FZ50 vs DSLR

[lwiley]

OK, A) Gary never said you did any of that stuff, he just pointed
out a "photog phenomenon" that he's observed. If you think it's
unfounded, just say that;

Respectfully, I strongly disagree. I'm just a simple DSLR user and read it very differently.

In his Yosemite post Gary starts off by saying he does not care for this phenomenon. And ends with saying "and they want you to know it" as if DSLR people are in his face at Yosemite proclaiming their virtues and slamming his.

And throughout the Yosemite bit, the clear implication to me is that if you own a DSLR you are LIKELY a gear lunkhead with no original thoughts and too much money. I don't think most of us are, but IF we are then so be it. Why should he care? Why does it disturb him? You don't see a bias there?

gkreth, please reread it from a DSLR users prospective, without the Gary rose colored glasses.

Yosemite quote:

Being around Yosemite quite often, I've noticed something that I don't
care for. You go there in off-season, and everybody is friendly, says 'hi'
and smiles, chats, relaxes. Everybody, that is, except photographers.
They walk right by, lost in their own thoughts, whatever they may be,
serious, frowning, muttering. Usually carrying a tripod and big camera.
Then they get together with others of like mind, in some spot to
take...get this...a photo that's already been taken. Stand around in
groups waiting for the late February sunset to try to get a pic like Galen
Rowell's of horsetail falls, or on Stoneman bridge, waiting for the golden
glow to hit Half Dome. They don't go there and wander around looking
for original photos while they're waiting, they stand in bunches and talk
about Canon's new L glass lens and the new body, and the new $400
polarizer they got, and tell each other how to use their equipment
properly, and practice drooling over image quality.

Now not every photographer in Yosemite is like the above, but a
disturbing number are.

These are in general the same folks who are in here insisting that DSLR's
are what everyone should be heading to, the only way you can be a real
photographer, but so many of them are barely photographers
themselves, they have no imagination, they're too busy worrying about
their gear to develop imagination. They copy the past great photos, or
try to, they go to auto races and stand on a corner and snap the same
angle of every car, they go to sports events and snap multi-cards full to
submit to an editing crew with a production line.

But they have great equipment. And they want you to know it. And
someday, if you listen, you can have stuff like they do, and then you'll be
able to take good pictures.

Leroy

 

[DStan]

Sarcasm can be passive agressive behaviour, In Gary's case, he's not been as polite as yould make it out to be. You seem to be getting upset as well, losing it by trying to indirectly use the "f" word and pass it off to someone else. The below snippet of Gary's discourse is example enough and just one example. If you have trouble seeing that then don't bother me with this thread and I won't bother you it either as this is pointless. I don't get how he attributes the L Glass thing and Portrait Studio to me anyway. Just a cheap way of getting out some aggresion. Then he went into acting childish about the Flash thing. If you can't see it, then don't bother.

A snippet of one of Gary's posts
====================
Seems odd that you're telling US to go take photos and enjoy
ourselves?!?! And learn about photography how, by standing around
in groups talking about the new L glass lenses that we lust for instead
of being out looking for some creative photos? Once we "learn"
we can hook up all those fancy flash arrangements you cited in the
parts I snipped, boy will that be fun. Maybe we can even shoot
weddings on weekends while our poor FZ owner counterparts are
in Yosemite or at a balloon festival or shooting birds in the salt marsh.
And set up a portrait studio, and take appointments, or get in as
school photog. Won't that be nice.

--
Stan ;o()



In the spirit of Occam’s Razor one should embrace the less complicated formulation or simply put, less is more.

 

[David_London]

The below snippet of
Gary's discourse is example enough and just one example.

Sure, but the snippet ignores the hostory of the thread and your participation in it. Gary wasn't speaking in a vacum, and you don't give yourself nearly enough credit for "advancing" the discourse this far.

It seems that any time someone says the FZ's may be a better choice for some people depending on their needs, there you and Barry are, rushing in on your white horses to save them from their own heresy. Geesh, it's a camera, not a religion. What's wrong with it just being right for some? (within limits, YMMV, terms and conditions may apply etc)

Regards,
David_S.

 

[DStan]

Tell 'em Tony. Other than all in one, small and light, realtime
histogram and a realtime LCD view, I can't think of any other
features that are outstanding.

According to Simon's review, the FZ50 at ISO 100 is also outstanding.

