Nikon D610 First Impressions Review

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by David Taylor, Oct 8, 2013.

  1. David Taylor

    Sandman Guest

    " ... deserving of scorn".

    What a limited range of emotions you appear to be open to.[/QUOTE]

    With nothing of value to add to the discussion, Eric joins just to post
    an ad hominem.
     
    Sandman, Oct 10, 2013
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. David Taylor

    Bowser Guest

    Agreed, and I've never known you to sink to that level. You're
    actually a nice guy. For a Canonian.

    heh, heh...

    BTW, what is the proper collective term for Panasonic users?
    Pantalooneys?
     
    Bowser, Oct 10, 2013
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. David Taylor

    Bowser Guest

    Because these days all the far right wants to do is shut things down.

    Sorry, couldn't resist.
     
    Bowser, Oct 10, 2013
    #63
  4. David Taylor

    Bowser Guest

    You're not alone, since many posters report no issues at all. I don't
    have one, and will never have one, so it doesn't affect me. It was
    just an observation. I wonder if that camera, given its very high
    resolution, is more picky when it comes to AF?
     
    Bowser, Oct 10, 2013
    #64
  5. David Taylor

    Sandman Guest

    You're not alone, since many posters report no issues at all. I don't
    have one, and will never have one, so it doesn't affect me. It was
    just an observation. I wonder if that camera, given its very high
    resolution, is more picky when it comes to AF?[/QUOTE]

    No, the AF engine wouldn't care about the number of pixels on the
    sensor. If it used contrast detection autofocus, then it could be a
    factor, but it doesn't, so it isn't.

    Sure, the high resolution means you have a lower tolerance for focus
    errors, but Nikon's AF is good enough for 36MP with a good margin when
    it works as it should.
     
    Sandman, Oct 10, 2013
    #65
  6. David Taylor

    Tony Cooper Guest

    With nothing of value to add to the discussion, Eric joins just to post
    an ad hominem.[/QUOTE]

    Not being content with misusing English words and phrases, Jonas now
    starts on Latin. "an ad hominem"?
     
    Tony Cooper, Oct 10, 2013
    #66
  7. David Taylor

    Sandman Guest

    Not being content with misusing English words and phrases, Jonas now
    starts on Latin. "an ad hominem"?[/QUOTE]

    Tony, not having displayed his illiteracy for a couple of hours, feels
    the urge coming on.
     
    Sandman, Oct 10, 2013
    #67
  8. David Taylor

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Tony, not having displayed his illiteracy for a couple of hours, feels
    the urge coming on.[/QUOTE]

    I'm literate enough to know that "ad hominem" does not mean what you
    evidently think it means. I know you well enough to know that you
    will not figure out, or admit, your error.
     
    Tony Cooper, Oct 10, 2013
    #68
  9. David Taylor

    Sandman Guest

    I'm literate enough to know that "ad hominem" does not mean what you
    evidently think it means.[/QUOTE]

    Hahahaha!

    Tony, always wrong, but will fight to the last drop for the right to
    always be wrong!
     
    Sandman, Oct 10, 2013
    #69
  10. David Taylor

    Eric Stevens Guest

    A single user on their own is Panini
     
    Eric Stevens, Oct 10, 2013
    #70
  11. David Taylor

    Eric Stevens Guest

    With nothing of value to add to the discussion, Eric joins just to post
    an ad hominem.[/QUOTE]

    Feeling that she was 'deserving of scorn' seems such an unusual
    reaction to having your wife prepare a meal with the recipe not
    working as planned that I felt I had to comment on it. Is that really
    what you meant? I would have thought that most people would have had
    sympathy for her.
     
    Eric Stevens, Oct 10, 2013
    #71
  12. David Taylor

    Eric Stevens Guest

    I don't see anything wrong in that usage. What I wrote was indeed a
    mild ad hominem.
     
    Eric Stevens, Oct 10, 2013
    #72
  13. David Taylor

    Tony Cooper Guest

    "Ad hominem" is a form of argument in which the person attacks the
    person, not the subject about which they are arguing. You don't speak
    of "an ad hominem". You can say "Eric...posted an ad hominem counter
    position", or Eric...posted an ad hominem rebuttal", or something
    where "ad hominem" is followed by whatever you want to use to describe
    what was done. It doesn't stand alone.

    It's the short version of "argumentum ad hominem", so using it to
    stand alone is like saying "Eric...posted an argument."

    Jonas evidently thinks it means "attack on me", or "insult", but it
    doesn't. You can say all kinds of nasty things about someone without
    them being in the form of an argument.

    What you posted was a mild negative observation of Jonas' character.

    As he often does, Jonas used a term that he thinks he understands how
    to use, but doesn't really understand how it is used correctly.
     
