Commenting On Unused Equipment

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Curiouser and Curiouser, Oct 27, 2009.

  1. I sometimes wonder why people feel the need to make authoritative comments
    on equipment they've never used, never touched, and never even considered
    as part of their camera gear.

    There have been outlandish claims being made. Mostly by dSLR proponents
    over what can and cannot be done with the myriad P&S cameras available for
    the last decade. Yet, when pressed for clarity, you find out they've never
    even been near the cameras they are commenting on so strongly, assuredly,
    and adamantly with their self-appointed authoritative and seemingly (to
    themselves) concrete stance. They will loudly and incessantly claim that
    some camera does not have a feature, when in fact a large range of cameras,
    sometimes all of those styles of cameras do indeed have that feature or
    capability. They would instantly know this if they would only go out and
    test it for themselves with real cameras. But no, to them they have
    imagined something about some equipment that they've never touched which is
    nothing but a total fabrication in their own minds. Believing their
    imaginations as if it is some kind of fact. Like any psychotic religious
    zealot would.

    What causes them to do this? I've never commented on nor given advice about
    anything in life other than that with which I have had first-hand knowledge
    and experience of my own in that field. If I haven't personally tested
    something for myself, then I am in no position to make comments about it.
    Even reading about something doesn't mean what I am reading is true
    representation of whatever might be in question. I MUST test things for
    myself before I feel I can comment on anything with any sense of authority
    whatsoever. I also never strongly rely on some "credible"(?) 3rd-party's
    review of photography equipment. I learned long ago after having purchased
    equipment that even those well-meaning reviewers failed to understand how
    to use a camera, a feature of that camera, or other equipment properly. Or
    their simplified testing methods to begin with had huge faults in them.
    (GIGO) Which I only discovered later when my findings didn't match their
    findings, and I started to wonder why. Their testing methods were to blame.

    So what causes this need for people to pretend to be authorities on things
    that they have no real knowledge about?

    Are they just psychotic trolls? And I'm not using the term "psychotic"
    pejoratively. I believe they really are psychotic if they can so adamantly
    believe what they say, when in fact, reality and genuine experience proves
    them out to be in complete error. If so, if that's all they are, psychotic
    trolls, they seem to be wall-to-wall in these newsgroups. Far more in
    abundance than those who have genuine experience and knowledge about the
    subjects at hand.
    Curiouser and Curiouser, Oct 27, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  2. Curiouser and Curiouser

    BobS Guest

    snip of a good post.....


    Ego, need to participate and maybe even a few really do have hands-on
    experience (in their minds....;-).

    Now I'll go put on my flame-proof britches.

    Bob S.
    BobS, Oct 27, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  3. Curiouser and Curiouser

    tony cooper Guest

    I'd reply, but first I'd have to care. I don't. Not about dslr vs
    p&s, not about Canon vs Nikon, not about film vs digital, and not
    about Sigma vs whatever.

    I have a camera that I like. I have had days where I've spent hours
    taking photographs, come home with 400 or so images, and not kept one
    of them. I've never felt it was the camera's fault.
    tony cooper, Oct 27, 2009
  4. Curiouser and Curiouser

    John A. Guest

    You tell us. Why do you praise P&S cameras to high heaven while
    denigrating DSLRs you've never used, touched, nor even considered?

    We know why, of course: you're the infamous P&S Troll. We simply don't
    know specifically why you are a troll, or why you chose to target this
    group in particular. Nor do we care, actually.
    John A., Oct 27, 2009
  5. Curiouser and Curiouser

    Paul Furman Guest

    Why post in the DSLR group? You don't use DSLRs, right?
    Paul Furman, Oct 27, 2009
  6. I'd wonder how many of those DSLR psychotics would reply, never realizing
    that I HAVE used DSLRs, sold them all when I found out P&S cameras were
    better. So I *DO* have first-hand knowledge of what I speak about. How do
    you think I know of so many of the glaring faults wrapped in the DSLR
    design concept? Found the faults by using the cameras.

    You will also note, that I *NEVER* go out of my way to slam any camera
    unless some psychotic troll is inventing stories about P&S cameras they've
    never used. I don't slam DSLRs, I only defend P&S cameras against the wild
    imaginings of insecure and psychotic DSLR-Trolls. It's that simple.

    I'm so far ahead of you psychotic, useless, ignorant, and inexperienced
    trolls in experience and knowledge about photography and the required
    equipment that you don't even have a clue.

