Most overused phrases in photography?

Todd Lambert wrote in post #11647068
"LNIB or BNIB" - Ok, but then they proceed to list the condition as 9.5 out of 10, or they've owned the lens for 2 years... yeah, that's just like new in the box, isn't it?

BNIB makes sense, IF (and only if)... it is still unopened and sat on their shelf unopened since they bought it.

As far as selling goes, the one that gets me is "minty". Ok, if it's "minty", I better be hit with the aroma of fresh peppermint when I open the package.

I will so include an air freshener of mint in my flash when i sell it with the word minty.

_aravena wrote in post #11647806
I will so include an air freshener of mint in my flash when i sell it with the word minty.

As much as 'minty' annoys me, I would so laugh if somebody did that.

Awesome (without question!)

SkipD wrote in post #11638306
One word, applied to photographic images, makes me gag. That is "creamy".

Oh, you beat me to it Skip - I was checking to see if anyone had. "Creamy bokeh" makes me want to vomit. I've always been surprised how much attention people here pay to the bits of the shot that are out of focus.

Other things that get my goat are all the silly nicknames for lenses. It's childish (in my opinion) and confuses people who don't know them: nifty fifty, Holy Trinity, keg, brick, Sigmalux, Bigma, etc., etc.

I feel better now!

My fabulously awesome Sigmonster is in minty condition and produces a really creamy bokeh.

Now, I've gone too far. I've made ME sick!

"Green-boxing it"

"i'm a pro"

(hint: nobody cares)

dithiolium wrote in post #11636124
'Is that a DX or FX camera' pointing to my rig.
They have never heard of generic terms: APS-C, Full Frame, 135, Film. And definitely not APS-H

APS-C and APS-H are not generic terms. They are specific film formats dating to the 1990's.

Canon decided to misapply these terms to their own unique digital formats after the widespread adaptation of the digital SLR.

Canon's 1.6X format is absolutely not the same size as APS-C.

Canon's 1.3X format is not only not the same size as APS-H, it is not even the same freaking aspect ratio. They have very little in common.

Your Nikon friends are in fact correct to use the new (and very much applicable) term DX (though I agree that FX, 35mm and 135 format are all redundant). It's Canon and Canon shooters that are collectively wrong with their terms.

SkipD wrote in post #11638297
Actually, "Full Frame" is a rather meaningless word when considering all of the camera formats that exist. The term was created by marketing folks at the places that started making DSLRs with the form factor of their 35mm film cameras.

I disagree. Within the context of the EOS 35mm lens line (the EF series of lenses) or within the Nikon lens line a sensor of 24mm x 36mm is in fact a 'full frame' format that is the largest format that can be used with the lineup.

Zoom with your feet. That just makes me cringe.

I also hate when someone says they need a zoom lens, but they really mean that they want more reach. "All I have is the kit lens, but I need a zoom lens, what should I get?" Ugh.

smallpotatoes wrote in post #11650027
Zoom with your feet. That just makes me cringe.

Yes!

smallpotatoes wrote in post #11650027
Zoom with your feet. That just makes me cringe.

I also hate when someone says they need a zoom lens, but they really mean that they want more reach. "All I have is the kit lens, but I need a zoom lens, what should I get?" Ugh.

Just direct them to where dear old KR says you don't need big lenses, you just need to get closer to your subject.

Of course, that would, in essence, be telling them to zoom with their feet....

A big lens might be expensive, but it's by far the cheapest way of getting closer to the moon.

Madweasel wrote in post #11651844
A big lens might be expensive, but it's by far the cheapest way of getting closer to the moon.

Do you mean that a photographer cannot just "zoom with his/her feet" to get the camera closer to the moon? Darn....