Time to chuck the P&S's into the garbage

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by RichA, Apr 3, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Apr 3, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Better Info Guest

    Doesn't matter how cheap they are. Someone could pay me $1,000 to take one
    off of their hands and I still wouldn't want it. Their 1900's clap-trap and
    noisy mechanical technology is nothing but a huge drawback to photography
    these days.

    Why do you think they're so cheap? Nobody wants used ones, and new ones
    aren't much of an incentive either.
     
    Better Info, Apr 3, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    If you buy one you need to know how to repair them. All those springs
    and gears tend to gum up and stop working over the decades.
     
    Ray Fischer, Apr 3, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    Ofnuts Guest

    You should check the prices of used superzooms...
     
    Ofnuts, Apr 3, 2011
    #4
  5. Don't have to, troll. They were also inexpensive brand new. Though a few
    models now sell for more as used than they did as new. I know this because
    I've been looking for a few of my favorites as backups every now and then.
    Can't find a good deal on them when I've checked, what few are being sold
    as used, if you can find one. Everyone's hanging onto them. I totally
    understand why.

    Like all trolls, you're ignorant and pointless.
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Apr 3, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    bobwilliams Guest

    bobwilliams, Apr 4, 2011
    #6
  7. There's an element of truth in that, but I think it's also an indication
    of the extra features and higher ISO sensitivity in the newer products.
    "For a little more, you can buy newer and better", coupled with a large
    "fashion" and/or "consumer society" factor. There is very little
    "digital" these days which retains its value. For folks with existing
    lenses, or those buying today's cameras from new (as opposed to upgrading)
    these are real bargains as backup bodies.

    I'd get one myself, were it not for the fact that I already have a D60
    from when I upgraded to the D5000 with its higher sensitivity, improved
    focus and swivel finder! <G>

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 4, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    .... that makes them more desirable.

    .... which was exactly Bob Williams' point. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Apr 4, 2011
    #8
  9. []
    I see a distinction between "desirability" and genuine enhancements.
    Whilst the newest iPad2 may be desirable, it doesn't offer me enough to
    upgrade, whereas the D5000 did offer more than the D60.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 4, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    When the vast majority of DSLR users are unable to produce results
    that even approach the limits of the model they own, upgrading should
    be way down their list of priorities.

    Tuition should be at the top of the list. Then they might learn how
    to use their cameras, or at least make better choices that are more in
    line with their real needs and ability.

    The sales of superzoom lenses would be decimated if people realised
    how badly they performed. If they wanted to use one lens for
    everything, why on earth did they buy a camera that accepted
    interchangeable lenses?

    For most people, a change to a superzoom might be a better choice than
    spending even more money on a DSLR whose increased abilities they will
    never be able to use, especially if those abilities are blunted by the
    use of a consumer-grade zoom lens.

    But if these people really want to upgrade, I see nothing wrong about
    supplying them with what they think they might "need".

    My friend sells Mercedes-Benz. No-one expects him to tell people to
    go buy a cheap Korean-made city car when that is all they need. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Apr 4, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    Ofnuts Guest

    Now that's an interesting admission:

    1) "a few": all others were crap

    2) "now sell for more as used than they did as new": since the prices of
    new cameras are decreasing, these used cameras are more expensive that
    their "equivalent" recent ones, which means they are perceived as far
    superior, despite their "short" zoom or low pixel count.

    So we agree... the problem with recent compact/bridge/superzoom cameras
    is that the pixel-count wars have led manufacturers to add pixels faster
    that they can mitigate the problems this creates (noise, etc...) (this
    is also true, but to a lesser extent, of DSLRs) and extend zoom range
    beyond what they can reasonably do and what is really usable by us mere
    mortals.
     
    Ofnuts, Apr 4, 2011
    #11
  12. RichA

    John A. Guest

    Or of what the likely customers can afford.
     
    John A., Apr 4, 2011
    #12
  13. Why would anyone let a troll like you, who clearly puts words in other's
    mouths, allow you to think you agree with words they never said?

    Is that they only way you can get someone to agree with you in your mind?
    By inventing words they never said so you can then imagine that you agree
    with them?

