 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  
Old December 11th 06, 07:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Scott W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,131
Default 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  
Old December 11th 06, 10:02 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
ASAAR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,057
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.