DiMAGE Z1 Rattling/Noisy Lens.

[EffZeeOne]

Originally Posted by bradg

Ok, i have a question.
What is so wrong with a teen in the forum?
Yes, i am 13....

Nothing's wrong with being a teen on this forum, especially if you're behaving properly. But when a grown man is acting like 12-year-olds -- it ruins the forum.

...as i read you guys "fight" i am smileing

One other person is laughing, too -- most of the above responses are from one person using four different IDs. I guess the joke is on all of us, but especially me for responding to each "person".

[jimross1]

Not sure why Fz1 is as angry as he is. I like my Z1 and have had very nice pictures with it. Maybe Fz1 doesn't have a good photo printer (like an Epson). That can make a huge difference when printing pictures. I did not find any annoying rattling with my Z1.

[EffZeeOne]

Originally Posted by jimross1

Not sure why Fz1 is as angry as he is. I like my Z1 and have had very nice pictures with it. Maybe Fz1 doesn't have a good photo printer (like an Epson). That can make a huge difference when printing pictures. I did not find any annoying rattling with my Z1.

Okay, make that: Most of the above responses are coming from the same person using 5 different IDs (which is the only thing "FZ1" is "angry" about). You just joined on 12/27/03, but you're already feeling comfortable with jumping in and criticizing another member of the forums, and then making a baiting statement about printers in attempt to further a stupid debate? Too many coincidences for me to buy into it. You know, it's eventually going to get difficult for one person to keep track of all these different IDs you've created.

I didn't bother printing photos from my Z1 test -- they turned out so poor (in full auto mode), I wouldn't waste the photo paper just to see if they turned out better on paper than they were showing on my monitor. Even an old dot-matrix printer would've shown the grain that I was getting.

[bradg]

Originally Posted by EffZeeOne

a stupid debate

exactly!

[Adwulf]

Hello Sherlock! After my Christmas holydays (what about yours?) I'm again on this forum. Now I know that You are paranoide too. Sorry to disappoint You but I'm not a TRINITY. (One and tree) I'm one person, I'm not living in USA and I don't need any pseudonym to discuss with You.

Believe or not! The problem with You is that You talk as a politician. Many words no facts.

So" Bye forever" I'm not interested to discuss with You anymore. I have more funny with other things.

[sonomablue]

EffZeeOne - I will state the truth, you will not believe it and will state your opinions accordingly. I only posted as myself. I have removed my picture. You are obviously in need of some serious help, and I would not put it past you to take your obsession to a personal level. You accused all new posters of being me. You even found some poor chap in some different forum that joined the same day, and accused him/her of being me. (You are sick. You are paranoid. You need serious help). Several of them (the ones that you think are me) have responded. You continue to insist that they are me, and that we/I am after you. This was all over a Minolta camera - that you have some obsessed feeling of hate about. I will never understand your obsession and hatred for the camera. But, I am not a doctor, and refuse to even try to analyze you. I will close my postings with a quotation from a Webster's dictionary:

"Paranoia: in psychiatry, a mental disorder characterized by systemized delusions, as of grandeur or, especially, persecution."

You need help. You think I (and others) are after you. Get a grip. Get a life. Get some help. This is only a website. This is only about a camera. It is not about you. Lest you start accusing me of having problems, I am not the one that is claiming to have this psychic power to know when new posters are, in fact, me. You spent so much time tracing the website, and who joined, and on what date, and on what time. I merely accused you of being biased against Minolta cameras (something that I don't think that you would deny). You have accused me of creating multiple userids, just to attack your posts. As I indicated, I have only ever posted as me. You need some serious help.

The end. (but, of course, you will insist to get in the last word).

[bradg]

steve (or some other admin),

can you please lock this topic?
i think that we are all done talking about the lens, this is now a personal dispute

so i have an idea, lets play a little game.
lets see who can go the longest with out posting in this topic again
if you post again you loose, the prize? how about self respect?

[videobruce]

I don't understand why anyone would buy a still camera to take "movies"? A one minute movie? What good is that (except for golf swings)?
Just as I don't understand why anyone would buy a camcorder to take stills!

No free ride, you have to pay Peter to get Paul.............(or something like that).

[bradg]

you loose

[Trav2003]

Originally Posted by videobruce

I don't understand why anyone would buy a still camera to take "movies"? A one minute movie? What good is that (except for golf swings)?
Just as I don't understand why anyone would buy a camcorder to take stills!

No free ride, you have to pay Peter to get Paul.............(or something like that).

I'm the person that would buy a digital camera for the movie mode.

I need a camera that will take some good pictures, but I also want a great movie mode because I like screwing around with video editing but aren't the type of person that can spring $400+ for a seperate camcorder on top of my digital camera, plus a camcorder is overkill.

Whenever I use video it's only 30 second or 1 minute video clips, because I just like making stupid short films.

So yes, there are those of us out here who actually use the movie mode on a digital camera.