    There's a word for that in studies of psychology. Several words as a matter
    of fact. You might want to look that up. But it would probably be simpler
    to have the resident staff and your attendants explain them to you in words
    you can understand. That is, if you don't go off again inventing things
    they never said just so you can pretend to understand and agree with them.
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Apr 4, 2011
    #13
  14. RichA

    Mike Stand Guest

    Mike Stand, Apr 4, 2011
    #14
  15. RichA

    Ofnuts Guest

    So you never said "Though a few models now sell for more as used than
    they did as new.".... Sorry, must be another sock puppet then...
     
    Ofnuts, Apr 4, 2011
    #15
  16. RichA

    Mike Stand Guest

    Yes who want's a 6-7 year old 6 mp dSLR?
     
    Mike Stand, Apr 4, 2011
    #16
  17. RichA

    Rich Guest

    Anyone who wants better images than a current P&S.
     
    Rich, Apr 5, 2011
    #17
  18. Too bad that that's a confirmed lie created by extremely insecure,
    ignorant, and blind DSLR worshippers. Did you tighten your blinders some
    more to retain that bliss of self-inflicted ignorance that you display so
    well?

    There are compact and superzoom cameras from 2-3 years ago that already
    beat the image quality of the latest "Pro" DSLRs.

    What's the matter? Are you worried about DSLRs, and their associated $5000
    worth of required lenses needed for each one to make them the least bit
    useful, is going to soon become worthless junk? Like SLR bodies have become
    nothing but memorabilia and dust-collectors. I have my own collection of
    those. May they gather dust and rest in peace. As your DSLRs soon will. The
    only thing giving them any value these days are outright lies like yours.

    Time for you buggy-whip braiders to find a new animal to worship.

    A 20X superzoom lens easily outperforming a 3x zoom on a DSLR:
    <http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml>

    A handheld compact camera rivaling the image quality of a medium format
    Hasselblad. Even when the Hasselblad is securely locked on a tripod. Even
    when using a cable release, mirror lock-up, and a time-delay
    shutter-release for it too. The handheld compact camera still rivaled the
    images from the Hasselblad.
    <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml>

    Three-year old compact cameras beating the image quality of the latest
    DSLRs being made:
    <http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/>
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Apr 5, 2011
    #18
  19. Too bad that that's a confirmed lie created by extremely insecure,
    ignorant, and blind DSLR worshippers. Did you tighten your blinders some
    more to retain that bliss of self-inflicted ignorance that you display so
    well?

    There are compact and superzoom cameras from 2-3 years ago that already
    beat the image quality of the latest "Pro" DSLRs.

    What's the matter? Are you worried about DSLRs, and their associated $5000
    worth of required lenses needed for each one to make them the least bit
    useful, are all soon going to become worthless junk? Like SLR bodies have
    become nothing but memorabilia and dust-collectors. I have my own
    collection of those. May they gather dust and rest in peace. As your DSLRs
    and their lenses soon will. The only thing giving them any value these days
    are all the outright lies like yours.

    Time for you buggy-whip braiders to find a new animal to worship.

    A 20X superzoom lens easily outperforming a 3x zoom on a DSLR:
    <http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml>

    A handheld compact camera rivaling the image quality of a medium format
    Hasselblad. Even when the Hasselblad is securely locked on a tripod. Even
    when using a cable release, mirror lock-up, and a time-delay
    shutter-release for it too. The handheld compact camera still rivaled the
    images from the Hasselblad.
    <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml>

    Three-year old compact cameras beating the image quality of the latest
    DSLRs being made:
    <http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/>
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Apr 5, 2011
    #19
  20. Hey, I got my DSLR for free.

    It really uses batteries fast. It's bulky, and then there are the add on
    lenses. I'm not sure my cardreader can even read the cards, so old they
    are. And I don't have a spare serial port on my computer to make use of
    the serial interface on the camera (and later computers don't even have
    serial ports).

    It's a massive 1.6MP camera. Must have cost a fortune when bought new,
    it has little value now other than history (and likely some time down the
    road it may carry value as "antique").

    I was given a 2MP non-SLR camera about the same time, and I used that for
    five years, gave me the portability that I wanted in a camera (like that
    time I bought the 35mm viewfinder camera in 1980, I could go anywhere with
    that in my pocket and nobody knew I had a camera until I took it out).

    There's a reason SLRs aren't as common place as simpler cameras. Most
    people don't want or need something better.

    Michael
     
    Michael Black, Apr 5, 2011
    #20
    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.