According to Simon

"If you look at the list of pros and cons above you'll notice that the pros are mostly concerned with the camera and the cons are mostly concerned with the image, or more specifically the effect of noise and Venus III noise reduction. This sums up the FZ50 perfectly; a fantastic camera with a less than stellar sensor / processor, and way too many pixels."

Read on some more

"I completely understand why Panasonic chose to jump from 5 to 8 to 10 megapixels in three generations of its flagship FZ camera - it's a lot easier to sell a camera on pixels than picture quality,"

Keep reading

"And so what we have is a camera that stretches its sensor to almost breaking point and compensates for the lack of sensitivity in anything but the brightest conditions by using excessive noise reduction. The FZ50 is an excellent 5 or 6MP camera, but a rather less impressive 10MP camera."

And some more

"But do not, for a minute, think that the 10 million pixels you're getting with the FZ50 bear anything but a passing resemblance to the 10 million pixel images you'll get from a good SLR once you get above ISO 100, or once light levels start to drop."

He had nice things to say as well. I never said the camera was junk either, I did have good things to say. Too bad some people get upset if it isn't all glowing and the negatives surface.

The best thing about the FZ30/50 is that the Zoom and MF rings
behave like those on a real camera,

This is what I mean; above you said you couldn't "think of any
other features that are outstanding," but now you add, "The best
thing about the FZ30/50 is that the Zoom and MF rings behave like
those on a real camera" - wouldn't hat then be another outstanding
thing? Really, I'm just trying to understand...

Now you're acting silly. How PC does one have to get to please you and Gary. I said something positive, but I don't have to lump sugar on it and say it the way you prescribe. Now your acting like the thought police, sheesh.

Nice camera - yes, Fantastic camera - no. Do I like it, yes. Do I use it

• yes. Do I understand its limitations - yes.

OK, thanks. This is more along the agree-to-disagree exchanges I
think I can live with; the vitriol is giving me an ulcer! ( grin )

I don't think I need to choose my words so carefully in fear of upsetting you. Get over it, I was more than polite enough.

Seriously, I hope I haven't p~ssed you off by defending Gary; it
was not my intent or my desire attack you, but I thought someone
one should stand up for Gary, who I thought was being mis-quoted
and then attacked on the basis of those mis-quotes. Not that Gary
can't hold his own, but I think maybe it's time some people on the
forum jump in for each other; I know I have appreciated it recently
when others have stepped in on my behalf....

Give me a break, I'm sure you didn't like my thoughts either and your attack like response is not so well disguised. You have enough "vitriol" in this and your other post to show it. I don't ask or expect that you agree with my feeling on the camera, so get over it and enjoy your opinion, I'll be the first to say that you have the right to believe in the camera any way you wish. I expect the same in return.
--
Stan ;o()



In the spirit of Occam’s Razor one should embrace the less complicated formulation or simply put, less is more.

 

[David_London]

Respectfully, I strongly disagree. I'm just a simple DSLR user and
read it very differently.

In his Yosemite post Gary starts off by saying he does not care for
this phenomenon. And ends with saying "and they want you to know
it" as if DSLR people are in his face at Yosemite proclaiming their
virtues and slamming his.

And throughout the Yosemite bit, the clear implication to me is
that if you own a DSLR you are LIKELY a gear lunkhead with no
original thoughts and too much money.

I guess I'm also a DSLR user given that I now own one, but I didn't feel idenitified by, and certainly not put down by anything that Gary said. I recognise the whole "mine is bigger than yours" thing, and it is pretty rampant throughout these forums. I'm often guilty of it myself. I just love to have the shiniest toy in the street. So I smiled when I read his description of photography prima-donnas, because I know people just like that

Now, it may be that Gary was bitten by a L-lens weilding Canon user as a child, and has developed a certain antipathy towards them, but it came across to me as a put-down of the technology-obsessed who have forgotten to look at the scenery beyond their viewfinder. I'm really not sure how you managed to be upset by his post - unless he touched a nerve?

 

[DStan]

The below snippet of
Gary's discourse is example enough and just one example.

Sure, but the snippet ignores the hostory of the thread and your
participation in it. Gary wasn't speaking in a vacum, and you
don't give yourself nearly enough credit for "advancing" the
discourse this far.