    Tony Cooper, Oct 10, 2013
    #73
  14. David Taylor

    Eric Stevens Guest

    You are quite correct.
     
    Eric Stevens, Oct 11, 2013
    #74
  15. Why don't you learn something about what you make
    comments on *BEFORE* you put your foot in it?

    That is just one type, though perhaps the most common,
    of Ad Hominem.

    In fact "Ad Hominem" is an attempt to divert a discussion
    away from logic or reason and towards emotion. And
    repeated falsely accusing others of not understanding
    English word usage is an Argumentum Ad Hominem.
    You do, if you understand how to communicate in the
    English language.

    First, it can and often is used as a short form where
    the object is implied. It means, "an Ad Hominem
    argument". It can also reference, also implicitly,
    whatever the object was in the argument it references.

    Second, while Ad Hominem has traditionally been an
    adjective or an adverb, thus requiring either an
    explicit or an implied object, in recent times is has
    been commonly accepted to be used as a noun.
    It does. If the object in any one of those examples is
    removed, the meaning does not change and it can be
    expected in most situations that it will be obvious from
    context.
    No, it is like saying "Eric ... posted and Ad Hominem
    argument."

    Both the long and the short form are perfectly
    understandable, and commonly used in anything except
    perhaps academic formal English.
    Only if the topic of discussion is the person being
    attacked. Otherwise attacking the person rather than
    their arguments is Ad Hominem.
    That is... an Ad Hominem.
    His English is astoundingly good, given that it is
    apparently not his first or even second language! Your
    understanding of English astoundingly horrible, and this
    invalid whining about how anyone else writes, rather
    than simply understanding what they mean to say, is 1)
    Ad Hominem, and 2) dumb.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Oct 11, 2013
    #75
  16. David Taylor

    Robert Coe Guest

    :
    : >: On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 07:40:28 -0700, Savageduck
    : >:
    : >: >On 2013-10-08 07:37:34 -0700, Sandman <> said:
    : >: >
    : >: >> In article <>,
    : >: >>
    : >: >>> On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 10:54:27 +0100, David Taylor
    : >: >>>
    : >: >>>> Nikon D610 First Impressions Review:
    : >: >>>>
    : >: >>>> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d610/
    : >: >>>
    : >: >>> Quick update/fix by Nikon. I wonder if we'll see a D810 to address the
    : >: >>> AF issues in the D800?
    : >: >>
    : >: >> What AF issues? I have the D800E, and haven't experienced any AF issues,
    : >: >> what am I missing?
    : >: >
    : >: >Canonista F.U.D.
    : >:
    : >: Nah, I shoot only Pannys now.
    : >
    : >My wife and I are the group's Canonians (two of them, anyway) these days. (I
    : >eschew the word "Canonista" for its Starbuckian cuteness.) But we've had
    : >nothing churlish to say about the D800. You can look it up.
    : >
    : >Bob
    :
    : Agreed, and I've never known you to sink to that level. You're
    : actually a nice guy. For a Canonian.
    :
    : heh, heh...

    One cannot escape one's past, you know. Once a Canonian, ...

    : BTW, what is the proper collective term for Panasonic users?
    : Pantalooneys?

    cone:conic :: phone:phonic :: sone:sonic :: tone:tonic

    So I conclude that the user of a Panasonic camera is a Panasone.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Oct 11, 2013
    #76
  17. David Taylor

    Tony Cooper Guest

    You may, I don't.
    You may, I don't.
     
    Tony Cooper, Oct 11, 2013
    #77
  18. David Taylor

    Sandman Guest

    Feeling that she was 'deserving of scorn' seems such an unusual
    reaction to having your wife prepare a meal with the recipe not
    working as planned that I felt I had to comment on it. Is that really
    what you meant? I would have thought that most people would have had
    sympathy for her.[/QUOTE]

    In the scenario the husband was sarcastic towards her, not sympathetic.
    Please follow along.
     
    Sandman, Oct 11, 2013
    #78
  19. David Taylor

    Sandman Guest

    "Ad hominem" is a form of argument in which the person attacks the
    person, not the subject about which they are arguing. You don't speak
    of "an ad hominem". You can say "Eric...posted an ad hominem counter
    position", or Eric...posted an ad hominem rebuttal", or something
    where "ad hominem" is followed by whatever you want to use to describe
    what was done. It doesn't stand alone.[/QUOTE]

    Hahahaha, my god you're clueless.
     
    Sandman, Oct 11, 2013
    #79
  20. David Taylor

    Sandman Guest

    You are quite correct.[/QUOTE]

    Eric joins in on the cluelessness, two peas in a pod.
     
    Sandman, Oct 11, 2013
    #80
    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.