25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR (minor typo corrections)

On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:07:43 -0600, Glenn-Franken
wrote:

On 5 Nov 2008 20:34:02 -0600, "Toby" wrote:

Camera companies are not stupid.

No, but typical amateur-photographer consumers, are.

Camera companies are all too willing to provide what those people will buy. Even
better if the camera company can produce something for $10 and sell it for $1000
dollars. As in the case of most DSLRs and all their required accessories. They
could sell any DSLR glass, L-Glass included, for under $100 a shot. But you? Not
knowing a thing, gleefully hand out your dough, just for the social-prestige of
promoting an antiquated technology. And attempting, but failing, to look like a
"Pro".

Ain't this fun.

FINALLY you admit that real pros use DSLRs.

Ain't this fun.

Ron Hunter wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 09:33:35 -0500, B?wser wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:46:12 -0600, Carl_Devonston
wrote:

Then maybe you'll
begin to understand why it's only a matter of time, maybe only a
couple years,
before your beloved, though ancient, D/SLR designs completely
disappear from
common usage.

You can have my gun, but you'll have to pry my dslr from my cold,
dead, hands.
DSLRs will disappear eventually, all tech changes. But to claim
that they can replace them now? Kinda silly...

What did photographers used to say, just a few years back about
film cameras versus digital?

It seems that about half of the argument against P&S cameras is
justified, and half of the argument is just a defensive posture of
the inevitable.

I rather suspect that a good 10mp P&S makes a better picture than
older DSLRs of only a few years ago. At some point, most people
will
probably go with the smaller, lighter, option.

And a good photographer makes a better picture than either.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 09:33:35 -0500, B?wser wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:46:12 -0600, Carl_Devonston
wrote:

Then maybe you'll
begin to understand why it's only a matter of time, maybe only a
couple years,
before your beloved, though ancient, D/SLR designs completely
disappear from
common usage.

You can have my gun, but you'll have to pry my dslr from my cold,
dead, hands.
DSLRs will disappear eventually, all tech changes. But to claim that
they can replace them now? Kinda silly...

What did photographers used to say, just a few years back about film
cameras versus digital? It seems that about half of the argument against
P&S cameras is
justified, and half of the argument is just a defensive posture of the
inevitable.

I rather suspect that a good 10mp P&S makes a better picture than older
DSLRs of only a few years ago. At some point, most people will probably
go with the smaller, lighter, option.

Nope, not yet because they keep raisingMP counts. My 3 1/2 year old Pentax
DS still takes very good noise free photos.

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
tony cooper wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:46:12 -0600, Carl_Devonston
wrote:

Then maybe you'll
begin to understand why it's only a matter of time, maybe only a couple
years,
before your beloved, though ancient, D/SLR designs completely disappear
from
common usage.

You can have my gun, but you'll have to pry my dslr from my cold,
dead, hands.


No problem, it probably wouldn't fit in the casket anyway.

You forgot the nyuk,nyuk, nyuk's...... ;-)

On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 11:29:33 GMT, Steve wrote:


On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:07:43 -0600, Glenn-Franken
wrote:

On 5 Nov 2008 20:34:02 -0600, "Toby" wrote:

Camera companies are not stupid.

No, but typical amateur-photographer consumers, are.

Camera companies are all too willing to provide what those people will buy. Even
better if the camera company can produce something for $10 and sell it for $1000
dollars. As in the case of most DSLRs and all their required accessories. They
could sell any DSLR glass, L-Glass included, for under $100 a shot. But you? Not
knowing a thing, gleefully hand out your dough, just for the social-prestige of
promoting an antiquated technology. And attempting, but failing, to look like a
"Pro".

Ain't this fun.

FINALLY you admit that real pros use DSLRs.

Ain't this fun.

Yes, watching you make an even bigger fool of yourself is always fun.

How you misread any of the above to admit(?) that real professionals all use
DSLRs, is beyond me. It's an observation about those who are so stupid as to
think they need a DSLR to be a "Pro" and throwing away exorbitant amounts of
money in their attempts to do so.

C'mon steve, are you reading usenet through your coke-bottle-bottom glasses
again, and then just hitting the reply button, typing anything, and hoping it
will make sense to someone other than you? No, wait. I've got it figured out.
You are hoping someone will try to explain your ideas to you so they will
finally make sense to you. That's it, isn't it.

Stick your fingers in your ears and hum a tune, then you also don't have to
actually take in any audio information while you sit there imagining what you
want to see.