It seems that any time someone says the FZ's may be a better choice
for some people depending on their needs, there you and Barry are,
rushing in on your white horses to save them from their own heresy.
Geesh, it's a camera, not a religion. What's wrong with it just
being right for some? (within limits, YMMV, terms and conditions
may apply etc)

Hold on there, David. If you check the historical record, you will see that I have an FZ30, I like it and use it, I say that it should be used in its context, good light, good exposure and low ISO. I state that it is not a super camera and that it is not a DSLR slayer. It's a $500 camera that delivers a good value for the price. Being at the top of its class doesn't make it a super camera. I'm not telling people not to buy or use the camera, as I've said I own one. When I want a sharper image and top IQ or plan a photo trip, I'll take my DSLR if the weight and size aren't a problem. If someone asks for advice and a DSLR is better for their application I will say so.

Barry has his own thoughts and is entitled to think for himself as he wishes. Gary and gkreth flipped out, their blood pressure is not my problem and their opinion is theirs to keep and enjoy.
--
Stan ;o()



In the spirit of Occam’s Razor one should embrace the less complicated formulation or simply put, less is more.

 

[gkreth]

FZ aint as good....

Wrong again. The FZ30/FZ50 is VERY good at low-light AF. I tested it against a KM5D as well, which ALSO has no AF lamp, and which ALSO hunts in AF in low light. We all know how you haite the FZ, but the AF lamp makes for faster, more precise AF in low light. Note I didn't say ALWAYS, I said IN LOW LIGHT. I've tested them, and I speak from experience. Blow it off if you as I'm sure will, but others on the forum, will hopefully understand who has "informed opinion" and who simply has "opinion."

You cannot use burst mode in the FZ 30/50 for RAW...its not an
option. You can with an SLR..

If that's a big factor will dutifully potential purchaser consider it. I seriously doubt it's a big factor with most people, but please post some of your work in which you needed to have Raw continuous mode; I'd like to see it.

My point is the RAW files should be smaller....(for the FZ's and LX series too)

And yet, you don't complain about the huge Raw files on the D200 - why not?

"Go zone"? Sorry, I don't understand the term; explain, please.

I mean its the same as it always was...up the ISO and IQ suffers....

Equivalent ISO on the FZ50 is better than on the FZ30; that was what I got from Simon's review. And Lord knows all the comparisons and arguing has been about the FZ50 at ISO 800 and above; I never saw any "FZ50 ISO 200/400 sux!" posts...

The lens is good, but not that great...

You parse your words carefully... "good but not that great" - like there any many other lenses just as good, or better. But that's not true, and you have never list lenses that are better. You just give vaguely worded "ok, but not that great" or "not, bad, but not the best" or "some people like it" type of posts. You've lost credibility because you don't back it up with tests, examples, citing other lenses that are better, etc. Please point to any 35-420mm lenses that resolves better than the FZ30/FZ50. So far, no one has...

see Phil's review of the FZ50 at ISO 100, compared to a Canon 350D. The
FZ50 results are excellent in every meaning of the word.

Not bad...I agree, but not equal...

Ah, more careful parsing... "not bad, but not equal." So, on a scale of 1 to 100, if the FZ50 was a 98 an the Canon was 99, technically that would make your statement true as well. But see, for most, they'd say, "Well, f it's THAT close, I'll save the $500 and get the cheaper-but-almost-as-good camera!"

And, of course, you failed to mention that Simon said in his review the comparison was against a Canon with a 50mm f/1.4 prime lens, and that the comparison would be even CLOSER with Canon a kit lens. Fortunately, I'm here to point this out.

You can get shots..but you will like 28mm and less...

Maybe, maybe not. I know YOU will, because that's just about ALL you shoot; I've point4ed this out in previous posts as well. You love WA, and it's one of the reasons you dislike the FZ series - they didn;t go wide enough for you. You completely dismiss the 420mm tele end because that holds no interest for you personally.

But see, most FZ owners (and potential owners) value the 420mm end VERY HIGHLY; it's one of the MAIN reasons they get the FZ over another camera.

You never have given the long tele end it's deserved du. And I'm OK with that, because it holds no interest for you, personally. But as one who values it highly, and knows that most EVERY OTHER person considering the camera ALSO values it highly, I have to step in periodically and bring that little fact to light...

 

[gkreth]

No lens is perfect; that's a silly
argument to even say, because no lens is perfect. You think
statements like that portray you as having a "balanced" view?

It is balanced...too many FZ owners tout about how great the lens
is...sure its good, I have the FZ-5, but its def a bit softer tele
end...no question....

