Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So why do you claim you need a $700 camera instead of a $100, but those who buy more expensive cameras don't really need them?
If you must still ask, I should provide you with a deserved response that I also gave to my niece recently: My camera (about $700) allows me to change and use lenses that I wish to use, but her camera (approximately $100 Canon) had a fixed lens with limited application. Then I demonstrated the difference to her, by taking pictures of some dolls she wanted to take pictures of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson
Of course you posted an image you claimed to demonstrate it, and kdog had the audacity to show you how to correct the glaring fact that it needed to be properly post processed.
Amusing argument from someone who not only doesn't get it, but shamelessly avoids getting his experience critiqued. Did you even comprehend a simple fact that I mentioned... I didn't care for post processing that photographs... it shows what the camera is capable of.
You'd be more credible if you weren't scared of demonstrating your "excellence" in choice of cameras (and no, we're not looking for post processing capabilities).
If you must still ask, I should provide you with a deserved response that I also gave to my niece recently: My camera (about $700) allows me to change and use lenses that I wish to use, but her camera (approximately $100 Canon) had a fixed lens with limited application. Then I demonstrated the difference to her, by taking pictures of some dolls she wanted to take pictures of.
Yep, your size fits everyone... sheesh.
Quote:
You'd be more credible if you weren't scared of demonstrating your "excellence" in choice of cameras (and no, we're not looking for post processing capabilities).
Are false statements with insulting innuendo all you have to say?
Hundreds of my images are on the Internet.
Posted images do not measure credibility.
We are interested in the entire set of photography skills.
More importantly here, we need to see logical and well structured articles that provide valid information about photography. Saying you believe one thing and then arguing exactly the opposite is equaled by comments like those from you quoted above that have no veracity at all. Continuous attacks on other contributers, rather that discussing photography, is abhorrent.
It looks like you got the response but didn't like it. But here is a situation to add to it, that may help alleviate that pain.
You're heading to an indoor arena, where you will be about 30-50 ft from action (may be more). The lighting is limited. Your pick for a camer would be:
1- $100-$150 point and shoot
2- $300 superzoom compact
3- $700 DSLR with something like a 55mm/1.4 or 85mm/1.4 lens.
Based on your understanding so far, which would be your pick, and why?
Quote:
Are false statements with insulting innuendo all you have to say?
Hundreds of my images are on the Internet.
Posted images do not measure credibility.
We are interested in the entire set of photography skills.
Posted photographs have the credibility. Speaking loudly and never backing up the talk ain't. BTW, who is "we"?
It looks like you got the response but didn't like it. But here is a situation to add to it, that may help alleviate that pain.
You're heading to an indoor arena, where you will be about 30-50 ft from action (may be more). The lighting is limited. Your pick for a camer would be:
1- $100-$150 point and shoot
2- $300 superzoom compact
3- $700 DSLR with something like a 55mm/1.4 or 85mm/1.4 lens.
Based on your understanding so far, which would be your pick, and why?
My choice would be "None of the above". There are several DSLR's which would produce better results than the cameras you've listed. They all cost more than $700 though, so you will consider them unacceptable. The new Canon 1D-X and Nikon D4 are two excellent examples of more appropriate cameras; and either of those would best be matched with the respective 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses that each company makes.
All you are doing with examples like that is pounding home the point that you really want to argue that one size (your size) fits all.
Quote:
Posted photographs have the credibility. Speaking loudly and never backing up the talk ain't. BTW, who is "we"?
Again, that is pure nonsense. As I've previously noted, students need to post photographs, both to get practice and perhaps if they can get the odd bit of valid commentary that only rarely is seen on Internet forums. Those who teach most often will not find any value in posting photographs, but necessarily have to write text.
Don't you agree that you are an excellent example to demonstrate exactly that!
"We" are the people who read forums. You might want to restrict credibility to what you are able to do, but nobody else wants to use your qualifications (or mine) as the limit to their perception of photography.
My choice would be "None of the above". There are several DSLR's which would produce better results than the cameras you've listed.
I neither listed any DSLR (or any camera, for that matter) nor did I ask for "better results" but that, given the choices which would be your pick. Your refusal to provide direct answer renders the discussion moot. So, don't ask questions you can't handle responded to.
Quote:
They all cost more than $700 though, so you will consider them unacceptable. The new Canon 1D-X and Nikon D4 are two excellent examples of more appropriate cameras; and either of those would best be matched with the respective 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses that each company makes.
It would be ridiculous if $6K camera bodies weren't better. But, "better" is useless when you weigh your needs to what they deliver. Besides, the body ain't cutting it, you rely on good glass to make that body useful. It is why you can't brag about $6K body with a $200 lens. The latter can largely make or break the deal.
Quote:
All you are doing with examples like that is pounding home the point that you really want to argue that one size (your size) fits all.
If "one-size fits all" were my argument, the last thing you would be doing is complain about my arguments. That is your argument. I don't need to ask what $100 camera can do compared to $300 camera compared to $700 DSLR compared to $2K DSLR compared to $6K DSLR compared to a $40K DSLR. Be my guest to making the argument that if photography brings food to your table that you NEED to spend $6K. No, you don't (and THAT is my point). Am I clear?
Quote:
Again, that is pure nonsense. As I've previously noted, students need to post photographs, both to get practice and perhaps if they can get the odd bit of valid commentary that only rarely is seen on Internet forums. Those who teach most often will not find any value in posting photographs, but necessarily have to write text.
You reminds me of my math teacher in high school. I had a differential calculus question for him, and his immediate response was: "Are you trying to test me".
No sire, you don't need to be "tested" if you must ask that question. Because your capacity is limited to words. I'm, after all, a student and hope that aspect of me NEVER dies.
