«

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:28:35 -0800, "c_atiel" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>Electronic view finders are slow and frustrating to use even in their best
>current eye level iterations compared to now ancient optical mirror/prism
>SLR technology.

That's a lie. Always has been, always will be, nothing but a lie.

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:27:55 -0500, Michael The Complete Idiot
<(E-Mail Removed)> Spewed:

>On 2010-02-20 15:30:37 -0500, Dan M said:
>
>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:28:35 -0800, "c_atiel" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Electronic view finders are slow and frustrating to use even in their best
>>> current eye level iterations compared to now ancient optical mirror/prism
>>> SLR technology.
>>
>> That's a lie. Always has been, always will be, nothing but a lie.
>
>I asked you to PLEASE stay out of this discussion. You are
>contributing nothing but flame and gas.

On the contrary, I am correcting some often spewed misinformation. There's
no need for anyone to refute it if they have as much experience with
cameras as I have. So there will be no flame nor gas from it. Those that do
refute it are just displaying their ignorance and inexperience. If you
can't correct their lies then I will. On the upside, now you know you can't
trust anything that person said because they displayed their lack of
expertise and experience with any camera that has an EVF. You can use that
lie of theirs to diminish the importance of their opinion. Make their lies
work in your favor by weeding out the pretend-photographer bullshit artists
that spew them.

Get smarter. If not, your loss and yours alone.

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 23:24:06 -0500, rwalker <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 22:13:19 -0600, Dan M <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:27:55 -0500, Michael The Complete Idiot
>><(E-Mail Removed)> Spewed:
>>
>>>On 2010-02-20 15:30:37 -0500, Dan M said:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:28:35 -0800, "c_atiel" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Electronic view finders are slow and frustrating to use even in their best
>>>>> current eye level iterations compared to now ancient optical mirror/prism
>>>>> SLR technology.
>>>>
>>>> That's a lie. Always has been, always will be, nothing but a lie.
>>>
>>>I asked you to PLEASE stay out of this discussion. You are
>>>contributing nothing but flame and gas.
>>
>>On the contrary, I am correcting some often spewed misinformation.
>
>No, you continue to be nothing but an idiot and an annoyance.

I see, you're another troll's-misinformation spewing idiot.

Let's break it down for you. For example:

On a Canon Powershot S5IS, the EVF refresh rate is ~1/60th of a second for
all shutter speeds at 1/60th of a second or faster. 17 milliseconds between
refreshed images in the EVF. Documented and proved with the CHDK program's
internal benchmark tests.

The S5IS is capable of responding to a motion-detection script in CHDK and
taking an image in 45 milliseconds. This is the total time from the image
changing on the CCD in the FOV until the shutter is snapped. 45-55
milliseconds, by the way, is the same amount of time delay from half-press
to captured image too, if done by an alert hand. (The idiots at dpreview
don't even know how to test these features properly.)

If we figure in the time for image processing from the true image on the
CCD until it appears on the EVF (the EVF data being the stream that is used
for the motion detection algorithm), then the delay between real image on
the CCD and EVF display is only 28 milliseconds. This is 45ms (total time)
minus 17ms (the EVF refresh rate). That's 1/38th of a second. Faster than
the refresh rate on all TVs that you've been viewing all your life. Faster
than the refresh rate of all movies you've seen in a theater. Faster than
human reaction time.

The ONLY time there is a lag in an EVF that is longer than human-reaction
time is if you use a shutter-speed slower than human reaction time. An EVF
has a true, real-time, shutter-speed preview. So you may dial-in the exact
shutter speed you need for those milky water effects or knowing if it's
fast enough to stop that bee's wings in flight with no blur, before you
even press the shutter and capture its image. All seen in real-time. Minus
the 1/38th second delay between CCD's real image and EVF display.

My, what terrible terrible EVF lag, 28 milliseconds. Your own mirrors on
DSLRs take longer than that to flip out of the way. Then on top of it you
can't even see what you are capturing while the mirror is up. Now if you
really want to talk about viewfinder lag, let's address the one that exists
in all DSLRs with their slow and loudly slapping sloppy mirrors.

Are you getting smarter yet? Are you starting to now realize just how
****ingly stupid that you and everyone else has become? From
pretend-photographer trolls relentlessly spewing their troll's-bullshit and
all of you swallowing without question right it to the hilt.

You're all such sad sorry excuses for humans. "Monkey-see, monkey-do" has
never been truer than in these newsgroups.

Dan M wrote:

> You're all such sad sorry excuses for humans. "Monkey-see, monkey-do" has
> never been truer than in these newsgroups.


It's amazing that such a scholar and gentleman such as yourself would
spend so much time among the hoi poloi.