As are ALL lenses. Even high-dollar DSLR lenses are softer at the long end when compared to the short end. And CERTAINLY consumer-level lens are such. Again, you try to d@mn the FZ lenses with "facts" that apply to ALL lenses, stating it as if it's a "deficincy" with ONLY hte FZ lenses. Barry, THAT is why you are NOT balanced in your views. You will disagree, again, I'm sure, buit you cannot escape the fact that you have tried to discredit, again, the FZ series with a "fact" that applies to ALL lenses, and so is a wash and not a factor at all.

To say it's "poor" shows everone that yuor views are

NOT "balanced" as you would like others to believe.

Its a poor sensory IMO...

Then direct your complaints to the sensor, and the sensor only. Please stop making up other "faults" to find with the camera.

No, but it's better than any DSLR lens costing less than $500.

With respect, thats just pure fantasty.........the FZ lens isnt
expensive, its decent...

Simon says it out-performs every fixed-lens out there; that's more
than just "decent." The "fantasy" is in your statement.

You gotta be joking right? Hell I can go on ebay now and buy a 50mm
prime that kills the FZ lens dead...but you will come back saying I
dont have zoom.....sigh.......

Which is exactly correct. Again, you don;t seem ti=o understand, or at least appreciate, that some users LIKE having a great long-zoom lens without having to spend tons of money. BTW, by "fixed" I meant it in the sense Simon did: fixed as in fixed on the camera. Yes, I can buy a used 50mm f/1.4 AF prime on eBay, for about $100. Of course, I can't do near as much with the 50mm (i.e., 75mm with the 1.5 crop factor) as I could with a 35-420mm, at the wide angle end or the tele end. A good mid-focal-length lens, great for portraits. But not great for scenics, as you have pointed out. And not good for any real tele work, either, certainly not for birding, wildlife, etc.

New technology..how about a foveon one for the FZ's? Sweet? indeed.

I've read very little about it. Here's and area where I would very much appreciate your expertise. Tell me more about this sensor, please. How big is it? How expensive? How available? What cameras are using it? Who developed it? Is it or will it be available to "anyone," sorta like the Sony APS-C was to KM, Nikon, and Pentax?

I'm quite happy with my credibility within the group.

YOu say what you say..thats cool..as for the SLR argument..its a
matter of personal taste...

I agree 100%,

its about needs....[I'm]saying
that the FZ cams are solid....and yes you have lots of zoom......

Thank you; I like the term "solid," much better than "ok, not great" or "fine for some."

 

[Gary R.]

I'm cool and am aware that they're just cameras, only Gary blows
his cork if you say anything negative about his beloved brand,

Stan, here's a simple request. Go back to the first message I posted in this thread and read it. It's not the top one in the threaded view, it's about 25 messages down.

Now if you bothered to do so, you will see that I answered the original question with the method I used to decide a similar question. I did not tell him which way to go, did not encourage one or the other answer, and I don't think I even mentioned a brand. The post was neutral as to what I thought his choice should be.

I believe the first post of yours that I replied to was your 'speaks the truth' one concerning Barry, and while you're certainly welcome to follow Barry's advice, I think "he speaks his opinion" would have been much more accurate, Barry is known for his constant FZ-bashing, though he's calmed down a bit since the review.

You, and a couple of others have attributed several things to me which I never said. Before you assign a statement to someone, it's best to reread their messages and see if it's really what they said or what you want to think they said. Do it.

As far as you visualizing me as hostile and needing to chill, it's all in your imagination. I am unquestionably pretty stubborn, just ask those who were digital zoom fans a while back...and I think a certain number of posters think that if they can't get someone to back down, this is another means of attack..."just calm down, don't have a stroke, take some pictures..."

You and a few others seem to feel you must be in charge of others' thoughts. Hence the rant about "don't call it incredible"; and where did the $1000 thing come from? Just where do you get off telling someone that they can't call anything, say a Mavica incredible, or fantastic, or awesome, or whatever they want. You specify a few adjectives they CAN use, "good" is OK but I suppose only if you preface it by saying "but a DSLR has better image quality and is really much better". Unless you have some sort of word police badge, I'd suggest you get off the back of whoever used those words in a way you don't approve of.

I used the Yosemite photogs example to illustrate how too much emphasis on gear can be detrimental to what's really important. I have good friends with dSLR's who use them well, and others who don't, but that's their business, and they don't tell me what I need or what words are allowed to describe something, and I don't tell them what they need or what they can say.