I neither listed any DSLR (or any camera, for that matter) nor did I ask for "better results" but that, given the choices which would be your pick. Your refusal to provide direct answer renders the discussion moot. So, don't ask questions you can't handle responded to.
You clearly did list what you described as cameras, and item three is also very clearly a "DSLR". It seems you are the one who asks questions and can't handle appropriate responses, so I'm not sure what this added nonsense is about.
Quote:
It would be ridiculous if $6K camera bodies weren't better. But, "better" is useless when you weigh your needs to what they deliver. Besides, the body ain't cutting it, you rely on good glass to make that body useful. It is why you can't brag about $6K body with a $200 lens. The latter can largely make or break the deal.
Yes yes, we know that you think your choice is a camera that would suit everyone. One size fits 'em all if it fits you...
I guess bragging rights impress you; but I'm into producing photography. It happens that I own, and use, a number of lenses (probably twice as many as you own all together) that cost $200 or less. I've never owned a $6000 camera, but I do use inexpensive lenses on several $5000 cameras.
I just don't see any benefit to bragging about which lens was used.
Quote:
If "one-size fits all" were my argument, the last thing you would be doing is complain about my arguments. That is your argument.
You are being dishonest. I have never recommended that anyone should consider the same cameras that I use. You do that repeatedly. I typically don't even recommend the same brands of cameras that I use, which you do virtually every time you talk about cameras.
For all the noise you make, I'll bet you can't even name half of the camera models that I use! Even a casual reader here will know every camera you've used in the past two months, simply because you prattle on and on.
Quote:
I don't need to ask what $100 camera can do compared to $300 camera compared to $700 DSLR compared to $2K DSLR compared to $6K DSLR compared to a $40K DSLR.
You have repeatedly said you think one thing, and then argued exactly the opposite case. Here you are again, doing exactly that.
You've asked why anyone needs any camera that costs more than $700. You've plainly stated that everyone needs a camera that costs more than $200 (but when asked what the differences were you didn't respond either).
I get the impression that you not only do not actually know, but more likely it simply doesn't make any difference anyway. One size (your size) fits 'em all! By definition.
Quote:
Be my guest to making the argument that if photography brings food to your table that you NEED to spend $6K. No, you don't (and THAT is my point). Am I clear?
What has been clear all along is that you are unable to imagine that other people are not limited to your horizons. There are an awful lot of photographers who do need to use $40,000 cameras. If my work required one, that is exactly what I would have too.
Quote:
You reminds me of my math teacher in high school. I had a differential calculus question for him, and his immediate response was: "Are you trying to test me".
No sire, you don't need to be "tested" if you must ask that question. Because your capacity is limited to words. I'm, after all, a student and hope that aspect of me NEVER dies.
Was that supposed to have meant something?
How would you know if my capacity is limited to words? And why do you feel the need to insult others with silly comments like that?
If you can't be more coherent, and knock off the personal insults, there really isn't much point in trying to discuss this further.
You clearly did list what you described as cameras, and item three is also very clearly a "DSLR". It seems you are the one who asks questions and can't handle appropriate responses, so I'm not sure what this added nonsense is about.
No, $100, $300 and $700 are not cameras, they are approximate price class for different types of cameras, right along the lines you asked the question. Clearly, though, you've recognizing the stupidity of even making it a theme of your argument (although no such recognition has prevented you from continuing it, over and over again).
Quote:
Yes yes, we know that you think your choice is a camera that would suit everyone. One size fits 'em all if it fits you...
Childish.
Quote:
I guess bragging rights impress you; but I'm into producing photography. It happens that I own, and use, a number of lenses (probably twice as many as you own all together) that cost $200 or less. I've never owned a $6000 camera, but I do use inexpensive lenses on several $5000 cameras.
It might explain why you are scared to post your pictures, back up your claims. Talk is, after all, a lot cheaper than even those $200 lenses. Heck, it is free!
Quote:
I just don't see any benefit to bragging about which lens was used.
I agree. It is why you ignore the glass and stick with body.
Quote:
You are being dishonest. I have never recommended that anyone should consider the same cameras that I use.
Neither you nor I need to point fingers at anything more than our posts here. Honesty or lack of, is evident in arguments we present, just as it ain't in words but in photographs that "photography" relies upon.
Quote:
For all the noise you make, I'll bet you can't even name half of the camera models that I use!
I couldn't care less. And I doubt anybody else does that either. Get used to that fact.
Quote:
Even a casual reader here will know every camera you've used in the past two months, simply because you prattle on and on.
Damn, that is news to me. I was expecting something different when I try to post camera, lens and sometimes EXIF information with my photographs. Genius!
Quote:
You've asked why anyone needs any camera that costs more than $700.
No. I've questioned the sanity of argument you made... that if photography brings food to your table, you need to invest in these cameras. The reality begs to differ.
Quote:
You've plainly stated that everyone needs a camera that costs more than $200 (but when asked what the differences were you didn't respond either).
Have I? At best, this idea of yours represents your ability to grasp ANYTHING.
Quote:
What has been clear all along is that you are unable to imagine that other people are not limited to your horizons. There are an awful lot of photographers who do need to use $40,000 cameras. If my work required one, that is exactly what I would have too.
Thank you for making MY point. Clearly, professional photographers don't NEED $40K camera, do they?
Quote:
How would you know if my capacity is limited to words? And why do you feel the need to insult others with silly comments like that?
Your posts.
Quote:
If you can't be more coherent, and knock off the personal insults, there really isn't much point in trying to discuss this further.
Asking you to back up your claims is... insulting. Then you will just have to learn to live with it.
I assume that if you had any sort of rational discussion you would have presented it.
Feeling left out? Don't blame arguments presented.
But, until next time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
