Lumix FZ1000 Questions for John Navas

On 12/29/2014 3:53 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 22:52:45 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


You had it right the first time, and now you are
confuing two different terms that both include the
letters L O C K. But Lock-On is not Focus Lock.

See the other article I've posted with more extensive
information.

They are both lock. You're trying to split hairs, but nospam wasn't
saying "focus lock"; e.g.,

You sir, are being silly.

The fact is that nospam was talking through his nose and
didn't know what the discussion was about. He assumed
that any "lock" is a "lock".

you're mistaken.

But that is absurd. Look
the word up in dictionary and it will show many
different meanings. Context shows which is meant.

had you looked at the context (which you never do) you'd have realized
which meaning applied and not gone off on your usual rant.

I do expect his confusion was basically honest
(semantic) to start with, and the equivocaton later was
just stubborn refusal to back down.

that describes you.

Come on nospam! You now know that when talking of 'focus lock' in the
context of Nikon you were wrong. See http://tinyurl.com/qdeuk6p
AF-L means Autofocus lock and is referred to in the manual as 'focus
lock'. And see http://tinyurl.com/qcmvas5 All that saves you is that
PeterN was wrong too in his use of the term. :-)

i never mentioned af-l.

But you used the wrong meaning of Focus Lock in the particular
context. But then as I have already said, so too did PeterN.


The purpose of language is to communicate. I adequately communicated my
issue. Now let get back to photography.

--
PeterN

rOn Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:39:24 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

In Article
on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 21:53:25 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 22:52:45 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


You had it right the first time, and now you are
confuing two different terms that both include the
letters L O C K. But Lock-On is not Focus Lock.

See the other article I've posted with more extensive
information.

They are both lock. You're trying to split hairs, but nospam wasn't
saying "focus lock"; e.g.,

You sir, are being silly.

The fact is that nospam was talking through his nose and
didn't know what the discussion was about. He assumed
that any "lock" is a "lock".

you're mistaken.

But that is absurd. Look
the word up in dictionary and it will show many
different meanings. Context shows which is meant.

had you looked at the context (which you never do) you'd have realized
which meaning applied and not gone off on your usual rant.

I do expect his confusion was basically honest
(semantic) to start with, and the equivocaton later was
just stubborn refusal to back down.

that describes you.

Come on nospam! You now know that when talking of 'focus lock' in the
context of Nikon you were wrong. See http://tinyurl.com/qdeuk6p
AF-L means Autofocus lock and is referred to in the manual as 'focus
lock'. And see http://tinyurl.com/qcmvas5 All that saves you is that
PeterN was wrong too in his use of the term. :-)

i never mentioned af-l.

But you used the wrong meaning of Focus Lock in the particular
context. But then as I have already said, so too did PeterN.


Straw man fallacy. He didn't say "Focus Lock". He said target lock.

All of this started when on Thu, 25 Dec 2014 15:57:32 -0500 in
Message-ID: PeterN wrote"

"But I have not been able to get focus lock with with objects
comming toward me."

It was only after a bit of backwards and forwards between me and
nospam that nospam wrote as you cite below.

In Article
on Thu, 25 Dec 2014 20:08:18 -0500, nospam wrote:
it's locked to the target, and as the target moves, so does the focus.

In Article
on Thu, 25 Dec 2014 23:16:12 -0500, nospam wrote:
when someone talks about locking in a target, they mean it will track
the target as it moves, and that's exactly what it does.
locking focus at a fixed distance so you can recompose is something
else entirely.

In Article
on Fri, 26 Dec 2014 22:17:15 -0500, nospam wrote:
it's clear as mud what is meant by an autofocus system locking onto a
subject and tracking it.

In Article
on Fri, 26 Dec 2014 21:15:06 -0500, nospam wrote:
it locks the target and tracks it as it moves.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 08:28:49 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

In Article
on Tue, 30 Dec 2014 13:14:22 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:

rOn Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:39:24 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

Straw man fallacy. He didn't say "Focus Lock". He said target lock.

All of this started when on Thu, 25 Dec 2014 15:57:32 -0500 in
Message-ID: PeterN wrote"

"But I have not been able to get focus lock with with objects
comming toward me."

It was only after a bit of backwards and forwards between me and
nospam that nospam wrote as you cite below.
...

Yes, and it wasn't the first time and won't be the last time that
topic drift occurred here. You seem to be applying different standards
to different posters.

I'm sorry it seems that way. Maybe we are (like the three blind men
with the elephant) talking about different aspects of the same
problem.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens.


There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Come on nospam! You now know that when talking of 'focus lock' in the
context of Nikon you were wrong. See http://tinyurl.com/qdeuk6p
AF-L means Autofocus lock and is referred to in the manual as 'focus
lock'. And see http://tinyurl.com/qcmvas5 All that saves you is that
PeterN was wrong too in his use of the term. :-)

i never mentioned af-l.

But you used the wrong meaning of Focus Lock in the particular
context. But then as I have already said, so too did PeterN.

Straw man fallacy. He didn't say "Focus Lock". He said target lock.

All of this started when on Thu, 25 Dec 2014 15:57:32 -0500 in
Message-ID: PeterN wrote"

"But I have not been able to get focus lock with with objects
comming toward me."