You seem to feel that owning an FZ30 qualifies you as judge...and it does...for YOU. Not for me or the guy down the street, he can make up his own mind. And if one or the other of us decides that the FZ fits us best, we don't have to apologize for it, watch what words we use to desccribe it, or qualify what we say by clearing it with the DSLR police first. You like your DSLR better, that's wonderful, use it, enjoy it, call it fantastic or incredible if you want...I hope you don't run into someone who has a fancier one who takes you to task on that word though...

--
Gary

 

[gkreth]

"The FZ50 is an excellent 5 or 6MP camera, but a rather
less impressive 10MP camera."

Right! And since EVERYONE keeps saying 6MP is more than enough. (Oh, yeah, they do!), the FZ50 should be a very, very good camera! High recommended, you might say, if only just barely. ( grin )

He had nice things to say as well. I never said the camera was junk
either, I did have good things to say. Too bad some people get
upset if it isn't all glowing and the negatives surface.

I really don't think I, or Gary, was getting " upset if it isn't all glowing and the negatives surface." I apologize, seriously, if I came off that way. My problem is that I think Gary was jumped on for no valid reason,a nd it was done in an insulting, mean-spirited way. I think it botherered me most because I thought as I read it, "That's wierd; I don't REMEMBER Dstan posting stuff like this...." I generally LIKE your posts!

Now you're acting silly. How PC does one have to get to please you
and Gary. I said something positive, but I don't have to lump sugar
on it and say it the way you prescribe. Now your acting like the
thought police, sheesh.

No one is asking for sugar; you went way over the lines into disrepect. You can disagree, but it's true. Each person reading this thread will decide for themselves if I'm being too PC, or if you were being rude.

I don't think I need to choose my words so carefully in fear of
upsetting you. Get over it, I was more than polite enough.

OK, so maybe you're NOT one of those posters I'll be reading a lot of... ow I need to re-read some of your previous posts and see if you were a jerk more often than not. Not a big fan of Dale Carnegie, are you?

Give me a break, I'm sure you didn't like my thoughts either and
your attack like response is not so well disguised.

Oh, yeah, you're definitely on my Christmas card list now. I offer a sincere apology, and you just keep being an @sshole. Fine, be that way.

 

[lwiley]

I guess I'm also a DSLR user given that I now own one, but I didn't
feel idenitified by, and certainly not put down by anything that
Gary said. I recognise the whole "mine is bigger than yours"
thing, and it is pretty rampant throughout these forums. I'm often
guilty of it myself. I just love to have the shiniest toy in the
street. So I smiled when I read his description of photography
prima-donnas, because I know people just like that

Now, it may be that Gary was bitten by a L-lens weilding Canon user
as a child, and has developed a certain antipathy towards them, but
it came across to me as a put-down of the technology-obsessed who
have forgotten to look at the scenery beyond their viewfinder. I'm
really not sure how you managed to be upset by his post - unless he
touched a nerve?

Oh, no sir. I am not the least bit upset. How did you get that?

I was only pointing out that Gary, although he may well be a very upstanding and helpful fellow, was not, as gkreth said, simply pointing out a noticed phenomenon. Rather, Gary said he did not care for the phenomenon and then went on to paint a generalized picture of DSLR users at the park.

So that's not just pointing it out, it's offering an opinion about the phenomenon and painting a biased picture.

If I were to say "I am tired of all of the P&S users, and especially the FZ guys, when I go to Yosemite who snap 200 shots in as many seconds without regard to composition or light. It bugs me, it really does. And all of their rugrats running around with snotty noses, getting in my way. And they walk around as if no one else should have a use for THEIR park. And they turn up their noses everytime I walk by. Enough!", is that simply noticing a phenomenon, or is it offering an opinion about it and generalizing and lumping people into an ugly painted group?

That is the point. gkreth said he was simply offering up a phenomenon when he was not. Like I said, Gary is probably a very nice fellow. But don't tell me he wasn't getting his back up a little there and offering up a little more than necessary. We all get our backs up once in a while, no biggy. If you tell me white is black though, I might pop in with my opinion. ;-)

Leroy

 

[DStan]

"The FZ50 is an excellent 5 or 6MP camera, but a rather
less impressive 10MP camera."

Right! And since EVERYONE keeps saying 6MP is more than enough.
(Oh, yeah, they do!), the FZ50 should be a very, very good camera!
High recommended, you might say, if only just barely. ( grin )

He had nice things to say as well. I never said the camera was junk
either, I did have good things to say. Too bad some people get
upset if it isn't all glowing and the negatives surface.

