People who shoot photos with their lens hood on backwards

[kabbes]

Yep, you've now even got the non-photographers lined up against you, purely on the strength of your own arguments.

 

[Spymaster]

LOL! This is the level of argument I'm having here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrorless_interchangeable-lens_camera

I actually couldn't care less what a Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera is.

You're really odd.

 

[editor]

Oh, and Ed re the Lumière 1020 a 4 second shutter speed isn't very impressive. My ten year old Canon A80 (a compact camera) can do 15 seconds, and DSLRs can do 30, longer if one invokes Bulb mode.

Gosh. And isn't that amazing!
Oh, and good luck editing and sharing photos from that camera. And making calls. And sending emails. And browsing the web.

And it's called a Lumia.

 

[Bungle73]

Gosh. And isn't that amazing!
Oh, and good luck editing and sharing photos from that camera. And making calls. And sending emails. And browsing the web.

And it's called a Lumia.

You need those speeds to do proper long exposure photography.

The 70D has built-in WiFi, with which one can share images, and even control the camera.

And if I want to make a call, send emails or browse the web I'll use my phone. A camera in a phone is a compromise. A DSLR camera is not because it is designed to do one job, and not to be a jack off all trades and a master of none.

 

[editor]

The 70D has built-in WiFi, with which one can share images, and even control the camera.

I thought you were talking about your "ten year old Canon A80"?

*Checks. Yes, you were.

 

[Vintage Paw]

People still get hung up on seeing photography as a way of presenting an snapshot "true record" of an event, often ignoring or simply not bothering with the fact that photography is actually mostly representational, that even the smallest choice made at the taking or processing stage can change the way that others will "read" the picture. It's an art-form that has a grounding in technology, not a science, as some people hope it is (because to do so validates their expensive gear, and lends them the hope that they can master photography through rote learning).

And if anyone reading this gets the impression that I dislike gearheads, damn right!

If I could like this 10 times I would. I absolutely would. Most definitely.

Yes.

 

[Enviro]

You need those speeds to do proper long exposure photography.

The 70D has built-in WiFi, with which one can share images, and even control the camera.

And if I want to make a call, send emails or browse the web I'll use my phone. A camera in a phone is a compromise. A DSLR camera is not because it is designed to do one job, and not to be a jack off all trades and a master of none.

Depending on the size of the building site jacking off all trades could take quite a while.

 

[Bungle73]

I thought you were talking about your "ten year old Canon A80"?

*Checks. Yes, you were.

I believe I also mentioned DSLRs in the same sentence didn't I? Yes I did.

Oh, and nice job side-stepping the question about your camera btw.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Depending on the size of the building site jacking off all trades could take quite a while.

I bet you could make quite a bit of money photographing it and selling the resulting 'erotica' though.

 

[el-ahrairah]

Depending on the size of the building site jacking off all trades could take quite a while.

the voice of experience?

 

[neonwilderness]

My ten year old Canon A80 (a compact camera) can do 15 seconds, and DSLRs can do 30, longer if one invokes Bulb mode.

I thought you'd discounted million 10 year old Canons earlier in the thread?

 

[editor]

I thought you'd discounted million 10 year old Canons earlier in the thread?

Yeah, but no, but yeah, but no.

 

[Bungle73]

I thought you'd discounted million 10 year old Canons earlier in the thread?

I was using it as an example of a camera (and an extremely old, low budget, one to boot) that far exceeds the quite frankly pathetic 4 second shutter speed Ed seems so impressed with.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So it's wasn't Ed that when I said "DSLRs are better because of A and B, and can do X and Y" argues that A & B don't matter, and that phones can do X and Y as well?

What he rgued wasn't that "A & B don't matter", you disingenuous weasel, it was that "you can get great results from C & D, some of which can do X & Y".

Oh, and Ed re the Lumia 1020 a 4 second shutter speed isn't very impressive. My ten year old Canon A80 (a compact camera) can do 15 seconds, and DSLRs can do 30, longer if one invokes Bulb mode.

It's good for a phone camera, though. That's the point (well one of them) that you appear to keep missing.

 

[ViolentPanda]

LOL! This is the level of argument I'm having here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrorless_interchangeable-lens_camera

Yes, most sane people (and camera retailers) refer to them as "compact system cameras". The "mirrorless" bit is a no-brainer, given that the cameras aren't SLRs.

 

[Corax]

Bungle73 really seems quite unbalanced

 

[ViolentPanda]

You need those speeds to do proper long exposure photography.

No, you need those speeds to do some long-exposure photography, you absolutist goon.

 

[neonwilderness]

I was using it as an example of a camera (and an extremely old, low budget, one to boot) that far exceeds the quite frankly pathetic 4 second shutter speed Ed seems so impressed with.

But when I compared my iphone to my 20D you immediately rubbished my argument because the 20D is "a million years old" even though I still manage to take half decent photos with it. But now an old Canon suits your argument they are suddenly ok again.

