[200q20v] Re: Digital Camera Recommendations - for
documenting auto repairs?
pjrose at frontiernet.net
Sat Dec 1 03:01:45 EST 2001
>Calling me way out on a limb is a little insulting.
I'm sorry this response has taken me so long to post (out of town,
new car, etc). You know, in the grand scheme of things, the digicam
and Bose speaker issues in this thread are pretty trivial, so I'd
normally just let the thing drop. However your last post introduced a
couple of misquotes which cause me to try to set the record straight
about who said what and why.
First, read my previous post again, and you'll see I said that your
opinion about digicams was "just as far out on a limb..." as the
one about the Bose speaker sound. Perhaps a poor choice of phrasing,
but FWIW, I did not say "_way_ out on a limb". Although there was
probably a better way for me to express the fact that I didn't agree
with your advice to Peter, to me the expression going "out on a limb"
merely implies some probability of being wrong. (BTW, many of us are
quite satisfied with sound from our Bose speakers, and telling us
we're satisfied with "crappy" sound is, well, a little insulting.)
Certainly I didn't intend the expression I used to be even a "little
insulting" to you as I'm sure you didn't mean to insult with your
>I can see a radical difference between my friend's
>N90S w/ 28-80mm f2.8 Nikkor lens and all of the point
>and shoots that I've ever used recently, even with the
>same exact film.
>The digital cameras use similar optics to the better
>point and shoot 35mm cameras and are not capable of
>resolving as well as film.
Is your assessment of digital camera image quality just based on what
you _infer_ from results of comparing 35mm SLR with 35mm P&S cameras
--and not from actually using digicams and scrutinizing their output?
P&S cameras that you only _assume_ to have "similar optics" to
digicams? This would mean your opinion is based on theory rather
than practice? Unless you've owned and/or extensively used/tested a
good digicam of 3, 4 or 5 Mpixel resolution, it is difficult to know
how the end-product really compares. BTW, digicam optics are
invariably custom, all-glass designs--necessitated by the small CCD
format--and the better ones make use of aspheric elements, which I
don't believe is typical of 35mm P&S cameras. The Carl Zeiss Sonnar
5x zoom lens on the current Sony F707 consumer digicam (SLR design,
under $1000) is really a remarkable lens.
>While you may think me to be rather extreme, I don't take
>lightly subjects such as recording one's child's life. I
>think that is something that only happens once and should be
>treasured as something nearly invaluable. I don't even have
>kids and I feel this way. I am not a serious photographer, but
>I can see quality results...
Me? Think you "extreme"? No, Taka, I have no quarrel about anyone
having high standards for quality. I simply disagree when you assert
that _your_ particular standards are reasonable for the rest of us to
adopt, and I strongly reject the implication that using a digital
camera somehow implies that one is a parent who "skimps" on recording
those precious, fleeting moments of childhood. You say you're "not a
serious photographer". Well I am a serious photographer (about 40
years of it, with home darkroom, dozens of cameras, awards at
photographic salons). I'm also a parent of two children and now
grandparent of three. So I believe I have both a knowledge of image
quality and a concern to properly record family memories.
>The other thing you fail to mention is that
>those digital SLR bodies run about $3000 w/o optics.
Please read my post again, and you see (in the next to last
paragraph) that I said:
"...keep in mind that currently, a SLR digicam body can be had for
$3K that will use the same Nikon F-series glass..."
>You chide me for being so negative about the Audi/Bose stereo system in our=
> cars, but if you ask any audiophile, I'm willing to bet that
>you will universally be told that the system is crap. I have no
>problem with people who don't mind the crappy system and are willing
>to put up with it- however, I do take exception to those who take
>the extra step of defending the Bose system and say that it actually
>sounds good- those are two different things.
Life is full of compromises. Different people make them at different
(trade-off) points. Anyway, you'll agree there's a difference between
"good" and "good enough". My opinion (and that of many Audi drivers)
is that the Bose system is in the latter category--rather "good
enough" for average listeners with normal hearing in typical driving
environments. If that's "defending the Bose system", then I guess I'm
guilty as charged. I do happen to be an "audiophile" (and still have
extremely acute hearing); yet I don't believe that serious listening
while driving is a very good combination. And since I (and many
people) find it difficult to do much serious listening in the car,
the money and effort spent on car audio upgrades may yield very
questionable value--note that I do not question such basic needs as
improving the sensitivity of our OEM (Blaupunkt?) receivers
(especially those of us who drive much in rural areas). And of course
the need to rid our Audis of the Bose rear-speaker fire hazard is
something which really complicates this little "controversy" about
"Bose sound". I'll trash my Bose speakers if Audi keeps diddling with
this alleged recall. Ironic, ain't it?
>As fellow Audi drivers, my feeling is that generally, we are a rather techn=
>ically-minded bunch who appreciate quality, fine engineering and the like. =
>As such, I don't see what is wrong with pointing out the faults of stuff li=
>ke the Bose audio system or the current state of digital photography.
>I'm sure that now you're going to call me crazy, that's fine, just don't at=
>tack me personally for being an enthusiast.
Call you "crazy"? Surely you jest. As to the implication that I've
attacked you "personally". Huh? My intent was to simply express
disagreement with your views about the (un)acceptability of digital
photography and Bose sound, particularly with respect to (a) anyone
with normal photographic requirements (such as Peter's) and (b) the
many Audi owners who are satisfied with their Bose sound. Threads on
both subjects came up within a short time span, and I chose to deal
with both issues in one post--and possibly that gave the impression
of a personal attack, but it sure wasn't intended that way.
Phil Rose Rochester, NY
'91 200q (130 kmiles, Lago blue)
'91 200q (57 kmiles, Tornado red)
mailto:pjrose at frontiernet.net
More information about the 200q20v