I really don't think I, or Gary, was getting " upset if it isn't
all glowing and the negatives surface." I apologize, seriously, if
I came off that way. My problem is that I think Gary was jumped on
for no valid reason,a nd it was done in an insulting, mean-spirited
way. I think it botherered me most because I thought as I read it,
"That's wierd; I don't REMEMBER Dstan posting stuff like this...."
I generally LIKE your posts!

Now you're acting silly. How PC does one have to get to please you
and Gary. I said something positive, but I don't have to lump sugar
on it and say it the way you prescribe. Now your acting like the
thought police, sheesh.

No one is asking for sugar; you went way over the lines into
disrepect. You can disagree, but it's true. Each person reading
this thread will decide for themselves if I'm being too PC, or if
you were being rude.

I don't think I need to choose my words so carefully in fear of
upsetting you. Get over it, I was more than polite enough.

OK, so maybe you're NOT one of those posters I'll be reading a lot
of... ow I need to re-read some of your previous posts and see if
you were a jerk more often than not. Not a big fan of Dale
Carnegie, are you?

Give me a break, I'm sure you didn't like my thoughts either and
your attack like response is not so well disguised.

Oh, yeah, you're definitely on my Christmas card list now. I offer
a sincere apology, and you just keep being an @sshole. Fine, be
that way.

You clearly illustrate your lack of character. I made no Jerkville remark nor called you an @sshole asyou have done to me. I'd say that you should get of your high horse, but that won't be necessary as you've clearly fallen off it. You've got some nerve and no character whatsoever.
--
Stan ;o()



In the spirit of Occam’s Razor one should embrace the less complicated formulation or simply put, less is more.

 

[David_London]

The below snippet of
Gary's discourse is example enough and just one example.

Sure, but the snippet ignores the hostory of the thread and your
participation in it. Gary wasn't speaking in a vacum, and you
don't give yourself nearly enough credit for "advancing" the
discourse this far.

It seems that any time someone says the FZ's may be a better choice
for some people depending on their needs, there you and Barry are,
rushing in on your white horses to save them from their own heresy.
Geesh, it's a camera, not a religion. What's wrong with it just
being right for some? (within limits, YMMV, terms and conditions
may apply etc)

Hold on there, David. If you check the historical record, you will
see that I have an FZ30, I like it and use it, I say that it should
be used in its context, good light, good exposure and low ISO. I
state that it is not a super camera and that it is not a DSLR
slayer.

Again and again (and again). Trust me, I've seen enough of your posts to know how you feel. They have a certain drum-like theme to them

Gary makes no bones over the limitations of the camera, but still praises it for it's strengths. You criticise the camera for it's weaknesses and rarely have anything positive to say about it, beyond the fact that you own one and occasionally suffer to use it. I guess somewhere between the two of you there's a balance of opinion, but in this latest thread you've taken the whole hand-waving dismissal routine a little too far. There's a difference between disagreement and belittling.

It's a $500 camera that delivers a good value for the
price. Being at the top of its class doesn't make it a super
camera.

If there was hyphen in there, I would probably agree. Without it, I would disagree. For many people this will indeed be a super camera. Positively sooopah, dahlink.

I'm not telling people not to buy or use the camera, as
I've said I own one. When I want a sharper image and top IQ or plan
a photo trip, I'll take my DSLR if the weight and size aren't a
problem. If someone asks for advice and a DSLR is better for their
application I will say so.

The problem is that I don't recall you ever recommending the Panny over a DSL, no matter what the application. Maybe I just missed that post, or haven't been here long enough.

Barry has his own thoughts and is entitled to think for himself as
he wishes. Gary and gkreth flipped out, their blood pressure is not
my problem and their opinion is theirs to keep and enjoy.

I think you got exactly the reaction you were aiming for.

Regards,
David_S.

 

[gkreth]

Leroy: Thanks for your post. I don;t agree with your assessment, but I VERY MUCH appreciate the civilized way in which you said it.

OK, A) Gary never said you did any of that stuff, he just pointed
out a "photog phenomenon" that he's observed. If you think it's
unfounded, just say that;

Respectfully, I strongly disagree. I'm just a simple DSLR user and
read it very differently.

And throughout the Yosemite bit, the clear implication to me is
that if you own a DSLR you are LIKELY a gear lunkhead with no
original thoughts and too much money. I don't think most of us
are, but IF we are then so be it. Why should he care? Why does it
disturb him? You don't see a bias there?