It was only after a bit of backwards and forwards between me and
nospam that nospam wrote as you cite below.

it was only after those start arguing over word usage rather than look
at the context and the actual issue.

the camera is fully capable of doing exactly what he wants, which is
all that matters, not which word was used.

nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Come on nospam! You now know that when talking of 'focus lock' in the
context of Nikon you were wrong. See http://tinyurl.com/qdeuk6p
AF-L means Autofocus lock and is referred to in the manual as 'focus
lock'. And see http://tinyurl.com/qcmvas5 All that saves you is that
PeterN was wrong too in his use of the term. :-)

i never mentioned af-l.

But you used the wrong meaning of Focus Lock in the particular
context. But then as I have already said, so too did PeterN.

Straw man fallacy. He didn't say "Focus Lock". He said target lock.

All of this started when on Thu, 25 Dec 2014 15:57:32 -0500 in
Message-ID: PeterN wrote"

"But I have not been able to get focus lock with with objects
comming toward me."

It was only after a bit of backwards and forwards between me and
nospam that nospam wrote as you cite below.

it was only after those start arguing over word usage rather than look
at the context and the actual issue.

the camera is fully capable of doing exactly what he wants, which is
all that matters, not which word was used.

Lets not forget, nospam, that YOU are the one who
started talking about the word rather than the original
issue. Insisting that the words being used to explain
how the camera works mean something other than the way
the camera User Manual describes it was nothing but a
diversion to confuse the issue, and more so when you
repeatedly insisted it was the correct word usage.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 19:40:01 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

In Article
on Wed, 31 Dec 2014 11:30:39 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 08:28:49 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

In Article
on Tue, 30 Dec 2014 13:14:22 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:

rOn Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:39:24 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

Straw man fallacy. He didn't say "Focus Lock". He said target lock.

All of this started when on Thu, 25 Dec 2014 15:57:32 -0500 in
Message-ID: PeterN wrote"

"But I have not been able to get focus lock with with objects
comming toward me."

It was only after a bit of backwards and forwards between me and
nospam that nospam wrote as you cite below.
...

Yes, and it wasn't the first time and won't be the last time that
topic drift occurred here. You seem to be applying different standards
to different posters.

I'm sorry it seems that way. Maybe we are (like the three blind men
with the elephant) talking about different aspects of the same
problem.

I didn't mean to impugn your character or motives, and I apologize for
whatever offense I have given. It's just human nature to cut slack for
people we like and not for people we don't like. I try to be
evenhanded, but still fall prey to that more often than I like.
I think everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt until proven (not
just suspected) otherwise.

We are so busy apologising for unintentionally offending the other
that we are likely to full over some of the real world offenses by
others. I didn't mean to offend you (even if I did offend you) and I
don't feel you have offended me. This is something we should be able
to sort out over several glasses of amber liquid.
http://tinyurl.com/q69s84l
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 23:35:38 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Come on nospam! You now know that when talking of 'focus lock' in the
context of Nikon you were wrong. See http://tinyurl.com/qdeuk6p
AF-L means Autofocus lock and is referred to in the manual as 'focus
lock'. And see http://tinyurl.com/qcmvas5 All that saves you is that
PeterN was wrong too in his use of the term. :-)

i never mentioned af-l.

But you used the wrong meaning of Focus Lock in the particular
context. But then as I have already said, so too did PeterN.

Straw man fallacy. He didn't say "Focus Lock". He said target lock.

All of this started when on Thu, 25 Dec 2014 15:57:32 -0500 in
Message-ID: PeterN wrote"

"But I have not been able to get focus lock with with objects
comming toward me."

It was only after a bit of backwards and forwards between me and
nospam that nospam wrote as you cite below.

it was only after those start arguing over word usage rather than look
at the context and the actual issue.

the camera is fully capable of doing exactly what he wants, which is
all that matters, not which word was used.

Aah! Telepathy. Throw away the manual. Nikon doesn't mean what it says
and doesn't mean what it says. But then, neither do you. You only
think you do.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 12/31/2014 3:18 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 19:40:01 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

In Article
on Wed, 31 Dec 2014 11:30:39 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 08:28:49 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

In Article
on Tue, 30 Dec 2014 13:14:22 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:

rOn Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:39:24 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

Straw man fallacy. He didn't say "Focus Lock". He said target lock.

All of this started when on Thu, 25 Dec 2014 15:57:32 -0500 in
Message-ID: PeterN wrote"

"But I have not been able to get focus lock with with objects
comming toward me."

It was only after a bit of backwards and forwards between me and
nospam that nospam wrote as you cite below.
...

Yes, and it wasn't the first time and won't be the last time that
topic drift occurred here. You seem to be applying different standards
to different posters.

I'm sorry it seems that way. Maybe we are (like the three blind men
with the elephant) talking about different aspects of the same
problem.

I didn't mean to impugn your character or motives, and I apologize for
whatever offense I have given. It's just human nature to cut slack for
people we like and not for people we don't like. I try to be
evenhanded, but still fall prey to that more often than I like.
I think everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt until proven (not
just suspected) otherwise.

We are so busy apologising for unintentionally offending the other
that we are likely to full over some of the real world offenses by
others. I didn't mean to offend you (even if I did offend you) and I
don't feel you have offended me. This is something we should be able
to sort out over several glasses of amber liquid.
http://tinyurl.com/q69s84l


YOu drink the original Listerine?

--
PeterN