People who shoot photos with their lens hood on backwards

[Dr_Herbz]

What would be the appropriate punishment for this thread about lens hoods?

I think we should send him to Canada to live with you.



I grew up with a lad who (thought he) knew everything there was to know about cars but the sum total of his knowledge came from a pack of Top Trumps. It seems the sum total of Bungle's knowledge comes from the camera scene's greatest troll, Ken Rockwell.

Bungle reminds me of those pissed up idiots you see shouting at a television screen in a pub, hoping that the footballer he's shouting at can hear what he's doing wrong.

 

[Bungle73]

Those context-stripped quotes have no correlation to the claims you're making.

The context is there in it's entirety.

And you still haven't named the people making up this "bunch of people" who all supposedly think a phone can do everything a DSLR can. Can you name them now please?

And you still haven't stated exactly what your point has been in this thread? Don't you know? If I am wrong tell me how I am wrong.

 

[Bungle73]

I think we should send him to Canada to live with you.



I grew up with a lad who (thought he) knew everything there was to know about cars but the sum total of his knowledge came from a pack of Top Trumps. It seems the sum total of Bungle's knowledge comes from the camera scene's greatest troll, Ken Rockwell.

Bungle reminds me of those pissed up idiots you see shouting at a television screen in a pub, hoping that the footballer he's shouting at can hear what he's doing wrong.

This coming from the guy who thought he had one over on me because he posted a bunch if pathetic pictures which were nothing like the sort of thing I was talking about (and I think you know it), yet still keeps insisting he was right.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Bungle reminds me of those pissed up idiots you see shouting at a television screen in a pub, hoping that the footballer he's shouting at can hear what he's doing wrong.

Slightly irritating, but harmless, you mean?

 

[Corax]

How about this?

Nope. Please show a quote where someone actually claims what you keep stating they have.

Nb: NOT something that you have drawn inferences from that no one else has.

 

[Bungle73]

Nope. Please show a quote where someone actually claims what you keep stating they have.

Nb: NOT something that you have drawn inferences from that no one else has.

You know if I am wrong, then someone here should be able to state the point they were actually making. No one has. I wonder why.........

 

[Dr_Herbz]

Slightly irritating, but harmless, you mean?

Exactly... 'Harmless' is a good description.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Dearest Bungle. If you really want to know why ed bought his current main (Olympus) camera you have only to look in the section on Cameras and equipment and check back to Feb 2012.:

"After lugging my ten-ton Nikon D300 SLR around all day, I've even more interested in this camera. But only if I don't think about the price. £1149.95 for the 12-50mm kit. Ouch!

Olympus reckon it has the "world's fastest autofocus" of any camera, and comes with an ISO range of 200-25,600, support for 1080p video, five-axis image stabilisation, weather sealing and articulated 3-inch viewfinder.

It's rocking my boat alright."

Those of us who have been around Urban for a few years and especially the Photography Forums know the history of some of ed's cameras.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Nope. Please show a quote where someone actually claims what you keep stating they have.

Nb: NOT something that you have drawn inferences from that no one else has.

 

[editor]

The context is there in it's entirety.


And you still haven't stated exactly what your point has been in this thread? Don't you know? If I am wrong tell me how I am wrong.

About the names of this bunch of people and the quotes from them all.
You can't name them, or find any quotes to support your daft claims, can you?

You can? Great! Let's go! Name and quotes here, please:

1.
2.
3.
4.
etc

 

[Corax]

If I am wrong tell me how I am wrong.

NO ONE HAS CLAIMED THAT PHONES ARE BETTER CAMERAS THAN DSLRS.

Clear enough?

 

[sim667]

Maybe we should all air our dirty little camera secrets and get it all out in the open.

I admit, I once owned a sony DSC-707

 

[Bungle73]

About the names of this bunch of people and the quotes from them all.
You can't name them, or find any quotes to support your daft claims, can you?

You can? Great! Let's go! Name and quotes here, please:

1.
2.
3.
4.
etc

I'm still waiting.....

NO ONE HAS CLAIMED THAT PHONES ARE BETTER CAMERAS THAN DSLRS.

Clear enough?

I said DSLRS are better all round cameras, and better quality than phones. I've been told by the people here I am "wrong". Simples.

 

[Corax]

Simples.

Ah. You're one of them.

 

[fuck seals]

Maybe we should all air our dirty little camera secrets and get it all out in the open.

I admit, I once owned a sony DSC-707

i too am a sony point and shoot owner.

i revel in the filth of my shame.

 

[fuck seals]

Ah. You're one of them.

no. bears aren't meercats.

unless taken with a poor quality camera.

 

[sim667]

i too am a sony point and shoot owner.

i revel in the filth of my shame.

I'm not anymore, it's when I was a student, and I couldn't afford a dslr, I worked at Jessops and got it for a tenner more than we paid for it in the shop. £100 iirc and it had a wide angle lens and an external flash.

It was a piece of shit, but it was my piece of shit and the first camera I'd ever bought for myself and not got as a donation, and was my first digital.

