 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / May 2009one more question
Dear all, Thank you for having explained to me what "point-and shoot snappers" are in the last one. Can anybody help me explain the following sentence? There are plenty of models from which to choose: from simple$200 point-and-shoot snappers to $1,000 wonders with all the features that any advanced amateur could want. As for the above sentence, please tell me what kind of camera " $1,000 wonders with all the features that any advanced amateur could want" is. Thank you very much! >Dear all, > Thank you for having explained to me what "point-and shoot [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >want" is. >Thank you very much! I'm not quite sure what you are questioning. "Wonders"? "Wonders" is used to describe a something that is special in some way. In this case, a camera that has a number of functions and features. It's used as a noun here, and defined in dictionary.com as "something strange and surprising; a cause of surprise, astonishment, or admiration: That building is a wonder." You could use it to describe any object, gadget, or product that has features that you consider to be special, useful, or somehow amazing. Is your question about cameras and what features would be available in a $1,000 camera? The answer is too lengthy to go into here, but here's a link to a $1,000 camera: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0808/08082702nikond90previewed.asp The features are listed. That doesn't include a lens. The $1,000 is just for the camera body. Is the question about "advanced amateur"? An amateur (phototrapher)is someone who doesn't sell his work or get paid to take photographs. An advanced amateur is someone who is capable of taking very good photographs because he or she understands how to use the features of the camera and has a sense of composition, lighting, and choice of subject matter. I'm an amateur photographer. I'm somewhere between basic and advanced. I have a Nikon, but one that costs about half of the D90. I follow three newsgroups and three forums on photography. I have never seen "snappers" used to describe $200 point and shoot cameras. It's usually applied to the person using the camera, not the camera.  SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > Dear all, > Thank you for having explained to me what "point-and shoot [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > want" is. > Thank you very much! A good example of an "advanced amateur" is the work of J.Jay Pulli a seismologist who in his worldwide travels studying earthquakes takes the opportunity to take excellent photos His work can be seen here http://www.pulli.com/ Its great stuff. > Thank you for having explained to me what "point-and shoot > snappers" are in the last one. Can anybody help me explain the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > point-and-shoot snappers to $1,000 wonders with all the features that > any advanced amateur could want. These expressions are shorthand for: 1. a distinction about photographs, between high-quality pictures and snapshots, which are of acceptable quality but not high quality (except by accident); 2. a distinction between high-quality and low-quality cameras. The latter were marketed decades ago as "automatic cameras" (e.g. Kodak Instamatic) which produced acceptable snapshots (cf. Kodak Brownie approx. 1900). They were later renamed "point and shoot" cameras for that part of the market that might not understand the word "automatic." SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) >> Thank you for having explained to me what "point-and shoot >> snappers" are in the last one. Can anybody help me explain the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> point-and-shoot snappers to $1,000 wonders with all the features that >> any advanced amateur could want. The peoople who replied have more patience than I. I would have asked you to say what part or parts of the phrase needed explaining. In the prvious thread, both halves could be inscrutable, but in this thread there are two many words asked about. >These expressions are shorthand for: >1. a distinction about photographs, between high-quality [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >shoot" cameras for that part of the market that might >not understand the word "automatic." That probably includes me. AFAIK an automatic camera might be one that starts taking picture 10 minutes before you wake up, like an automatic coffee maker. Or one that starts taking picture when the temperature rises above 76, like an automatic air conditioner. Or a camera that has no clutch, like an automatic transmission! :) SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years >>> Thank you for having explained to me what "point-and shoot >>> snappers" are in the last one. Can anybody help me explain the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >prvious thread, both halves could be inscrutable, but in this thread >there are two many words asked about. There are two reasons that some of us provide answers to questions that are not - as this one - presented very clearly. 1) Because we like to be helpful 2) Because it often prompts divergent ideas and interesting threads of discussion. As you can tell from my answer and Don's answer, we aren't in accordance. He's accepting "snappy" as a description of the photograph, and I'm saying it's a description of the photographer. He's more-or-less saying that a point and shoot camera is of lesser quality. I don't agree with this, and know of several models of p&s cameras that are of higher quality than some dslrs. Not necessarily with the same features, but what's there is of excellent quality. These are minor points of difference, but the overall result is that the OP gets some input that should shed light on his question. "Automatic", in today's cameras, means that there is one setting in which the camera will set the aperture, the shutter speed, the ISO, and the white balance. Almost all digital cameras have this setting available, but most also offer other settings that allow the user to set one or more of these factors manually. Automatic focussing is a bit different. The better cameras allow the option of manual or automatic focus, but many