Thinking of swapping from MFT to full DSLR - Advice?

Started Mar 29, 2013 | Discussions thread
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 6,577Gear list
Like?
Re: Good advice
In reply to ultimitsu, Mar 30, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

So, following on from that, you do realize that people who are serious about photography use telephoto lenses (a lot)?

Where did you get the idea that I did not think that?

So it was only you're initial premise ("if you have to use telephoto lens, you are serious about what you are shooting") that was wrong.

No it is not wrong. unlike wide angle, you do not need to a telephoto lens to merely capture something  if you need telephoto it is because you want to capture it well, with as much detail as possible. Thus the statement "if you have to use telephoto lens, you are serious about what you are shooting" is correct.

So, following your logic, what do you make of everyone who uses telephoto on m4/3s? Teles are an extremely common lens on this forum.

firstly, you need to get a clue, you have replied to my post 4 times and all of them have been lacking clues.

As for the question, Did I indicate thsoe m43 shooting telephoto would be not serious?

Yes

Are they serious about what they are shooting?

What inference would you make from my statement ?

Do they get significant size and weight and cost benefits over most DSLRs?

Do they get size and weight benefit over SLR is a interesting question because what are we comparing? they are certainly not getting the same IQ or AF speed or burst rate while maintain tracking. If final product is not the same then is that really a saving?

As for cost, if you have been reading this thread with eyes open you would have see that cost wise M43 is very high. 35-100 cost more than twice the price of 70-300 USM / VR, These canikon lenses on FF would completely trump 35-100 on any m43 in terms of IQ and tracking. on APs-C IQ maybe a draw, but reach and AF speed are still way ahead.

I'm happy to grant that under certain circumstances you can go cheaper with DSLRs. However, only an idiot would then generalise from that circumstance to the argument that this applies to all circumstances. Which is exactly what you keep doing.

Your argument initially was correct - that it is possible to be cheaper than m4/3s with FF. However, that argument only applies under certain circumstances.

You've since pushed that argument too far, and created the incorrect argument that m4/3s is too expensive. You've supported this argument by ignoring the other situations that prove you wrong, moving the goalposts (See above post, where now m4/3s has to beat FF, rather than FF coming down to match m4/3s) and other fallacies.

Oh yeah, and of course the fun game of calling anyone who points out the failings of your arguments as suffering from "the camera version of small man syndrome".

Now, I've seen this behaviour from you before, where you'll happily ignore evidence that refutes you, so long as you can have "your side" win. I've no idea why m4/3s brings out such a defensive attitude from you. I suspect you're just the kind of person who can't stand the idea that other people are different.

 Martin.au's gear list:Martin.au's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro +3 more
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