Full Moon Handheld

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 21:30:09 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" wrote:

He's So Funny! wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:04:00 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" wrote:

John McWilliams wrote:
He's So Funny! wrote:
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Roger-

I've see you've made it; you have your own nym shifting stalker!

It's too bad there are so many cowards out there, but I doubt that'll
change at least on usenet.

Yes, and it has even threatened my life. It must really
be jealous!

LOL!!! That's rich. I bet you feel your life is threatened when you go see
Freddy Kruger movies too. LOL!!

Do you know what you fail to realize?

The VERY FACT that you are trying to compete with the photos from a $400 P&S
camera using $12,000 worth of DSLR ... MEANS YOU ALREADY LOST ... even if you
COULD get better photos!

Or haven't you figured that out yet?

Of course he hasn't, he's that ****in' stupid. If he had figured that out he
wouldn't have just proved it to the whole world that he already lost by trying
to compete with a P&S camera.

His absurdity never ceases to amuse.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're a doctor of .... what? Cracker-Jacks? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


PhD Planetary Science, MIT, 1980.

LOL!!!! Now I know why they lost those 2 Mars explorers without a trace.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



No go tell your mommy that she needs to teach you some manners,
and that it is not nice to lie. She also needs to wash your mouth
out with soap, as its awfully dirty.

Roger

Manners? You're one to talk about manners you ****in' asswipe. Sticking your fat
****ing nose in every thread trying to tell people to buy cameras they clearly
don't need, don't want, and will only be a waste of their money. Like you wasted
your money on your camera.

Want proof? Let's see some more ....


OH NO!

OH MUH GAWD!

A HAND-HELD SHOT OF THE MOON TAKEN WITH A $250 CANON S3 IS P&S CAMERA TAKEN
THROUGH THE SMOKE OF THE CALIFORNIA FIRES!

http://www.pbase.com/donc28/image/87903942/original.jpg


NOW LET'S COMPARE IT TO A $15,000 DSLR IMAGE OF THE MOON. SHALL WE? (judging by
the lower-right, it appears they were taken within hours of each other, do note
the exact same amount of detail in that region)

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...83f-8s-800.jpg


LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Shove your piece of **** $12,000 DSLR up your ass, you ****'n fool!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!

He's So Funny! wrote:
[]
A HAND-HELD SHOT OF THE MOON TAKEN WITH A $250 CANON S3 IS P&S CAMERA
TAKEN THROUGH THE SMOKE OF THE CALIFORNIA FIRES!

http://www.pbase.com/donc28/image/87903942/original.jpg

Not from an un-aided 6MP S3 IS. The diameter of the moon is too great
(too many pixels).

David

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:
[]
Very impressive. Roger lists an IS lens, but not whether IS was
enabled.

Yes, IS was on.

Roger

I guessed it would be, Roger.

Thanks,
David

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 06:14:37 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote:

He's So Funny! wrote:
[]
A HAND-HELD SHOT OF THE MOON TAKEN WITH A $250 CANON S3 IS P&S CAMERA
TAKEN THROUGH THE SMOKE OF THE CALIFORNIA FIRES!

http://www.pbase.com/donc28/image/87903942/original.jpg

Not from an un-aided 6MP S3 IS. The diameter of the moon is too great
(too many pixels).

David


Well of course not silly! Here's a clue from the original poster:

S3 & Sony TC

Don't you think it's fair putting a $98 1.7x teleconverter on a $250 camera
($348) to get nearly the same quality of image as an $8,000 DSLR +$5,300
L-glass, + $200 2.0x teleconverter ($13,500)?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Holy ****, when you add up those numbers this just gets more and more funny with
every attempt that Roger makes trying to prove his camera was worth the cost.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!

Really now, for 39 times the price (do the math, you could buy THIRTY NINE
CAMERAS for the amount of money that Roger threw away on his), don't you think
he should be getting 39 times the resolution? AT LEAST???
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh man! This just get's so ****in' funny! I'm going to have to start ignoring
Roger's feeble attempts at trying to prove to himself that his camera wasn't a
waste of money or I'll never be able to stop laughing!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even more rich, someone has to justify this S3 IS photo by thinking the EXIF
data was forged. LOL!!!!!! That just goes to prove Roger's DSLR is just one
****INGLY HUGE waste of money!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

COME ON PEOPLE! LET'S SEE MORE PROOF OF WHY YOU THINK ROGER IS A MORON! Thinking
the S3's EXIF data was forged was a good one! Got more like that?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On 27 Oct, 02:22, He's So Funny! wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:04:00 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to



rnclark)" wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:
He's So Funny! wrote:

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Roger-

I've see you've made it; you have your own nym shifting stalker!

It's too bad there are so many cowards out there, but I doubt that'll
change at least on usenet.

Yes, and it has even threatened my life. It must really
be jealous!

LOL!!! That's rich. I bet you feel your life is threatened when you go see
Freddy Kruger movies too. LOL!!

Do you know what you fail to realize?

The VERY FACT that you are trying to compete with the photos from a $400 P&S
camera using $12,000 worth of DSLR ... MEANS YOU ALREADY LOST ... even if you
COULD get better photos!

Or haven't you figured that out yet?