lower-end cameras do not. In any case, though, the user has some control of what is being focussed on - Spot, nearest object, or dynamic - and the ability to place the brackets on what is to be the focus point. The only fixed-focus new cameras still around are the disposable type. >>These expressions are shorthand for: >>1. a distinction about photographs, between high-quality [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>shoot" cameras for that part of the market that might >>not understand the word "automatic." SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>> Thank you for having explained to me what "point-and shoot >>>> snappers" are in the last one. Can anybody help me explain the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >accordance. He's accepting "snappy" as a description of the >photograph, and I'm saying it's a description of the photographer. I agree with you , Tony. "A "snapper" is a person or a camera which takes "snapshots". From Encarta: snapshot 1. photograph: a photograph, especially one taken by an amateur with simple equipment snap 6. transitive verb photograph somebody or something: to take a photograph of somebody or something, especially in a casual way (informal) 5. [noun] photog Same as snapshot (sense 1) >He's more-or-less saying that a point and shoot camera is of lesser >quality. I don't agree with this, and know of several models of p&s [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >>>shoot" cameras for that part of the market that might >>>not understand the word "automatic." SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) >>>>> Thank you for having explained to me what "point-and shoot >>>>> snappers" are in the last one. Can anybody help me explain the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >"A "snapper" is a person or a camera which takes "snapshots". >From Encarta: Thanks for translating what I said ("snappy") to what I meant ("snappers"). Is an overly-religious photographer a happy clappy snappy snapper? SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida On May 6, 6:00 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote: > >>><lcyiu3...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >>>news:82b69622-b824-481f-8a54-8d9911847756@d38g2000prn.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > 5. [noun] photog > Same as snapshot (sense 1) ... But in the OP's example, from the /New York Times/, no less, it obviously means a camera. Maybe it's wrong, but people use it that way. There are other such hits. "2007's top point-and-shoot snappers" ... "It's that time of year again--time for the 'best' lists to start appearing on the Net. Over at DigitalCameraInfo.com, Eli Sidman has put this year's crop of point-and-shoot digital cameras to the test and annointed the top five in five categories:" http://blog.megapixel.net/blog/2007/12/2007s-top-pointandshoot-snappe.html "Panasonic waited for the dust to settle from CES last week to announce today three new point-and-shoot snappers slated to reach retail shelves this spring." https://swarm.jupitermedia.com/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=8&search=Panasonic That's from the first ten Google hits on "point-and-shoot snappers". One was the OP's example, making three hits in the sense of cameras. Four used it in the sense of "photographers", and the other three were hits on this thread and the other by the same poster. For what that's worth. -- Jerry Friedman >On May 6, 6:00 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] >hits on this thread and the other by the same poster. For what that's >worth. I did a Google search on "point and shoot snappers". The first is by the same person you've quoted twice above: John Mello. The second talks about "Smart S.C. snappers shoot Canon" (the snapper being the person). The next one is about "Digital cameras for the simple snappers (person). The next is about "casual snappers" (person). The next reference to snappers is about snapping turtles. The next is a Australian article, and then a UK article, and the last on the first Google page talks about "A thrifty snapper..." (person) So, with my results, it's John Mello using "snappers" to talk about the camera, and the rest of the US references are to people and turtles. The _New York Times_ article is by David Gonzales, a Metro reporter. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/david_gonzalez/inde x.html?scp=4&sq=david%20gonzales&st=cse We don't even know if Gonzales owns a camera, let alone knows what camera people use in the way of terms. The Gonzales article is dated November, 2001. It's an article that is so dated that it's laughable. He says: "If you want 5-by-7 or even 8-by-10 prints, you should consider 2- or 3-megapixel cameras, many of which are now priced at less than $500." You've stated "Maybe it's wrong, but people use it that way". Well, people use "borrow me $10" when they mean "lend me $10". Do we advise questioning posters that this is OK because people say it, or do we set them straight? SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > On Wed, 6 May 2009 21:35:34 -0700 (PDT), jerry_fried...@yahoo.com > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >> >>prvious thread, both halves could be inscrutable, but in this thread > >> >>there are two many words asked about. ... > >> >As you can tell from my answer and Don's answer, we aren't in > >> >accordance. He's accepting "snappy" as a description of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > >> "A "snapper" is a person or a camera which takes "snapshots". Sorry, I thought I was disagreeing with you, but I was agreeing. ... > >But in the OP's example, from the /New York Times/, no less, it > >obviously means a camera. Maybe it's wrong, but people use it that [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > 8-by-10 prints, you should consider 2- or 3-megapixel cameras, many of > which are now priced at less than $500." "Casio finally looks set to launch its fastest snapper yet, the Exilim EX-F1." James Sherwood, 2008 http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/01/11/casio_exilim_exf1/ "The latest in Fuji's long line of point and shoot snappers, this slim 7.2MP whopper doesn't disappoint." 