DSLR's cutting-edge capabilities are nice, but no longer needed?

On 5/19/2015 12:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On May 19, 2015, George Kerby wrote
(in ):

On 5/17/15 4:25 PM, in article
, "RichA"
wrote:

Neeeeedddd. Gotta havvvvee!! For what? Bragging rights? For their "great"
photographic efforts? So they can watch a pro with lesser gear run rings
around them?

Goes with the old saying about an infinite number of moneys at typewriters
can eventually produce a novel of sorts...

Yup! Throw enough money at a typewriter, and you will without doubt, get a
great novel.

Think Kim Kardashian. Tell enough people she has talent, and some will
believe it.


--
PeterN

On May 19, 2015, PeterN wrote
(in ):

On 5/19/2015 12:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On May 19, 2015, George Kerby wrote
(in ):

On 5/17/15 4:25 PM, in article
, "RichA"
wrote:

Neeeeedddd. Gotta havvvvee!! For what? Bragging rights? For their
"great"
photographic efforts? So they can watch a pro with lesser gear run
rings
around them?

Goes with the old saying about an infinite number of moneys at
typewriters
can eventually produce a novel of sorts...

Yup! Throw enough money at a typewriter, and you will without doubt, get a
great novel.
Think Kim Kardashian. Tell enough people she has talent, and some will
believe it.

The one in that family who has talent is the mother. She has the talent to
market the whole klan of “K� klones.


--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 5/19/15 PDT 9:53 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On May 19, 2015, PeterN wrote
(in ):

On 5/19/2015 12:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On May 19, 2015, George Kerby wrote
(in ):

On 5/17/15 4:25 PM, in article
, "RichA"
wrote:

Neeeeedddd. Gotta havvvvee!! For what? Bragging rights? For their
"great"
photographic efforts? So they can watch a pro with lesser gear run
rings
around them?

Goes with the old saying about an infinite number of moneys at
typewriters
can eventually produce a novel of sorts...

Yup! Throw enough money at a typewriter, and you will without doubt, get a
great novel.
Think Kim Kardashian. Tell enough people she has talent, and some will
believe it.

The one in that family who has talent is the mother. She has the talent to
market the whole klan of “K� klones.

Bingo!

Although I am beginning to think invoking of any of those people is
almost like referring to the dominant political party in Germany in the
30's and part of the 40's. ...... EOT!

On 5/20/2015 8:58 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 May 2015 16:56:02 UTC+1, George Kerby wrote:
On 5/17/15 4:25 PM, in article
, "RichA"
wrote:

On Sunday, 17 May 2015 09:26:00 UTC-4, Sandman wrote:
In article , RichA
wrote:

RichA:
You can produce a decent shot of almost anything with lesser
cameras today. So who really needs "the best?"

Sandman:
Professional and prosumer photographers. You're welcome.

"Prosumers need the best...HA HA HA HA!" WANT, yes; NEED? NO!

Laugh it up, fuzzball. Doesn't change the answer.

Professional and prosumer photographers need DSLR.

--
Sandman

Neeeeedddd. Gotta havvvvee!! For what? Bragging rights? For their "great"
photographic efforts? So they can watch a pro with lesser gear run rings
around them?

Goes with the old saying about an infinite number of moneys at typewriters
can eventually produce a novel of sorts...

Think you meant monkeys, but tehy found that isn;t actually true as:
1/ Monkey would just sit there most likely wanking themselves off or destroying the typewriter.
for the above reason(s) you'd need an infinite number of typewriters too,
and wet wipes.
Also it'd take infinite time to check/join the resulting text together,
so would need an infinte number of people over an infinite time.


And how many monkeys would it take to type your above paragraph in one
day. (lets use a typing rate of sisty five words per minute.




--
PeterN

On 5/20/2015 9:45 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 5/20/2015 8:58 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 May 2015 16:56:02 UTC+1, George Kerby wrote:
On 5/17/15 4:25 PM, in article
, "RichA"
wrote:

On Sunday, 17 May 2015 09:26:00 UTC-4, Sandman wrote:
In article ,
RichA
wrote:

RichA:
You can produce a decent shot of almost anything with lesser
cameras today. So who really needs "the best?"

