On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:34:42 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:09:49 -0600, D.J.
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 20:17:17 -0800, Paul Furman
wrote:

me wrote:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...tId=b logDest

Ha, an array of cell phone camera sensors.

Ha! Focal-Plane-Shutter Distortions from a DSLR! It's always so obvious
when you see an image like this exactly what kind of bad camera design has
captured it.

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/15/0/8f56b27b-79ad-4022-a038-2cb624d0256a.Full.jpg

I just love these examples. Gotta love those amazingly bad camera designs
from last century that turn any fast moving object into distorted rubber.
Even funnier, blind DSLR worshippers insist this never happens. I guess
they don't take many photographs then!

HA!

Thanks for the page link! This is another good one to show everyone the
misleading, inaccurate, and totally lame images created by any DSLR. Even a
cell-phone camera couldn't destroy an image this badly.


Actually, you have got it all wrong.

Actually you need to learn to read. I emphasized FOCAL-PLANE-SHUTTER
distortions in the very first line of my comment. Just because all DSLR's
are crippled with that inefficient, image shaking, obnoxious noise-making,
image distorting, and slow-sync flash+shutter limiting design isn't my
fault. That's your fault for buying and supporting that antiquated crap.
Can't you even read and comprehend what you are trying to add your useless
DSLR-Trolls' comments to?

The problem you refer to does not
occur as a result of the use of a mirror system but as a result of the
use of a focal plane shutter. Mirrors don't force the use of focal
plane shutters but interchangeable lenses almost certainly do. Sure,
interchangeable lens cameras have been built without focal plane
shutters but are you really advocating one shutter per lens? Sure, you
can get away with that if your camera has a non-interchangeable lens
but then, in today's market, that forces you to put up with all the
optical problems of a super-zoom.

Yes, let's not do that. When everyone already knows that a superzoom 20x
P&S lens already beats the resolution and CA performance of an even easier
to design 3x DSLR zoom lens.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml

Nobody in their right mind wants a camera lens of 6.7X the range of a DSLR
lens with far greater image superiority for 1/10th the price it would cost
to attain the same zoom range and even less aperture on the DSLR, with no
guarantee the images would even be equal or better. No focal-plane-shutter
distortions. Real-time shutter-speed previews, etc. Especially on a camera
where the shutter can sync with flash perfectly up to 1/40,000 of a second
true shutter speed. They'd be out of their minds! Well, except for those
that don't have their heads shoved up their DSLR-worshipping asses so deep
that they're still hoping for a miracle to happen on their last-century
DSLR designs.


Don't bother responding. It will only be bull**** anyway.


See, that's the nice thing about being an independent thinker and never
following the advice of someone who knows less than I do. I get to do what
I want, and discover innovations that blow away anything that the lost
followers do, all the while they are insisting that everyone else must do
as they do. Lest they all be proved wrong and shown to be the total idiots
and fools that they really are.

The only bull**** around here is you and the rest of the useless
DSLR-Troll, role-play, snapshooters without a clue.