DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:46:38 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in
:

"nospam" wrote in message
.. .

i will assume that since you are avoiding the question, no such camera
exists. if that's an incorrect assumption, feel free to cite the model
(or models) so that i (and others) can fairly evaluate it.

Your assumption is correct. John often describes the pie-in-the-sky camera
he wishes his Panasonic was. When pressed hard he finally does admit there
is no such camera, but he hates making the admission and tends to get bitter
and cranky about it.

That's a bunch of crap, and you know it. I actually made it clear from
the beginning that no such camera existed.

--
Best regards,
John Navas http:/navasgroup.com

'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:25:48 -0800 (PST), acl
wrote in
:

On Nov 23, 4:55 am, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:

To say nothing of the 7 other groups we're crossposting to...

Well, I don't read them, so I don't care (sorry). But seeing rpd and
rpdslr becoming what they are at the moment really ****es me off,
given what they were. We're at the point where people can't be
bothered to point out obvious untruths because they can't post as much
as the troll. But the troll is helped by the idiots who reply and
agree with him: it's the old divide and conquer at work (that, and
simple stupidity-sorry again!).

What seems to be ****ing people off are differing points of view, which
they try to dismiss as trolling.

John, you're not a troll. But the only guy in the NG you agree with, the
jerk who keeps posting under different names, is a troll. I'm sure you have
actually persuaded yourself that your Panasonic motor-zoom wonder is equal
or superior to a DSLR in all respects.


It's sad that some DSLR (large sensor) fans are so threatened on

Does it really make you feel better to dismiss people as "threatened" who
simply state the obvious superiority of a manual zoom in terms of ease of
use, speed and accuracy? That's what is called projection, John.


equipment and technique that they feel the need to try to belittle and
put down smaller cameras and the people who use them.

Again, one does not "belittle and put down" a different type of camera
simply by pointing that it is at a disadvantage compared to a DSLR in
certain respects. It's also true that compact cameras can do some things
that DSLRs can't do. For example, all my compacts can take videos; none of
my DSLRs can. Several of my compacts have very useful tilt and swivel LCD
monitors, which my DSLRs do not. These are useful capabilities.

But your persistence in claiming that a motorized zoom is as good (good =
user friendly, fast and accurate) as a manual zoom is just silly. You might
as well be claiming that a pickup truck is as good as a Ferrari for road
racing.

Neil

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:15:48 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in
:

"John Navas" wrote in message
. ..

In this case [P&S is] pejorative use by DSLR fans.

Not necessarily. DSLRs do have undeniable advantages compared to
non-reflex
cameras, but some disadvantages as well. I'm sure there are many, many
DSLR
owners like myself who also own, use, admire and respect non-SLR cameras.
I
think this is just another case of your discovering insult where none is
intended.

I think you're being disingenuous. We both know that both compact
cameras and DSLRs can be used in full automatic (point and shoot) mode,

Right. Any DSLR with a "green camera" mode is just as much a P&S when used
that way as any real P&S, except that unlike a real P&S the DSLR at least
tells you what it's doing..I have already said that I despise the term "P&S"
when applied to digital cameras, since in the vast majority of cases it is
not at all descriptive. My very first digital camera, more than eight years
ago, was an Agfa CL-30. Now that really was a P&S, just as much as any
point-and-shoot 35. But no digital camera I've owned since, including the
relatively simple compact models, is properly called "P&S" in my opinion.


and that better compact cameras are comparable in control to better DSLR
cameras.

Absolutely.


We both know many DSLR fans would be offended by a term like
"P&S DSLR",

Probably they would, though I've never seen such a term used.


just we know that many compact camera fans are offended by
the term "P&S".

I don't think so. I detest it, but most users of compact cameras use it
themselves.


My African-American friends would know I wouldn't mean
anything offensive with the N-word, and sometimes use it themselves, but
it's nonetheless pejorative.

Usenet has little or no impact on the world at large.

You're mistaken. Misusages that become popular in Usenet ("prime" being
perhaps the best example) tend to eventually appear on the printed page.
People *read* newsgroups after all, and in many cases adopt whatever
jargon
they find there.

I disagree. "Prime" didn't come from Usenet.

Actually I first saw "prime" misused (i.e., to mean fixed focal length) on a
photography echo on the old Fidonet. But that was very few times -- it's
Usenet that has raised the misusage to epidemic proportions, such that one
now finds it even on the printed page.

Neil

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 20:15:13 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in
:

Who even bothers to read your whole posts? The first paragraph is the
tip-off that it's just more nonsense from Forte Agent 4.1/32.1088; a quick
check of the header (if that's even necessary) and there's no reason to
read
further.

Fair enough, but it then makes no sense to respond, especially with just
a few repetitive lines at the end of a very long quote, and especially
when the post wasn't directed at you.

A "very long quote"? It was only a few lines. What, are you on dial-up with
a 300bps modem?

Neil

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:46:38 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in
:

"nospam" wrote in message
. ..

i will assume that since you are avoiding the question, no such camera
exists. if that's an incorrect assumption, feel free to cite the model
(or models) so that i (and others) can fairly evaluate it.