No, truly I did not. I own a Pentax DSLR, my brouther owns a Canon DSLR, and I didn't feel Gary was "insulting" either of us. As David also said, I have seen a lot of "mine is bigger than yours" thing, here and on other forums. I think Gary nailed it in his description.

Note that he didn't say ALL owners of DSLRs were this way, or even MOST. What he was commenting on was the attitude of, "it's not a DSLR, ergo, it sux" attitude of some, including some very vocal forum members.

To me as well as David, it came across to me as a put-down of the technology-obsessed who have forgotten to look at the scenery beyond their viewfinder. It was also the impetus I think for his post last week about shooting sports at slower shutter speeds. That was a very informative post, and written in reply to someone who insisted that the only way to shoot sports was with faster shutter speeds, higher ISOs, etc. Gary pointed out that good photogs have been shooting for decades with lower ISO limits and slower shutter speeds. And he gave examples of how it can be done.

gkreth, please reread it from a DSLR users prospective, without the
Gary rose colored glasses.

( grin ) Thanks for the smiley; it does make it easier to disagree, doesn't it? I did re-read it, and I say respectfully that I read the post as a caricature of the equipment-obsessed. I was a humorous post, to me, as are many of Gary's posts. We can disagree, but having read Gary's posts for 18 months (from when he was a true-blue Oly C2100 user), I honestly think I know what meant to post to convey. I don't have "gary-clolored glasses," but I do think I "know him" from his posts.

Good talking to you. I'd like to know: What sort of Nikon do you shoot with? I see you're on the D50/D70/D80 forum often, so I assume it's one of those?

--Greg

 

[gkreth]

Give me a break, I'm sure you didn't like my thoughts either and
your attack like response is not so well disguised.

Oh, yeah, you're definitely on my Christmas card list now. I offer
a sincere apology, and you just keep being an @sshole. Fine, be
that way.

You clearly illustrate your lack of character. I made no Jerkville
remark nor called you an @sshole asyou have done to me.

I'd apologize, but since it's sur to be greeted with a "give me a break" (which is being an @sshole, when it's the reply to sincere apology).

And since you said, " I don't think I need to choose my words so carefully in fear of upsetting you. Get over it" I figure a little of that non-PC talk you seem to favor would be right at home with you.

I'd say that you should get of your high horse, but that won't be
necessary> as you've clearly fallen off it.

I take pride that I have ever BEEN on the high horse. For you, it's apparently a disdainful place to be. Fine.

You've got some nerve and no character whatsoever.

I'll let those that matter be the judge of that. You, definitely no longer in that category.

To other members of the list: I'm sorry if I was a jerk to Dstan, but I think when went way outta line. And I'll be the first to admit that I prefer PC to non-PC, whatever the he~~ those two words mean. Me? I just like it when people are nice and respectful to others, even when they disagree.

I know there's a certain about of "barroom brawls" that go on in this forum. And some have a "lighten up, don't take it so seriously" attitude. Others just avoid those threads.

To those on the forum that once had some level of respect for my opinion / posts but were put off my what I wrote in this thread: I apologize to YOU, and I hope I earn back your respect. Because that DOES matter to me. I wouldn't spend time in it if I didn't care what others thought. (I don't care what EVFERYONE thinks, of course; it's a consider-the-source sorta thing. But to the nicer, more helpful, respectfull people who make this rforum fun, and who may now think, "Jeez, Greg was an @sshole to Dstan" - I do apologize. Sincerely.

 

[David_London]

Oh, no sir. I am not the least bit upset. How did you get that?

I guess it was when you said:

the clear implication to me is that if you own a DSLR you are LIKELY a > > gear lunkhead with no original thoughts and too much money.

Came across as less than happy...

If I were to say "I am tired of all of the P&S users, and
especially the FZ guys, when I go to Yosemite who snap 200 shots in
as many seconds without regard to composition or light. It bugs
me, it really does. And all of their rugrats running around with
snotty noses, getting in my way. And they walk around as if no one
else should have a use for THEIR park. And they turn up their
noses everytime I walk by. Enough!", is that simply noticing a
phenomenon, or is it offering an opinion about it and generalizing
and lumping people into an ugly painted group?