Of course he hasn't, he's that ****in' stupid. If he had figured that out he
wouldn't have just proved it to the whole world that he already lost by trying
to compete with a P&S camera.

His absurdity never ceases to amuse.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're a doctor of .... what? Cracker-Jacks? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tosser

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:09:07 GMT, He's So Funny! wrote:
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess now we know who is responsible for last week's spike in the spot
price for '!'s.

-dms

On 10/26/07 8:22 PM, in article ,
"He's So Funny!" wrote:

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:04:00 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" wrote:

John McWilliams wrote:
He's So Funny! wrote:

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Roger-

I've see you've made it; you have your own nym shifting stalker!

It's too bad there are so many cowards out there, but I doubt that'll
change at least on usenet.


Yes, and it has even threatened my life. It must really
be jealous!

LOL!!! That's rich. I bet you feel your life is threatened when you go see
Freddy Kruger movies too. LOL!!

Do you know what you fail to realize?

The VERY FACT that you are trying to compete with the photos from a $400 P&S
camera using $12,000 worth of DSLR ... MEANS YOU ALREADY LOST ... even if you
COULD get better photos!

Or haven't you figured that out yet?

Of course he hasn't, he's that ****in' stupid. If he had figured that out he
wouldn't have just proved it to the whole world that he already lost by trying
to compete with a P&S camera.

His absurdity never ceases to amuse.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're a doctor of .... what? Cracker-Jacks? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Put the **** up, or shut the **** up, moronic sock-puppet troll.

On 27 Oct, 15:29, Marty Fremen wrote:
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote:



I finally had a night with a steady atmosphere, so I
tried imaging the full moon handheld at 1000 mm (real focal length):

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries.../web/moon.rncl
ark.handheld.c10.25.2007.jz3f6583f-8s-800.html

This was done standing up with no supports and not leaning against
anything. The full resolution image can be seen from the above page.

Big deal, even a point and shoot can photograph the moon. I took this
whilst looking out of the window the other day, handheld, no supports:http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/9...884auh0.jpgEat your hearts
out, DSLR users!

Incidentally, this is the same view using max. digital zoom and
deconvolution filter to overcome diffraction limit and atmospheric
distortion:http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/8...closeupcg8.jpg

LOLOLOLOL
I almost took that as an instant dig.
That was teh funny.

Doc

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 08:15:42 -0700, Dr Hfuhruhurr
wrote:

On 27 Oct, 15:29, Marty Fremen wrote:
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote:



I finally had a night with a steady atmosphere, so I
tried imaging the full moon handheld at 1000 mm (real focal length):

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries.../web/moon.rncl
ark.handheld.c10.25.2007.jz3f6583f-8s-800.html

This was done standing up with no supports and not leaning against
anything. The full resolution image can be seen from the above page.

Big deal, even a point and shoot can photograph the moon. I took this
whilst looking out of the window the other day, handheld, no supports:http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/9...884auh0.jpgEat your hearts
out, DSLR users!

Incidentally, this is the same view using max. digital zoom and
deconvolution filter to overcome diffraction limit and atmospheric
distortion:http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/8...closeupcg8.jpg

LOLOLOLOL
I almost took that as an instant dig.
That was teh funny.

Doc

But you missed the funniest part about this of all!

He's so threatened by the superior images being posted all over the internet by
P&S camera owners that he even had to bother to try this kindergartner's level
of attempt to discredit P&S cameras.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I love it! Keep posting your proof of your being threatened by P&S cameras!! If
you didn't think they were a rival you wouldn't even bother.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Awww... what's the matter little moron, is the realization of how much money you
wasted on those piece of **** DSLRs finally sinking into that only brain-cell
you've ever had?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 05:25:41 -0400, M-M wrote:

In article ,
He's So Funny! wrote:

A HAND-HELD SHOT OF THE MOON TAKEN WITH A $250 CANON S3 IS P&S CAMERA TAKEN
THROUGH THE SMOKE OF THE CALIFORNIA FIRES!

http://www.pbase.com/donc28/image/87903942/original.jpg


72mm? I can fake exif also. Here is one taken with that same camera at
the same moment using the exact same settings:


Leave it to the ignorance and stupidity of another DSLR proponent. Don't you
know that 72mm in the EXIF data in an S3 IS is equal to a 35mm camera 432mm
focal length lens?

You didn't?!? Of course you didn't! Because only fools and idiots buy DSLRs.
They can't be bothered with educating themselves with anything more than "you
get what you pay for". That often disproved phrase is the only thing they use
for making any of their purchases and decisions in life. Show them 2 of the
exact same filters but branded with different company names One boxed with a
price tag of $239.95 on it, the other with $19.95 on it. Guess which one they
will grab while KNOWING that it MUST BE THE BETTER ONE! How do they think all
these camera companies make so much money off of these fools? But they can't
think that far, that's way too much thinking that they'd have to do. No, they
only have to simply their lives down to their 70 point I.Q. with "you get what
you pay for".

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go ahead, throw another $15,000 away on another DSLR + LENSES. It'll make you
twice as good! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, just 2 times more ****ingly stupid than they already are, while they proudly
display and prove that fact to the whole world!

THANKS -- FOR PROVING YET AGAIN -- NOBODY BUT THE IGNORANT AND STUPID BUY
DSLRS!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!