I'm beginning to understand now why there's so little worthwhile photography in
the world. With people as unperceptive as the "Steves" displaying an interest in
photography how can any of them know when and where to click a shutter-button at
the right time, let alone anything else.

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.]
On 2008-11-06, Ron Hunter wrote:
I rather suspect that a good 10mp P&S makes a better picture than older
DSLRs of only a few years ago. At some point, most people will probably
go with the smaller, lighter, option.

I rather suspect you've never examined the output of those two cameras,
whichever two you choose.

--
savvo orig. invib. man

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.]
On 2008-11-06, Toby wrote:

"B?wser" wrote in message
...

"Carl_Devonston" wrote in message
...
As they improve and as more people realize how much more efficient they
are for
all purposes, then yes you will see D/SLRs disappear. Just as you saw all
view-cameras disappear nearly a century ago at all major events.

Yeah, sure. Call me when you see a Panasonic FZ28 show up on the sidelines
of a night football game. I shoot HS sports in weak lighting, and I need
to shoot at ISO 6400. Yeah. I get it.


You are obviously not a "Real Pro" like the OP. With a little more skill
perhaps he will soon be able to acquire his stunning images (none of which
has ever been seen) without a camera at all!

Whatever gave you the impression any of his multiple personalities
require a camera? It's all in his deranged mind.

--
savvo orig. invib. man

On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 05:59:29 -0600, frank nolen
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 11:29:33 GMT, Steve wrote:


On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:07:43 -0600, Glenn-Franken
wrote:

On 5 Nov 2008 20:34:02 -0600, "Toby" wrote:

Camera companies are not stupid.

No, but typical amateur-photographer consumers, are.

Camera companies are all too willing to provide what those people will buy. Even
better if the camera company can produce something for $10 and sell it for $1000
dollars. As in the case of most DSLRs and all their required accessories. They
could sell any DSLR glass, L-Glass included, for under $100 a shot. But you? Not
knowing a thing, gleefully hand out your dough, just for the social-prestige of
promoting an antiquated technology. And attempting, but failing, to look like a
"Pro".

Ain't this fun.

FINALLY you admit that real pros use DSLRs.

Ain't this fun.

Yes, watching you make an even bigger fool of yourself is always fun.

How you misread any of the above to admit(?) that real professionals all use
DSLRs, is beyond me. It's an observation about those who are so stupid as to

Everything seems to be beyond you.

"harvey porter" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 09:33:35 -0500, B?wser wrote:


"tony cooper" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:46:12 -0600, Carl_Devonston
wrote:

Then maybe you'll
begin to understand why it's only a matter of time, maybe only a couple
years,
before your beloved, though ancient, D/SLR designs completely disappear
from
common usage.

You can have my gun, but you'll have to pry my dslr from my cold,
dead, hands.

DSLRs will disappear eventually, all tech changes. But to claim that they
can replace them now? Kinda silly...

Yeah, kinda like those idiots 3 years ago that said digital cameras would
replace film cameras as being more popular. What idiots! What nonsense!
What
fools! Digital replacing film? That's impossible. That will take at least
2 more
decades before we even get to the point of thinking like that!

Let me know when you see P&S cameras on the sidelines of any major sporting
event. Until then, well...

"Toby" wrote in message
...

"B?wser" wrote in message
...

"Carl_Devonston" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 07:26:30 -0500, "B?wser" wrote:

Wow. Thanks to this post, I expect to see all those big white and black
lenses at the football games, PJ events, etc start to disappear and
soon!
Now that they know that a simple P&S will do a better job at capturing
pro
football than their silly SLRs, why would they keep them?

As they improve and as more people realize how much more efficient they
are for
all purposes, then yes you will see D/SLRs disappear. Just as you saw
all
view-cameras disappear nearly a century ago at all major events.

Get it?

Yeah, sure. Call me when you see a Panasonic FZ28 show up on the
sidelines of a night football game. I shoot HS sports in weak lighting,
and I need to shoot at ISO 6400. Yeah. I get it.


You are obviously not a "Real Pro" like the OP. With a little more skill
perhaps he will soon be able to acquire his stunning images (none of which
has ever been seen) without a camera at all!

True enough, I'm not a real pro. But I guess neither are the countless other
shooters at sporting events who are NOT shooting P&S cameras. I shall choose
to wallow in my amateur ignorance and continue supplying images that, for
some ungodly strange reason, please my "customers."