Sandman:
Professional and prosumer photographers. You're welcome.

"Prosumers need the best...HA HA HA HA!" WANT, yes; NEED? NO!

Laugh it up, fuzzball. Doesn't change the answer.

Professional and prosumer photographers need DSLR.

--
Sandman

Neeeeedddd. Gotta havvvvee!! For what? Bragging rights? For
their "great"
photographic efforts? So they can watch a pro with lesser gear run
rings
around them?

Goes with the old saying about an infinite number of moneys at
typewriters
can eventually produce a novel of sorts...

Think you meant monkeys, but tehy found that isn;t actually true as:
1/ Monkey would just sit there most likely wanking themselves off or
destroying the typewriter.
for the above reason(s) you'd need an infinite number of typewriters too,
and wet wipes.
Also it'd take infinite time to check/join the resulting text together,
so would need an infinte number of people over an infinite time.


And how many monkeys would it take to type your above paragraph in one
day. (lets use a typing rate of sisty five words per minute.


Shouldn't take much time at all ...after those 10,000 hours of practice. 8-)
==
L...
RC
--

On 5/19/15 11:25 AM, in article
, "Savageduck"
wrote:

On May 19, 2015, George Kerby wrote
(in ):

On 5/17/15 4:25 PM, in article
, "RichA"
wrote:

Neeeeedddd. Gotta havvvvee!! For what? Bragging rights? For their "great"
photographic efforts? So they can watch a pro with lesser gear run rings
around them?

Goes with the old saying about an infinite number of moneys at typewriters
can eventually produce a novel of sorts...

Yup! Throw enough money at a typewriter, and you will without doubt, get a
great novel.

--

Regards,
Savageduck


LOL! My BAAAAAAAAAD...

On 5/20/15 PDT 6:45 AM, PeterN wrote:

And how many monkeys would it take to type your above paragraph in one
day. (lets use a typing rate of sisty five words per minute.

An infinite number of monkeys would produce all the great works and all
the gibberish in short order. But there's not an infinite number of
anything. The universe may be expanding, but it's not infinite. Yes, a
lot more than we can grasp, but not infinite!

On 5/21/2015 11:09 AM, John McWilliams wrote:
On 5/20/15 PDT 6:45 AM, PeterN wrote:

And how many monkeys would it take to type your above paragraph in one
day. (lets use a typing rate of sisty five words per minute.

An infinite number of monkeys would produce all the great works and all
the gibberish in short order. But there's not an infinite number of
anything. The universe may be expanding, but it's not infinite. Yes, a
lot more than we can grasp, but not infinite!


Absolutely true. Thought I said something like that before.

--
PeterN

On May 21, 2015, PeterN wrote
(in ):

On 5/21/2015 11:09 AM, John McWilliams wrote:
On 5/20/15 PDT 6:45 AM, PeterN wrote:

And how many monkeys would it take to type your above paragraph in one
day. (lets use a typing rate of sisty five words per minute.

An infinite number of monkeys would produce all the great works and all
the gibberish in short order. But there's not an infinite number of
anything. The universe may be expanding, but it's not infinite. Yes, a
lot more than we can grasp, but not infinite!

Absolutely true. Thought I said something like that before.

…and if the monkeys were gibbons, then you would have gibbon grown,
graphic, gibberish.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 5/21/2015 1:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On May 21, 2015, PeterN wrote
(in ):

On 5/21/2015 11:09 AM, John McWilliams wrote:
On 5/20/15 PDT 6:45 AM, PeterN wrote:

And how many monkeys would it take to type your above paragraph in one
day. (lets use a typing rate of sisty five words per minute.

An infinite number of monkeys would produce all the great works and all
the gibberish in short order. But there's not an infinite number of
anything. The universe may be expanding, but it's not infinite. Yes, a
lot more than we can grasp, but not infinite!

Absolutely true. Thought I said something like that before.

…and if the monkeys were gibbons, then you would have gibbon grown,
graphic, gibberish.

--
Your gibbon premise is wrong. Gibbons are apes, not monkeys.



--
PeterN