 

[editor]

I take thousands of photos every year and can't remember that last time I took a 4 second exposure. Mind you, if that was really important to me, I'd clearly buy the best tools for the job, and the Lumia would be nowhere near the top of that list.

That said, it certainly would be a great 'carry everywhere' camera/phone and it clearly has the capability to take photos of a very high quality indeed. Good enough for publishing in one of the world's most prestigious photo magazines, in fact.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

This has been a remarkable thread and will give us many memories for the years to come. One of my favourite moments was when Bungle73 tried to rubbish a well-known photograph by Henri Cartier-Bresson. He would be embarrassed if he had any idea who that was.

 

[mauvais]

Gosh. And isn't that amazing!
Oh, and good luck editing and sharing photos from that camera. And making calls. And sending emails. And browsing the web.

And it's called a Lumia.

By this definition, the greatest camera of all time is the iPad.

 

[neonwilderness]

This has been a remarkable thread and will give us many memories for the years to come. One of my favourite moments was when Bungle73 tried to rubbish a well-known photograph by Henri Cartier-Bresson. He would be embarrassed if he had any idea who that was.

No lens hood, obviously a complete amateur

 

[Dr_Herbz]

Oh, and Ed re the Lumia 1020 a 4 second shutter speed isn't very impressive. My ten year old Canon A80 (a compact camera) can do 15 seconds, and DSLRs can do 30, longer if one invokes Bulb mode.

My camera phone takes pretty good pictures

How can your camera phone possibly be as good as a DSLR?

But I didn't say that

Yes you did. You just said your camera phone is better in every way than a DSLR

You can't even control the shutter speed on your camera phone

I can... up to 4s

Yeah but 4 seconds isn't as long as 6 years and you own a mirrorless camera

So you're finally admitting that you own a mirrorless camera?

How can your camera phone possibly be as good as the Hubble telescope?

I didn't say it was

So you do admit that you own a mirrorless camera?

I never denied it

Yes you did. Everyone knows you did, and you said your phone has a bigger lens than the Hubble telescope

So why did you say that all camera phones are better in every way than a Duckbill Platypus

 

[fuck seals]

Bungle73

are you a simpleton or a troll? or both? as it most certainly not neither.

you seem to be utterly incapable of either constructing or following a reasoned argument without resorting to a victim's mentality or being as slippery as Des O'Connor covered in olive oil*. Which is a shame, as generally the participants on this site are very adept at such argument. cf butchers, pickmans, ed, the usual suspects.


you also seem to be unable to accept that those who have extremely deep & broad knowledge on various areas (cf. ed & photography & web, me on retail banks, butchers, frog and many on class issues, cesare on working conditions, kabbes on pizza, garf on driving & web, crispy on df & many many many others) could possibly have an opinion that needs to be deferred to.

u75 is a robust and knowledge collective of 10s of thousands of people. who know stuff. who are good at it.

and will tell you in very short order when you're being an arse

you're being an arse.

please
. concede you're not the expert & are wrong. Or man up; stick to a single point and prove it cogently.
. stop whining about how it's all so unfair & rude & disrespectful. not just on this thread, but on all of them. it's not & you know it

i am an avid reader of u75 - generally in a learning capacity - and you're making it a painful business to have to visit the site.

*very fucking slippery

 

[sim667]

I take thousands of photos every year and can't remember that last time I took a 4 second exposure.

You're not a real photographer until you can hand hold a 4 second exposure with no camera shake

I've just spent the morning doing painting with light images with students, really want to go and do some in the real world now

 

[xenon]

So it's wasn't Ed that when I said "DSLRs are better because of A and B, and can do X and Y" argues that A & B don't matter, and that phones can do X and Y as well?

Oh, and Ed re the Lumia 1020 a 4 second shutter speed isn't very impressive. My ten year old Canon A80 (a compact camera) can do 15 seconds, and DSLRs can do 30, longer if one invokes Bulb mode.

TBF you said DSLRs wre a millin times better than camera phones. Implying camera phones were next to useless for anything other than casual snapping. Then people presented situations in which to all practicle purposes, camera phones were better than DSLRs. That's why both high end cameras on phones and DSLRs both manage to exist and sell. You then seemed to be arguing from an absolutist POV and the thread predictably went the way it did.

 

[xenon]

I know next to fuck all about cameras BTW.

 

[Bungle73]

What he rgued wasn't that "A & B don't matter", you disingenuous weasel, it was that "you can get great results from C & D, some of which can do X & Y".

[
Um, yes he did. I argued that DSLRs have superior image quality, and then it was put to me that image quality "doesn't matter"..........

It's good for a phone camera, though. That's the point (well one of them) that you appear to keep missing.

Um, I don't think I said it wasn't did i? What I actually said that it isn't as good as a DSLR, and this is precisely the point you people keep arguing against.

 

[sim667]

The only person who can sort this argument out is ken Rockwell

 

[editor]

By this definition, the greatest camera of all time is the iPad.

That's a true Bungle-like bit of reasoning there.