    Never slam a P&S again and I'll have no reason to compare their superior
    reason for being over that of useless DSLRs. Useless in comparison of
    course. Even a lowly DSLR can provide excellent images in the hands of
    someone who knows what they are doing. If you're willing to put up with
    their myriad and vast drawbacks that is.
    Curiouser and Curiouser, Oct 27, 2009
  7. Why do you bash all P&S cameras in the other group? You don't use P&S
    cameras and have no first-hand knowledge of their capabilities, right?
    Hell, you can't even properly use the DSLR camera you have, for the right
    to post in the DSLR group with any valid advice whatsoever.

    You brought this on your own stupid troll self. As did the rest of you P&S
    slamming DSLR-Trolls.

    I'm just trying to figure out why you DSLR-Trolls do it, inventing wild
    imaginings about cameras that you've never used. In the hopes that maybe
    you'll learn to stop doing it. It gets so fuckingly boring having to
    correct your incessant misinformation borne of your own ignorance,
    stupidity, and inexperience.

    I can't ask all the DSLR-Trolls why they do it if they're not going to see
    the question by hiding out in this newsgroup, and then jumping over to the
    other group only when they psychotically want to bash all P&S cameras. Can

    Does that answer your pathetically stupid DSLR-Troll's question?
    Curiouser and Curiouser, Oct 27, 2009
  8. Curiouser and Curiouser

    Miles Bader Guest

    Using one of his standard trolling techniques too. He may be an idiot
    when it comes to photography, but he's actually pretty skillful at

    Miles Bader, Oct 27, 2009
  9. Curiouser and Curiouser

    BobS Guest

    I'd wonder how many of those DSLR psychotics would reply, never
    Not picking a fight or feeding a troll....

    But since you brought it up, can you tell us what experience you have
    with DSLRs such as make and model. That way, one could better judge how
    up to date your views are and how broad your experience level is with
    various makes.

    Many significant changes have been made in P&S cameras (I have 3 recent
    vintage) and DSLRs (6) with the oldest being about 40 years old (K1000)
    and the latest over a year old (K20D). I've shot a number of Nikons (F1
    to D60) over the years, a few Cannon's and sampled probably most other
    brands (from Ashai to Rollies) in my early years when I worked in a
    photo lab.

    So my particular experience is probably about average with other
    amateurs in my age group and while I may not have experience with the
    exact model being discussed, I may weigh in and provide a generalized
    opinion if I feel it would help answer a question. Just like others
    do. But what I think to be a valid comment - may well be considered
    useless by someone else since they have no idea of my credibility - and
    neither do you.

    You may not like some responses and think they are useless but you have
    no idea of what experience the person responding really has. So you
    take a comment at face value from Usenet, toss in some common sense and
    add it to part of your research as possibly being of some value and go
    with it - or not. Your choice.

    You may be the world's leading expert on P&S cameras but I don't know
    that and from what I've read of your past P&S posts, you make some
    valid points and some are really stretching it in my opinion.

    All types of cameras serve a useful purpose - to someone. You happen to
    like P&S, that's great - so do I, when it suits my needs which is only
    about 1% of the time.

    Bob S.
    BobS, Oct 27, 2009
  10. I could, but that wouldn't matter. The problem is in their design. All of
    them. Problems that do not exist on any P&S cameras.

    Dependent on having to change lenses in situations where you must have a
    wide-range of focal-lengths, causing missed shots, getting dust and
    condensation on the sensor. Or even worse, when the camera is below
    freezing temperatures and when temporarily going indoors will cause the
    condensation to freeze the camera into a lump of uselessness.

    No high-speed flash sync without having to resort to special flash units
    that do not really compensate for the focal-plane shutters' slow speed of
    travel, it only makes it possible to use flash with higher shutter speeds.
    It's not a cure, only a patch on a situation caused worse by the patch.

    Too shallow DOF for usable and useful available-light macro-photography.

    Etc., etc., etc., etc....

    The list of drawbacks caused by the DSLR design is long. Not worth posting
    again here.

    This thread was to try to find out why the DSLR-Trolls and others slam
    equipment and things that they have zero first-hand knowledge about, and
    then try to act like they are in any way, shape or form, some kind of
    authority on the subject. They buy one DSLR camera, don't even learn how to
    use it properly, and then think they have the expertise to comment on every
    camera ever made. Even worse, are those role-playing trolls who only
    download camera manuals, never having touched a real camera (i.e. "nospam",
    "SMS", "Wolfgang", "George Kerby", "RichA", etc., etc.), and then try to
    appear as if they know the least bit about photography at all.

