No. There is a special place reserved for the executives that made that decision.
Originally Posted by E76
It does seem foolish to destroy the camera for "giggles", but in the scheme of things, they destroyed a $hundred dollar camera. Compared to normal advertising budgets, production costs of the video, etc, the cost of the camera was simply factored in as an expense. They aren't THAT expensive, and they certainly aren't rare...you can just go buy another one off the shelf. It would only be upset if it was something rare or of actual value. If these jokers want to blend a few hundred dollars worth of disposable imaging hardware they are welcomed to. If they had used a 1.1 megapixel camera from 2003 nobody would care, and in a few years, nobody will care about the Olympus either.
I saw this guy on Time Warp. You should see what happens with butane lighters in the blender.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by railwayman3
Are you just on APUG to troll? A new camera at thousands of pounds every couple of years is cheaper is it? A computer just to see the images is cheaper is it? A printer to make crappy inkjet prints is cheaper is it? CD roms to make backups of backups of backups is cheaper is it? Multiple external hard drives as 'safe' storage is cheaper is it?
If you are so desperate to see the end of real photography, why the hell are you even here?
Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.
No, not trolling, and not wanting to see the end of "real" photography. Actually, this is so way OT and from the OP, that I'm not sure what or why I'm defending, except maybe to say "live-and-let-live" to the people who use digital photography, and perhaps a little wry amusement to the obsessive analogue guys who I visualise as getting red in the face at any mention of anything which might involved pixels.
Originally Posted by Andy K
Only to prove that I am an analogue guy, my own arsenal includes over 20 analogue cameras, through Minox sub min, Pentax, Leica, Rollei, Mamiya, with a dedicated fridge of some hundreds of films and packs of paper.
I have but one digital pocket camera (not even an SLR) and two specialist digital cameras, one for photomicrography and one for astrophotography, neither usable for general imaging.
So I'll go away and shut up (hooray, they cry!), but just one further point....
Andy K doubts that digital is cheaper. I said "digital was quicker, cheaper and more reliable for the casual user"....FOR THE CASUAL USER, i.e. the 95% of people who want pics of the kids and the holidays, NOT the 5% of hobby photographers.
So, Joe or Jill Public might reply....
New camera every two years at thousands of pounds....why, we paid less that £100for the new digital, which replaced the APS one which we had for 15 years, which replaced the plastic disc camera. Won't buy another until this one breaks.
A computer to see the images...already got one.
A crappy printer...already got one. But we only print a few of the pics anyone, just email them around everyone instantly. The 6x4 inkjet prints we do for Aunt Jane and Granny are better anyway than the ones we used to get at the photo-and-dry-cleaning shop in the High Street.
CDroms to back-up....never get round to backing-up anything anyway (never kept any of the old negative-thingies when used to come back from the photo-shop),
Multiple external drives for safe storage....ditto re backing-up.
Hasselblad - is that the Swedish singer we saw on the telly?
I never said that digital was better/cheaper/quicker for the enthusiast, and convenience and versatility will obviously be a bigger factor than cost for the commercial and scientific worker.
Yes, believe it or not, I am a Luddite sometimes...but I am happy to use new technology as and when it better suits my needs and purposes. All I said was that I hated to see good equipment destroyed for supposed amusement.
I shall now go and take some real photographs over the week-end. Starting off indoors, so HP5 in the Rollei to begin. But I shall slip the digital in my shirt pocket just in case I spot Nicole Kidman riding on a unicorn, don't want to miss any piccies through fiddling around with the Rollei and tripod.
Last edited by railwayman3; 06-05-2009 at 02:04 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Off with their heads!!!!
Originally Posted by E76
Punishment too for sticking to that silly sub-sub-sub-miniature sensor format.
If they must go digital, then please, please, at least do it properly.
I see them every day, but they have lots of different names.
Originally Posted by Sirius Glass
And I don't despise them, when I see them happily enjoying their latest set of crappy 6x4 digital prints of the family, while I spend blood, sweat and tears on my next 20x16 B&W masterpiece (which will probably not come up to my expectations and finish up with the others in the cupboard...more stuff for my own kids to put in the trash when I'm no longer around).
I sometimes wonder who's got the best idea.
Anyway, 3 120 HP5 await my developing tank, and I'm sure my lifetime masterpiece must on one of the frames this time.....