 

[editor]

I'm still waiting.....


I said DSLRS are better all round cameras, and better quality than phones. I've been told by the people here I am "wrong". Simples.

Name all the people who YOU claimed said that 'phones can do everything that a DSLR can do'. If you can't provide a list of names (with supporting quotes) then you are a liar. It's really quite a simple as that.

 

[fuck seals]

I'm not anymore, it's when I was a student, and I couldn't afford a dslr, I worked at Jessops and got it for a tenner more than we paid for it in the shop. £100 iirc and it had a wide angle lens and an external flash.

It was a piece of shit, but it was my piece of shit and the first camera I'd ever bought for myself and not got as a donation, and was my first digital.

i on the other hand have descended rather than ascended. when i was a nipper, i hiijacked the downstairs bathroom with my dad for years which we used as a dark room with trays of evil yet delicious smelling chemicals and red lights. much fun was had, sadly i have now dumbed down to point/ click/ delete/ upload/ share.

i am fuck seals and i am ashamed

 

[Bungle73]

Another:

Trying hard to make sense of your f2.2 comment. With a real camera, you can shoot either aperture or shutter priority. Also, with the larger sensor of a real camera, you can shoot at a smaller aperture, and gain greater control over the image clarity and depth of field.

Guess what? You can do that with the S4 too. Incredible, etc, etc.

Name all the people who YOU claimed said that 'phones can do everything that a DSLR can do'. If you can't provide a list of names (with supporting quotes) then you are a liar. It's really quite a simple as that.

Actually it's as simple as you being unable, or unwilling, to actually post what your point was here. It's quite obvious why that is.

You have spent 29 pages now arguing with me about DSLRs being better and telling that I'm "wrong" and making silly claims that a newspaper swapped all their DSLRs for phones when that isn't quite what happened at all! And now you're claiming you didn't say that any of that at all.

I really am done with this thread now, until Ed can man up and come clean about exactly what he was going on about for 29 pages. That is all

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Bungle you stated that Corax wrote - " I don't see the point in fancy cameras with optical lenses these days. My phone is 26 megapixels with a x30 zoom."

Now I don't know if English is your first language or not and if it isn't I apologise for any offence you may take here, but that statement is what we call "irony". That is to say it is a mischievous tease where an untruth or exaggeration is used to appear to be a truth. Corax is a bit of a cheeky imp on these boards and is known for it. You have been wound up.

 

[editor]

I really am done with this thread now, until Ed can man up and come clean about exactly what he was going on about for 29 pages. That is all

So you're not going to name all these people who you say claimed that a phone can do everything a DSLR can, then?

Might that be because they don't exist and you haven't the balls to admit you've been caught out a whopper?

 

[Corax]

What's more, I learned that phone cameras can actually produce much better shots than I assumed - so cheers all for that anyway

 

[Dr_Herbz]

You don't think he is lying do you? I had it figured that he was just not reading and understanding what people had written. If he is lying then that makes him a troll, and you know what we do to trolls. Oh dear.

I rarely accuse anyone of being a troll but in the absence of any proof that Bungle is clinically insane, or has an IQ comparable to that of a gherkin...

 

[Corax]

Another:




Actually it's as simple as you being unable, or unwilling, to actually post what your point was here. It's quite obvious why that is.

You have spent 29 pages now arguing with me about DSLRs being better and telling that I'm "wrong" and making silly claims that a newspaper swapped all their DSLRs for phones when that isn't quite what happened at all! And now you're claiming you didn't say that any of that at all.

I really am done with this thread now, until Ed can man up and come clean about exactly what he was going on about for 29 pages. That is all

It's not you Bungle73 - it's everyone else.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

I rarely accuse anyone of being a troll but in the absence of any proof that Bungle is clinically insane, or has an IQ comparable to that of a gherkin...

Dr_Herbz, what are you saying about Bungle's Image Quality now?

 

[editor]

What's more, I learned that phone cameras can actually produce much better shots than I assumed - so cheers all for that anyway

I've discovered that the Lumia is even better than I thought, and is capable of superb shots. Those National geographic images were exceptional.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

 

[5t3IIa]

30 pages!

 

[ViolentPanda]

[
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"..........

Interesting that the only way you come out as being "right" is if you totally divorce what he said from the context it was said in.
Like I said, disingenuous weasel.

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.

Wrong again, what people are arguing against is that you are effectively saying that a DSLR is "better" due to spec, equating "good" to "superior technical specification", - literally, that a phone's camera isn't as good because it has an inferior technical specification - whereas "good" is a hell of a lot more to do with the "eye" of the photographer, than it is to do with pixel count or lens. You can take a great picture, a picture good enough to grace the cover of a glossy, on a Box Brownie with a meniscus lens and a choice of two apertures. You can take a great on phone camera. You don't require superior technical specifications, you require an understanding of the limitations of your kit, and the ability to work within them. That's all you need. Anything else is technicist gearhead self-delusion, and self-justification for spending a small fortune on kit.