2008 http://www.interweb.in/digital-cameras/5562-fujifinepix-z10-digital-camera.html Certainly, though, the large majority of usages refer to people, as you said. > You've stated "Maybe it's wrong, but people use it that way". Well, > people use "borrow me $10" when they mean "lend me $10". Do we advise > questioning posters that this is OK because people say it, or do we > set them straight? I didn't advise anybody anything was okay. I said it might be wrong, but people use it that way. The original question was not "Is this okay?" but "What does this mean?" I answered it, with a caveat that seemed strong enough to me in view of what you'd already written. -- Jerry Friedman >> On Wed, 6 May 2009 21:35:34 -0700 (PDT), jerry_fried...@yahoo.com >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > >http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/01/11/casio_exilim_exf1/ I think you have to pay attention to what the hit says and where its from. This is a UK hit. While UK people post to the photographic newsgroups and forums I read, I'm more attuned to US usage. >"The latest in Fuji's long line of point and shoot snappers, this slim >7.2MP whopper doesn't disappoint." > >2008 > >http://www.interweb.in/digital-cameras/5562-fujifinepix-z10-digital-camera.html This blogger has obviously cut-and-pasted something from somewhere else. The big controversy in cameras in the photographic community is over "point and shoot" vs "compact camera". Now that compacts have been upgraded to larger megapixels, longer zoom capabilities, bigger sensors, and more special mode settings, people are using compacts to get results almost on par with dslrs. Owners of, say, Panasonic Lumix cameras (10.1 megapixels, 18X optical zoom, Leica lens) don't want to be described as "point and shoot" owners; they feel it's like saying they are Instamatic shooters. They call their cameras "compact digital cameras", but the camera is almost as bulky as a dslr. Same profile. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > On Thu, 7 May 2009 08:17:29 -0700 (PDT), jerry_fried...@yahoo.com > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > from. This is a UK hit. While UK people post to the photographic > newsgroups and forums I read, I'm more attuned to US usage. The OP wasn't asking about any specific country, though. > >"The latest in Fuji's long line of point and shoot snappers, this slim > >7.2MP whopper doesn't disappoint." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > This blogger has obviously cut-and-pasted something from somewhere > else. Obviously, but it still shows that someone somewhere used the phrase. > The big controversy in cameras in the photographic community is over > "point and shoot" vs "compact camera". Now that compacts have been [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > call their cameras "compact digital cameras", but the camera is almost > as bulky as a dslr. Same profile. What do you call a camera owner who doesn't care how he or his camera is described? Say one who has a dslr but leaves it on automatic (except for focusing manually because the autofocus doesn't work at the closest range). -- Jerry Friedman is probably a point-and-shoot snapper. >What do you call a camera owner who doesn't care how he or his camera >is described? Say one who has a dslr but leaves it on automatic >(except for focusing manually because the autofocus doesn't work at >the closest range). I don't quite follow. Just guessing, I'd say about half of the owners of dslrs shoot on automatic 100% of the time. Maybe more. They are people who a) bought a dslr because they could afford one, think it's cooler to use a dslr than it is to own a compact camera, and bought one because all their friends have one...or, b) because they get better pictures because of the larger sensors and don't have the shutter lag problem that is inherent in compacts. They just don't want to bother with all that aperture, white balance, ISO setting stuff. I don't blame then. If they're taking happy snaps of the family and the vacation points of interest, the results will be more than good enough. I shoot automatic most of the time when I'm taking pix of the grandkids unless I'm aiming for something "arty" or want the background fuzzed out. I don't get the second part of your question, though. If the object is closer than the autofocus will focus, the photographer is usually trying to photograph something "arty". If that's done frequently, then it doesn't sound like the type that always shoots automatic. If he wants to do "arty", he'd think about things like the aperture setting or if the focus area mode was set at "nearest object" instead of "single area" and the camera is refusing to focus on what the photographer wants it on. (Think of photographing a flower bloom) This you? If so, what I'd call the person is a "bird photographer"; a person who bought a dslr because it's better than a compact for bird photographs, and bird photography is more about lenses and no shutter lag than it is about anything else. Automatic does what you need to do. Up to a certain point. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>> Thank you for having explained to me what "point-and shoot >>>> snappers" are in the last one. Can anybody help me explain the [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > >The only fixed-focus new cameras still around are the disposable type. There's still my father's, from 1930. Oh, you mean new cameras. Really? That's amazing. And you guys are definitely more patient with posters than I usually am. >>>These expressions are shorthand for: >>>1. a distinction about photographs, between high-quality [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>>shoot" cameras for that part of the market that might >>>not understand the word "automatic." SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I have lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 10 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years On May 6, 12:54 am, lcyiu3...@yahoo.com wrote: > Dear all, > Thank you for having explained to me what "point-and shoot [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > want" is. > Thank you very much! I can't tell you what kind of camera it is, but it is appropriate English. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.