Buying new digital camera

Sandman wrote:
In article ,
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

That's just backwards. Not one single person in the camera department in
the superstores has undergone any form of salesman training.

Yes, noone ever trains their salesmen ever in sales techniques.

Exactly.

If they manage to get some training in their own time, they
are immediately fired.

Eh, ok?

And of course Sandman has tested every salesman in every
superstore everywhere in the sun system.

Nope. Why would you think that?

So who did the testing of all these salesmen if you didn't?

Or are you withdrawing your claim of "Not one single person
in the camera department in the superstores has undergone any
form of salesman training."?

Are you trolling? Making absurd
statements with the motive of discrediting my claim? Wouldn't a
counter-claim be more effective? It may reflect better on you at least.

No, that would just be pointless arguing with you. Better to
take your claims at face value and find out where that leads.

-Wolfgang

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

In 2013 a Brownie will still take adequate pictures of the kids'
Halloween costumes and the like. Most people who buy cameras don't
really want more than that.

As I've explained, this isn't true.

In your circle of acquaintances maybe.

No.

Which is not being met?

"It does what they want it to do".

What, specifically, that they want it to do, does it not do?

It differs from case to case, for obvious reasons.

Yes, Rolls Royce had poor performing engines, considering the immense
weight of the cars. They were adequate since they did propel the car
forwards, but far from satisfactory for someone that wanted more than
just mere propulsion. Luckily for Rolls Royce, most of their customers
weren't looking for great acceleration or top speed.

And thus the engines were adequate.

As opposed to perfect.

Have you considere that you are working from a biased sample?

Not really.

Then consider it.

Done.

Have you used instagram? It is fairly known for its ability to add
artistic filters to your photos to make them look more exciting than
they really are. Some 99% of instagram photos have filters added to this
effect.

Nope, I have no interest in "instagram".

So you have no knowledge about it, yet won't trust the word of someone
who has. Curious.

And adding filters does not mean that one is looking to be the next
Ansel Adams.

Non sequitur.

That adequate isn't perfect.

Oh, I see.

I doubt it.

Well, there is no camera on the market today that is
"perfect".

According to what criteria?

If perfection is the only acceptable standard for you you
are doomed to a life of disappointment and I pity you.

If this is your level of reading comprehension, I pity you.

That users could find the perfect camera by either doing proper
research or buying from a knowledgable store (i.e. not a
superstore).

Since, according to you, there is a "perfect camera", why don't you save
us all a bunch of time by telling us what it is?

Are you this groups most underperforming troll as of yet?

I am saying that $X buys you adequate and $Y buys you perfect while both
being in the same budget scope. You would find the perfect camera for $Y
if you do proper research or deal with the right camera store.

So let's see, your budget is 150 bucks and you are going to find a
perfect camera in that budget? Good luck.

Again, I can't make comments on a budget you made up.

My god you're obtuse. Why won't you read what I write?

I did.

No.

*rolleye* Marketing for a store that's closed?? What's the purpose?

So ever store in the world is closed now?

So English is what, fourth or fifth language to you?

snip rest of repetitive trolling

Let me know if you every have anything worthwhile to add to an adult
discussion in the future.



--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Nope. Why would you think that?

So who did the testing of all these salesmen if you didn't?

Or are you withdrawing your claim of "Not one single person
in the camera department in the superstores has undergone any
form of salesman training."?

It's called an exaggeration. I'm sorry for the confusion.

Are you trolling? Making absurd
statements with the motive of discrediting my claim? Wouldn't a
counter-claim be more effective? It may reflect better on you at least.

No, that would just be pointless arguing with you. Better to
take your claims at face value and find out where that leads.

Trolling, then.

--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
says...

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

In 2013 a Brownie will still take adequate pictures of the kids'
Halloween costumes and the like. Most people who buy cameras don't
really want more than that.

As I've explained, this isn't true.

In your circle of acquaintances maybe.

No.

Which is not being met?

"It does what they want it to do".

What, specifically, that they want it to do, does it not do?

It differs from case to case, for obvious reasons.

Yes, Rolls Royce had poor performing engines, considering the immense
weight of the cars. They were adequate since they did propel the car
forwards, but far from satisfactory for someone that wanted more than
just mere propulsion. Luckily for Rolls Royce, most of their customers
weren't looking for great acceleration or top speed.

And thus the engines were adequate.

As opposed to perfect.

Have you considere that you are working from a biased sample?

Not really.

Then consider it.

Done.

Have you used instagram? It is fairly known for its ability to add
artistic filters to your photos to make them look more exciting than
they really are. Some 99% of instagram photos have filters added to this
effect.

Nope, I have no interest in "instagram".

So you have no knowledge about it, yet won't trust the word of someone
who has. Curious.

And adding filters does not mean that one is looking to be the next
Ansel Adams.

Non sequitur.

That adequate isn't perfect.

Oh, I see.

I doubt it.

Well, there is no camera on the market today that is
"perfect".

According to what criteria?

If perfection is the only acceptable standard for you you
are doomed to a life of disappointment and I pity you.

If this is your level of reading comprehension, I pity you.

That users could find the perfect camera by either doing proper
research or buying from a knowledgable store (i.e. not a
superstore).

Since, according to you, there is a "perfect camera", why don't you save
us all a bunch of time by telling us what it is?

Are you this groups most underperforming troll as of yet?

I am saying that $X buys you adequate and $Y buys you perfect while both
being in the same budget scope. You would find the perfect camera for $Y
if you do proper research or deal with the right camera store.

So let's see, your budget is 150 bucks and you are going to find a
perfect camera in that budget? Good luck.

Again, I can't make comments on a budget you made up.

My god you're obtuse. Why won't you read what I write?

I did.

No.

*rolleye* Marketing for a store that's closed?? What's the purpose?

So ever store in the world is closed now?

So English is what, fourth or fifth language to you?

snip rest of repetitive trolling

Let me know if you every have anything worthwhile to add to an adult
discussion in the future.

I see. When pressed to support your argument, you resort to name
calling, snarky remarks, and ultimately taking your ball and going home,
and then you accuse others of trolling.

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Let me know if you every have anything worthwhile to add to an adult
discussion in the future.

I see. When pressed to support your argument

What argument? You haven't even read what I have written. You haven't
"pressed" me to support any argument, you have only made irrelevant
comments not related to anything I've written.

you resort to name calling, snarky remarks, and ultimately taking
your ball and going home, and then you accuse others of trolling.

I correctly pointed out that you were trolling. I admit to being
frustrated by the fact that you had me fooled for a couple of posts and
I actually took the time to respond to your posts when in fact all you
did was ignore what I wrote and then reply with irrelevant
misinterpretations and misinformation, repetitively.

I have little patience with you trolls in this group, since I'm here to
talk about photography, and sometimes it's too late to see that I've
been dragged into the mud by people that want to argue things that are
based on nothing I've written or said.

There really should be a rec.photo.advocacy group where you trolls can
hang out and leave us actual posters alone in the real groups. Why don't
you post in rec.photo.misc at least?



--
Sandman[.net]