--
lsmft

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:09:29 -0800, John McWilliams <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Dan M wrote:
>
>> You're all such sad sorry excuses for humans. "Monkey-see, monkey-do" has
>> never been truer than in these newsgroups.
>
>
>It's amazing that such a scholar and gentleman such as yourself would
>spend so much time among the hoi poloi.

It's a thankless and dirty job, but someone on this planet should sacrifice
themselves to try to drag you up out of that sewer's gutter of ignorance
and stupidity that you're all content to crawl and lie in. Even while you
continue to relentlessly spew your ignorance and stupidity, all in the
cause of convincing others as incapable as yourselves to lie in your filthy
ignorance and uselessness right along with you.

I can always walk away from this. Sadly, there's nothing you will probably
ever be able to do about your ignorance and stupidity unless someone tries
to help you. This is why I don't mind. For me it's a temporary choice. For
you, it's your useless destiny if you continue to enjoy your bliss of
self-induced ignorance.

Next time, try to post some true and factual advice about camera's and
photography, along with photography samples for proofs, ones you have taken
yourself (if you even have a camera); instead of your usual troll's typical
one-liner as you did here, again. Your motives and face never change, do
they. Pity.

John McWilliams <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Dan M wrote:

>> You're all such sad sorry excuses for humans. "Monkey-see, monkey-do" has
>> never been truer than in these newsgroups.

> It's amazing that such a scholar and gentleman such as yourself would
> spend so much time among the hoi poloi.

When all your wannabee peers laugh at your self-assessment what other
recourse does a poor braggart have?

--
Chris Malcolm

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 14:31:30 -0500, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>
>>>>> Electronic view finders are slow and frustrating to use even in their best
>>>>> current eye level iterations compared to now ancient optical mirror/prism
>>>>> SLR technology.
>>>>
>>>> That's a lie. Always has been, always will be, nothing but a lie.
>>>
>>>I asked you to PLEASE stay out of this discussion. You are
>>>contributing nothing but flame and gas.
>>
>>On the contrary, I am correcting some often spewed misinformation. There's
>>no need for anyone to refute it if they have as much experience with
>>cameras as I have. So there will be no flame nor gas from it. Those that do
>>refute it are just displaying their ignorance and inexperience. If you
>>can't correct their lies then I will. On the upside, now you know you can't
>>trust anything that person said because they displayed their lack of
>>expertise and experience with any camera that has an EVF. You can use that
>>lie of theirs to diminish the importance of their opinion. Make their lies
>>work in your favor by weeding out the pretend-photographer bullshit artists
>>that spew them.
>>
>>Get smarter. If not, your loss and yours alone.
>
>For what its's worth.....I see the deflection tactics in use on this
>newsgroup.
>
>It seems that all one has to do is call someone a troll to discredit
>them. I don't buy in to that. I find your posts legitimate and
>informative.

Careful, now they're all going to claim that you're just another P&S-Troll.
They're all pretty silly, aren't they. If they didn't have their bliss of
self-induced ignorance to rely on they'd probably be under doctor's
supervision on a 24-hour watch year round. Some probably are already.
They're psychotic imaginings of what certain cameras can and cannot do
never ceases to amaze me.

typo correction

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 14:31:30 -0500, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>
>>>>> Electronic view finders are slow and frustrating to use even in their best
>>>>> current eye level iterations compared to now ancient optical mirror/prism
>>>>> SLR technology.
>>>>
>>>> That's a lie. Always has been, always will be, nothing but a lie.
>>>
>>>I asked you to PLEASE stay out of this discussion. You are
>>>contributing nothing but flame and gas.
>>
>>On the contrary, I am correcting some often spewed misinformation. There's
>>no need for anyone to refute it if they have as much experience with
>>cameras as I have. So there will be no flame nor gas from it. Those that do
>>refute it are just displaying their ignorance and inexperience. If you
>>can't correct their lies then I will. On the upside, now you know you can't
>>trust anything that person said because they displayed their lack of
>>expertise and experience with any camera that has an EVF. You can use that
>>lie of theirs to diminish the importance of their opinion. Make their lies
>>work in your favor by weeding out the pretend-photographer bullshit artists
>>that spew them.
>>
>>Get smarter. If not, your loss and yours alone.
>
>For what its's worth.....I see the deflection tactics in use on this
>newsgroup.
>
>It seems that all one has to do is call someone a troll to discredit
>them. I don't buy in to that. I find your posts legitimate and
>informative.

Careful, now they're all going to claim that you're just another P&S-Troll.
They're all pretty silly, aren't they. If they didn't have their bliss of
self-induced ignorance to rely on they'd probably be under doctor's
supervision on a 24-hour watch year round. Some probably are already. Their
psychotic imaginings of what certain cameras can and cannot do never ceases
to amaze me.