Your assumption is correct. John often describes the pie-in-the-sky camera
he wishes his Panasonic was. When pressed hard he finally does admit there
is no such camera, but he hates making the admission and tends to get
bitter
and cranky about it.

That's a bunch of crap, and you know it. I actually made it clear from
the beginning that no such camera existed.

I don't think so. If it's that clear to you, then why do you keep taking
offense at anyone who points out the superiority of the manual zoom to
push-button zoom on existing cameras?

Neil

In article , Neil
Harrington wrote:

I don't think so. If it's that clear to you, then why do you keep taking
offense at anyone who points out the superiority of the manual zoom to
push-button zoom on existing cameras?

Because Navas is a retard?

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:49:26 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in
:

"John Navas" wrote in message
.. .

I think you're being disingenuous. We both know that both compact
cameras and DSLRs can be used in full automatic (point and shoot) mode,

Right. Any DSLR with a "green camera" mode is just as much a P&S when used
that way as any real P&S, except that unlike a real P&S the DSLR at least
tells you what it's doing..

A sophisticated compact camera is no more a "real P&S" than a dSLR and
does tell you what it's doing; e.g., live histogram preview.

I disagree. "Prime" didn't come from Usenet.

Actually I first saw "prime" misused (i.e., to mean fixed focal length) on a
photography echo on the old Fidonet. But that was very few times -- it's
Usenet that has raised the misusage to epidemic proportions, such that one
now finds it even on the printed page.

Again, I disagree. Usenet is invisible to most of the world.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:27:49 -0900, (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:

Most of us call that landscape photography, but I digress...

But what did Adams think of it as?

You tell me. And include a citation.

Examples?

Do your own research. ...

I'm not going to take it seriously if you won't or can't back up what
you say.

Your statement would have made him cringe.

I doubt it. Suggest you read up on Group f/64.

Maybe you should. Other than the name, Group f/64
twasn't much to do with depth of field, as such. It was
"straight photography" rather than pictorialism
(emulation of painted artwork).. And keep in mind that
several of his cohorts in Group f/64 were portrait
photographers. Their point was *never* that everything
had to be sharply in focus. It was that the *subject*
should be focused sharply. Lens focus of course being
just one way that is accomplished...

Your claim flies in the face of the name of the group -- f/64
specifically refers to maximum depth of field. Shallow focus was viewed
as a form of pictorialism they rejected.

What makes you think that?

There is no other logical meaning to what you said. Of
course if you weren't being rational...

Since you stoop to common insult I can only assume you had and have no
real point to make.

There is no such real limitation in all compact cameras, ; e.g.,
http://img85.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1030671bb9.jpg
[shot with Panasonic DMC-FZ8]

Is *that* supposed to be an example of "extremely
shallow depth of field"?

It's an example of more than sufficiently shallow depth of field.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:31:31 -0800 (PST), Scott W
wrote in
:

On Nov 26, 9:12 am, John Navas wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:58:52 -0900, (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in :

It is nonetheless ironic that DSLR fans, most (but not all) of whom
concede the greatness of Ansel Adams, beat the drum so hard for
extremely shallow depth of field (as an advantage over smaller sensors),
something that would have made Ansel Adams (and other members of Group
f/64) cringe. Situational ethics?

Ansel Adams was a portrait photographer. He is famous
for portraits of Mother Nature, which generally work out
best using significant depth of field;

Most of us call that landscape photography, but I digress...

but the fact is
also true that he took thousands of images of people,
and often used shallow depth of field to emphasize parts
of an image.

Examples?

http://starbulletin.com/2006/09/03/features/art1d.jpg

That's one. A long way from "often".

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:31:31 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in
:

"John Navas" wrote in message
.. .

What seems to be ****ing people off are differing points of view, which
they try to dismiss as trolling.

John, you're not a troll. But the only guy in the NG you agree with, the
jerk who keeps posting under different names, is a troll.

Cut the crap. He's far from the only guy I agree with.

I'm sure you have
actually persuaded yourself that your Panasonic motor-zoom wonder is equal
or superior to a DSLR in all respects.

I know from professional experience that servo systems can and do
outperform mechanical systems. And I didn't say "all respect" -- that's
another red herring -- all systems have pros and cons, and I've
mentioned real cons of servo systems, notably battery life.

It's sad that some DSLR (large sensor) fans are so threatened on

Does it really make you feel better to dismiss people as "threatened" who
simply state the obvious superiority of a manual zoom in terms of ease of
use, speed and accuracy? That's what is called projection, John.

Cut the crap. There's no "obvious superiority" and I feel neither
better nor worse.

equipment and technique that they feel the need to try to belittle and
put down smaller cameras and the people who use them.

Again, one does not "belittle and put down" a different type of camera
simply by pointing that it is at a disadvantage compared to a DSLR in
certain respects.

They belittle it when they belittle it.

But your persistence in claiming that a motorized zoom is as good (good =
user friendly, fast and accurate) as a manual zoom is just silly.

Your continuing insults are offensive.

You might
as well be claiming that a pickup truck is as good as a Ferrari for road
racing.

You are the one claiming a pickup truck is as good as a Ferrari for road
racing.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)