new camera

Comments

laz wrote on 6/19/2002, 9:02 AM
What about closing this thread 'as resolved'? unless we have the conference in Alaska. Now that would be extreme weather conditions to film :0)
Happy editing to one and all.
kcarroll wrote on 6/19/2002, 9:11 AM
I, in return, am amazed at your continuing efforts to defend what is very clearly a step backwards in user convenience. When the vast majority of the cameras produced over the last five years offered an accessable tape change, why should we just complacently accept a less desireable system?

In regards to your multiple cameras suggestion;.... I would pay money to see anyone try to manage multiple camera setups under the conditions that our group works under.

BTW: I took no "Cheap Shot". All I know about you is what I see in your posts; and in your comments that portrayed other people's complaints as trivial and "fussy", I saw only a superficial lack of appreciation for the circumstances of others.

kcarroll


P.S. As a side note: It would take far more than this discussion to make me angry.

KLC
kcarroll wrote on 6/19/2002, 9:15 AM
Laz;

Actually, as far as Severe Weather goes, Alaska is pretty boring. (Unless you really like snow.)

kcarroll
BillyBoy wrote on 6/19/2002, 9:50 AM
This is the last comments I'm making in this thread, I'm sure kcarroll will need to respond not because he's "angry" for sure we wouldn't want him to get angry and I sense not having the last word would make him angry so he can have it. LOL!

I don't have a superficial lack of appreciation for the circumstances of others. Indeed I try to bend over backwards helping people. Check the Vegas Video forum. I do have a keen sense of spotting people making a fuss over nothing and for sure sometimes I have a little fun with such people. Such is my nature. If you can't handle that, skip my posts. Please.

The facts are simple.

1. The original poster got what I'll assume is a gift. Didn't like one feature and
needed to tell us. A mild rant. No problem, big deal.

2. I responed that the feature the original poster was complaining about is fairly common in newer models. Still no big deal.

3. Others chimed in they didn't like bottom loading either, rant, rant, rant. One said it was a "design flaw" which I thought was a bit over the top, but so be it.

4. I suggested it was more likely something Sony did because of other concerns and also I'll wager their marketing reseach probably confirmed people don't rank speed of changing tapes a major issue if even a issue at all. Heck, its only Sony, one of the leaders in consusmer electronics. What do they know. <wink>

5. The thread got into silly areas of some "serious user" whining he don't like to fumble with his camera needing to remove it from a tripod was a real pain.

6. I pointed out you're not shooting video period regardless if you have a top loading or bottom loading camera. The time difference between pulling a camera off a tripod or not needing to is a best trivial and minimal. I also suggested a "serious" user would be using a "serious" camera if switching tapes quickly was such a major concern.

7. Silly finger pointing, I'm a "serious" user, you're not nonsense.

I'm just laughing. I wonder what kcarroll is doing.




Sarasdad wrote on 6/19/2002, 11:26 AM
Please end thread. I surrender. I will wait to next year when Sony puts eject button on side or top and then buy. Peace!