It's offering a very amusing picture, to my mind I simply don't see that as "lumping people into an ugly group". More like "Victor Meldrew goes camping."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/archive/features/victor_meldrew.shtml

That is the point. gkreth said he was simply offering up a
phenomenon when he was not. Like I said, Gary is probably a very
nice fellow. But don't tell me he wasn't getting his back up a
little there and offering up a little more than necessary. We all
get our backs up once in a while, no biggy. If you tell me white
is black though, I might pop in with my opinion. ;-)

We'll have to differ on this one - I recognise the phenomenon he was describing. It's pervasive throughout these forums, and throughout real life. There are product-snobs everywhere, be it food, wine, cameras, cars or cashmere. It doesn't hurt to make fun of it.

Leroy

Take care,
David.

 

[David_London]

You clearly illustrate your lack of character. I made no Jerkville
remark

That's really a matter of opinion, don't you think?

nor called you an @sshole asyou have done to me.

There are a million different ways to call someone an asshat. You can put lipstick on that particular pig, but it's still just as ugly.

I'd say
that you should get of your high horse, but that won't be necessary
as you've clearly fallen off it. You've got some nerve and no
character whatsoever.

Oh look, another lipsticked pig. This one's not even dressed nice.

You know, you should have quit while you were behind. I encourage you to re-read the thread and see where the tone takes a huge dive for the worse. Hint: it's where you don't take take homework assignments any more, and dismiss those who disagree with you as "cry babies".

Regards,
David.

 

[DStan]

Whatever you've had to say or bait me with, I haven't lowered myself to the use of bad language as you have. Your words are there as a reflection of your character, period You can wave your hands, dismiss it and make long posts, none of which changes the fact that when you can't convince someone to follow your will you resort to curse words. There's a difference from expressing one's opinion, no matter how others may in turn feel and using imature invective. I'd say think it over, but that's probably pointless.
--
Stan ;o()



In the spirit of Occam’s Razor one should embrace the less complicated formulation or simply put, less is more.

 

[lwiley]

Oh, no sir. I am not the least bit upset. How did you get that?

I guess it was when you said:

the clear implication to me is that if you own a DSLR you are LIKELY a > > gear lunkhead with no original thoughts and too much money.

Came across as less than happy...

I was simply summing up the picture he painted. Not upset at all.

If I were to say "I am tired of all of the P&S users, and
especially the FZ guys, when I go to Yosemite who snap 200 shots in
as many seconds without regard to composition or light. It bugs
me, it really does. And all of their rugrats running around with
snotty noses, getting in my way. And they walk around as if no one
else should have a use for THEIR park. And they turn up their
noses everytime I walk by. Enough!", is that simply noticing a
phenomenon, or is it offering an opinion about it and generalizing
and lumping people into an ugly painted group?

It's offering a very amusing picture, to my mind I simply
don't see that as "lumping people into an ugly group".

Interesting. If I imply that P&Sers walk around as if they own the world and imply their behavior as a group is rude, I'm simply offering a very amusing picture? Simply offering up a noticed phenomenon?

That is the point. gkreth said he was simply offering up a
phenomenon when he was not. Like I said, Gary is probably a very
nice fellow. But don't tell me he wasn't getting his back up a
little there and offering up a little more than necessary. We all
get our backs up once in a while, no biggy. If you tell me white
is black though, I might pop in with my opinion. ;-)

We'll have to differ on this one - I recognise the phenomenon he
was describing. It's pervasive throughout these forums, and
throughout real life. There are product-snobs everywhere, be it
food, wine, cameras, cars or cashmere. It doesn't hurt to make fun
of it.

Okay, since we're playing loose here...

Phenomenon: There seem to be a few FZ product-snobs here too. Snobs are not unique to the more expensive cameras, cars or cashmere. You probably already know that, but to be clear let's say it.

Phenomenon: I have noticed in this forum where someone mentioned the advantages a DSLR offers and he was slammed for proselytizing. Even though he said the FZ is a good camera and has it's uses. Even though he said a DSLR has it's limitations too.

Remember, I'm simply painting very amusing pictures...

I guess we will have to simply disagree.

Leroy

 

[Leslie Kerr]

The contributions from both sides were quite interesting - until they diverged from commenting on digital cameras.

Please don't pursue this line any further (i.e. no "last word"). We don't want to lose the opportunity to read interesting (if opinionated) posts in the future.

Lurkers like myself can generally make our own minds up on the relevance of the comments, therefore there is no need for any further defending (or attacking!).

Note this message isn't targetted at either side - if the cap fits, wear it ;-)

Have as nice day!

Leslie