Why I Prefer the E-5 over the OM-D

Started Mar 27, 2013 | Discussions thread
pris
Senior MemberPosts: 2,151
Like?
Wow...
In reply to Forgottenbutnotgone, Mar 30, 2013

Forgottenbutnotgone wrote:

pris wrote:

I think we see a language barrier in action... "almost" - I don't think this word means what you think it means. Same goes for the expression "don't fool yourself" which you obviously misunderstood.

More specifically, I think that his use of the word "almost" probably would be best interpreted as "most always", which is actually an understandable transliteration of the word.

I also agree there is a misunderstanding, and perhaps a language barrier. I do think though, that perhaps the misunderstanding is not on the part of Vu Dang, but rather yours and Steve's.

I don't think that Vu misunderstood the expression "don't fool yourself". His reply of "fool?" in the context of what bofo777 said, would better understood as  "how am I fooling myself?", (in direct response to bofo777's "don't fool yourself")  Again, he's not calling anyone a fool, on the contrary, he is responding to someone else's use of the word.

Next, his question, "how about your money spent for gears?" is more accurately a statement that the cost of the SHG lenses and and E-5 body do not justify the results, explaining why he doesn't feel he is fooling himself because the OMD is arguably a much better choice. That statement is in no way taking anyone to task for choosing to spend their money a certain way if one were inclined to do so, but merely pointing out the fact that for a majority of people who have budget restraints, cost is a legitimate mitigating factor, and the OMD is a better alternative.

His other point, mentioning full frame, is a very valid one, and it ties in with his first point to show that often this forum sacrifices credibility in it's rush to defend the four thirds dogma. Basically stated, if you are defending the use of the E-5 and SHG lenses, versus the OMD for low light photography, you are contradicting most of the longstanding arguments against full frame, namely, size, weight, cost and image quality, another valid point.

I'd like to also say that if my understanding of his meaning is correct, your bitingly sarcastic reply to him can easily be taken as pretty rude, especially in light of the guidelines that precede the posting window where one types their reply, "The basic rules for discussions on dpreview.com are simple: be polite and civil..."

Looking at it from Vu's point of view, you have probably insulted him and Steve appears to be making light of the fact and agreeing with you.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51176161, "Another monitor-cleaning event avoided...since I have learned, from prior experience, not to drink my morning coffee when reading posts here.".seemingly giving his tacit approval.

Not the best look for prominent forum members and a good object lesson as to why this excerpt from posting rule number 5, "If you think someone is wrong it may be because they are new. Don't jump on them, think first", may also need to include the possiblity that one doesn't speak the language as well as another.

Robert

Robert, the depth of your analysis IMO greatly exceeds what this exchange deserves. I'll limit my reply to two points.

Word "almost" still means "Not quite; very nearly" so attributing language barrier to our misunderstanding instead of erroneous use of the word is a bit of a stretch. Not even speaking about your guess of his meaning - how do you know he didn't just confuse and substitute it for "always?" Speaking three languages, I often encounter situation with so called "interpreter false friends" - words that sound intuitively familiar, or similar to something yet mean something different. Word "presently" would be one of the examples - 100% foreigners, no exceptions, use it as substitute for "currently." So, let's not turn it into linguistic analysis and leave it at the simple fact that there IS language barrier in this case, shall we?

That "bitingly sarcastic reply" was referring to the fact that his entry offered very trivial advice to a very competent photographer. If a layman tells a NASA physicist not to forget Moon gravity when he calculates spaceship trajectory, do you tell him his advice is a bit inappropriate or do you start defending it because, indeed, Moon gravity should be taken under consideration? In my "I am sure he didn't think of that" I elected the former; I am afraid in your analysis you are doing the latter.

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