    If nothing else, at least making them aware that everyone who sees their
    posts can easily discern that that's exactly what they are doing. They are
    labeling their own selves as psychotic trolls just with their own posts.
    Anyone who has used the cameras and equipment that they haven't used can
    easily and clearly see that.
    Curiouser and Curiouser, Oct 27, 2009
  11. Outing yourself as just another of the many psychotic DSLR-Trolls, are you?

    Yep. Thought so.
    Curiouser and Curiouser, Oct 27, 2009
  12. Translation: Any comments that blindly and foolishly agree with Mike
    Russel's far lesser experience in the field of photography and related
    Curiouser and Curiouser, Oct 27, 2009
  13. Curiouser and Curiouser

    tony cooper Guest

    I didn't check the exif date on the entries, but were any of the
    photos in the Shoot-In done with a P&S camera? Most of the people who
    have the balls to put their stuff up for open review probably own both
    a dslr and a P&S. I know I do.

    It seems our P&S (excuse me, John, "compact zuperzooms") adherents are
    shy about displaying their creations. Probably just a humanitarian
    gesture on their part because they don't want to blow us away.
    tony cooper, Oct 27, 2009
  14. You aren't far from wrong. The other larger reason being, I would never
    post my photographs amongst a collection of beginner's snapshots. Pretty
    demeaning doing that. I have no need to try to get attention for my
    photography, as all of you must do try to encourage yourselves to do
    better. (How can anyone not do better? It's all "up" when you're that low.)
    I removed all my sites online years ago just because of how many people
    were stealing them for screen-savers and other unauthorized uses. Even
    though they were only 640 x 480 images they still found them worthy for
    their own gains. Resolution means nothing when the images are worth seeing.
    But if you were any kind of photographer, you'd know that.

    Want to play the "slam cameras that you know nothing about" game, again?
    You just outted yourself as nothing more than another useless, pathetic,
    and insecure DSLR-Troll.

    I wonder how many more of them that this thread can trap and cause them to
    out themselves. Should be mildly interesting.
    Curiouser and Curiouser, Oct 27, 2009
  15. Curiouser and Curiouser

    tony cooper Guest

    I gotta laugh at this. Here's Mike - the Curvemeister - who could
    write a book on digital photography and post-processing (or maybe he
    has) being belittled by someone who has never taken a photograph good
    enough to show us.

    Mike's got cattle. You just have a hat.
    tony cooper, Oct 27, 2009
  16. Mike is here to spam his software. Probably lost sales due to the economy
    so he's not even caring that he's violating Usenet policies. An act of
    desperation on his part. Nothing more. I've tested his software. It's not
    that great. I no longer recommend it to anyone else. Did at one time, years
    ago, but other programs have become far better.

    You might want to look into the curve-generator for CHDK capable cameras,
    for custom curves done in-camera. Where you tweak all 4 RGGB channels. Can
    you count higher than 3?

    Are you going to hijack yet another thread as a desperate act of
    attention-getting behavior for yourself instead of staying on topic? No, of
    course not, you're just proving yourself to be nothing but a low-life
    troll, AGAIN. You can do no differently, and that is what is now expected
    of you. 2 or 3 hijacks in one day is way below average for normal trolls.
    Hijack a few more threads, you have a ways to go yet to reach troll's-par.
    Curiouser and Curiouser, Oct 27, 2009

  17. see: alt.kooks.lionel-lauer

    A valid group in the known net-trolls groups.
    Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up, Oct 27, 2009
  18. Curiouser and Curiouser

    Bob Larter Guest

    Bob Larter, Oct 27, 2009
  19. Curiouser and Curiouser

    Thom Kast Guest

    Be sure to leave that G11 on full auto mode. It might teach you how to take
    pictures some day. Well, at least poorly composed snapshots that don't have
    pink granite mountains and pink clouds during noon daylight. You know, the
    kind you take with a DSLR that you don't even know how to use. The rest
    about cameras and photography you'll have to learn on your own, a camera
    won't help you there. (Learning is not likely, we've see it. What a
    mountain to climb that'll be.)

    Going to troll off-topic again? Of course. The hallmark of a troll. You can
    be no less no more than that.
    Thom Kast, Oct 27, 2009
  20. Curiouser and Curiouser

    Bob Larter Guest

    Really? - I don't know any servers that carry it. ;^)
    Bob Larter, Oct 27, 2009
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.