70D and 7Dmk2 is coming what to expect?

Started Feb 28, 2013 | Discussions thread
Forum ProPosts: 35,743
Re: May I?
In reply to Keith Z Leonard, Mar 5, 2013

Keith Z Leonard wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Keith Z Leonard wrote:

I love how when you don't like something you just point the blame at people for not knowing things,

I only point blame at people for their actions. It is not a sin not to know things, and I never criticise for ignorance. What I do is correct people who are putting out false knowledge. We all do that at times, and if just from ignorance then being given the correct information is a service. Howver sometimes we have cases of wilful ignorance, that is people who have an agenda to put out false information, and will fight for their right to be right even when they are wrong.

Still, if you think I am wrong about my account of how I behave, maybe you could give me a concrete example of where I have ever 'pointed the blame at people for not knowing things'. I don't think you will find a single example.

I have a philosophy minor, I'm pretty sure I know how it's used.

Well, your post indicated that in fact you didn't. 'Argumentum ad hominem' has a specific meaning, it is not simply the same as an insult, it is a logical fallacy. If you go back through the discussion, at no point have I tried to counter anyone's on-topic discussion arguments on the topics under discussion (the relative specs of the 7D and D300 and the construction of the 7D) with anything but evidence. What I have down, after those people responded to my factual evidence with argumentum ad hominem is make observations about the rhetorical devices that they use.

Which I addressed.

Though I'm sure now that you can attack me with the assumption that you know more than everybody about everything....have fun with yourself there.

I'm sure that you can take the above as an 'attack', because I have denied your claim that you know how the term 'argumentum ad hominem'. However, the situation I would put to you is that you have come at me with a combative and argumentative post, expecting to elicit a response that you can use as evidence of my perfidy.

argumentum ad hominem, to the person or to the man. Instead of arguing the semantic merits of whether or not the skin is included as a part of the chassis

I have argued that at length, and those I was arguing chose instead to argue against the man. Firstly, I reject your assertion that this is merely a semantic argument.

Do you think semantic means pointless here? Semantics are very important, it's the study of meaning, and yes that's exactly what is being discussed here, the meaning of the term "chassis" as it pertains to photography equipment. Semantic discussions are OFTEN very technical, as there are technical terms that have meanings. The fact that someone here might have implied that a semantic argument is unimportant is something with which I whole heartedly disagree, semantics are important. The issue here is whether or not you or they are correct, which has something to do with the fact that you believe you are an authority on this point. I don't pretend to be an authority on it, and certainly would not from looking at internet teardown videos. The sum of the camera does make a difference, even if it isn't the primary load bearing structure. Like a 1/4" plywood back panel on a cabinet back, which this bit doesn't carry the load, it's imperative for the structure to reach it's full weight bearing potential. (by preventing racking) I would think it more useful to stress the cameras as built up to the point of breaking to assess the differences in build quality. I don't know if anyone has done that, but it would be interesting.

It is actuallly a germane and technical argument. The question is which is the structural component, and it is clear from the construction oif this camera that it is the mirrorbox or 'chassis', since the lens mount is attached to that, and is not at all attached to the skin, which itself is not attached to the chassis in any why that it is load bearing (in engineering terms it is not a monocoque structure). This is easily seen in the various tear downs where the camera remains structurally sound with the skin taken off. The people I was discussing with could, if they wished have disputed those facts. They would have been on a losing run, since all those facts are clearly correct, instead they decided first to try and dismiss it as simply a 'semantic' argument' then with this classic 'argumentum ad hominem':

I have no idea why Bob needs to pretend otherwise, everybody knows the 7D is magnesium alloy. I'm beginning to suspect there might be ulterior motives at play.

Essentially, putting forward that I am being dishonest (pretend otherwise) when all I am saying is the demonstrable truth, and then accusing me of having 'ulterior motives' (for telling the truth).So, in the end this is the use of the ad hominem fallacy to present the truth as a pretence and thereby establish a falsehood as the truth. I wonder what your philosophy professor would have made of that.

you are dismissing the point by labeling those with whom you are arguing as "fanboy", that is a classic use of the fallacy.

I'm not dismissing any genuinely made technical argument as 'fanboy', what I am dismissing as 'fanboy' is the resort to argumentum ad hominem, the topic having rather moved off the hard facts of the matter (because they are pretty much self evident) to the nature of the rhetoric that the opponents of the self evident truth employ to deny it.

You have classified multiple responses into an "ilk" or "fanboy"s, by lumping together people who might agree on 1 point (if even that) you are implying that any further or future argument by those people are unsound on their face due to the proclivities, which falls under the fallacy's umbrella in my opinion. It's really just an unnecessary insult.

You can lump me into the group of people here who think you might be correct, but that you'd be better served communicating those things in a way that avoids the audience's ire. btw, does Canon claim a "full metal chassis"? Or do they say something like "metal body construction" because those are semantically different as well. Given that you've made a similar post in the tread about the 7D and t4i, a thread that was intentionally lighthearted and you seem to want to steer into a copy of this thread makes me think you are angry at Canon for some sort of deception here.

-- hide signature --


Frankly, I've ceased to be at all interested in these self-serving and argumentative posts, not addressing any of the technical issues that I raised but seeking to justify the actions of the various folk who seek to put their position other than addressing the point at hand. You all might agree that I'm a jolly bad egg, but the ´╗┐fact´╗┐ remains that the 7D has a plastic chassis, I said it and various others chose to deny, obfuscate or evade the issue.

I don't believe there are significant downsides to a plastic chassis, but if someone for whatever reason decides the must have a metal chassis in their camera, the 7D is not the one for them, and it is right that they be properly informed. End of story.

-- hide signature --


Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow