Contituation of the Versatility thread

Started Apr 5, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Contributing MemberPosts: 650Gear list
Re: What has this got to do with his argument
In reply to Jorginho, Apr 6, 2013

Jorginho wrote:

I am not saying he is correct at all. I disagree with him on most points. I have shot with DSLRs, can shoot with D800E (it is not mine) and have GH2 and EPL5. Ok?

His points are:

Mirrorless and other format :

"1) Lack the AF speed - not suitable for sports, moving people etc.

2) Not as good in low light

3) No optical viewfinder, awkward holding style with longer lenses, more prone to handshake.

4) less shots per battery charge. Not many offer battery pack.

5) Not good enough flash system.

6) Thin DOF not possible in situations when you need it.

7) Less external controls, less mature menu navigation, lots of fluff and gimmicks to selling to new photo enthusiasts.

8) High on novelty factor rather than practicality. Like manual focus by wire, instead of real manual focus. Its like the ridiculous semi-manual option in some automatic cars to advertise to manual car enthusiasts who are looking for a real manual gear. Just a gimmick.

9) More expensive than DX or APS-C cameras and much more ridiculously expensive external viewfinder attachments ( and other assorted nonsense items with no standardized connections yet) going into couple of hundreds of dollars, while you get a free optical viewfinder with the DX which is miles better anyway.

10) Being smaller with low power electronics/processor, smaller buffer etc, these cameras will usually be slow in operation, slow to focus, lot of shutter lag, cumbersome to change settings on the fly."

Whether correct or not, there is no point in bringing up his skills or lack of them in order to answer this. You can simply repsond to the points raised without getting ad hominem. If he is so incorrect, you can demonstrate this by coming up with evidence per point raised. Saying what he can or can't does not answer any question here I think.

No, you are completely wrong here. He is so wrong in his thinking, it is impossible to correct the fallacies without writing a huge book about practical photography that would address all those issues, which is why I sent him to find several such books and just read them. There's no point in me writing one just because his ignorance annoyed me.

It's like a guy who says that Earth is flat and 5000 years old. You could either write a hugely elaborate response explaining why that isn't so (for which you would need a strong and valid reason) or send him to read books and get educated because that's what he really needs.

When I look at your summary above, the most concise objection I can formulate without going into biblical lengths is that cameras and lenses have a purpose, and that purpose is to take pictures. If a camera/lens/light combination is sufficient for taking great pictures of certain subjects, then it is fit for that purpose.

So basically what his complaints amount to is that a Hasselblad has only one AF point and focuses slowly, and is bad at high ISO, and has no strong telephoto lenses, so it's not versatile enough.

It's not supposed to be. It is not intended for that purpose. It's not meant for taking pictures of things that move or in low light. It's meant for taking pictures of things that don't move, in great light, at the highest possible quality. It does that much better than a Nikon D800. On the other hand, there are cameras that are meant for taking pictures of things that move, and in low light, but a setup that is good for that isn't all that good in studio, because it isn't optimized for that. It is also not optimized for compactness.

So, there are several mutually exclusive demands that make universal cameras and systems impractical, if not impossible, which is why professional equipment is focused on specific purposes. You don't really need a versatile flash system for a camera that is meant for discrete street shooting or for one that is meant for shooting landscapes. You don't need a super-telephoto for a system that is meant for portability, or one that is meant for studio. You don't need f/1.4 aperture on a lens that will be used for landscape photography, stopped down to at least f/8. On the other hand, you'll need that aperture on your portrait lens. You tailor your equipment to specific needs.

m43, 35mm and APS-C have enough camera/lens combinations to fit very different needs, for instance all three systems are very good for landscapes, for portraits, for macro and for general purpose photography. APS-C is the best for sports and wildlife, because it uses existing 35mm telephotos but adds 1.6x magnification. 35mm is the best for weddings and portraits, because of its best low-light performance. m43 is best for general purpose photography and for everything that requires a combination of high image quality, versatility and portability, for instance where hiking or air travel limit the amount of gear one can pack and carry around.

But none of those systems is universally versatile, in a sense that it's the best thing for sports, landscape, birds, weddings, macro, studio, war, street and travel. It is true that 35mm is very versatile, but m43 is also very versatile. You can buy OM-D body, its kit lens, Panasonic 7-14mm, Olympus 60mm macro and Olympus 75mm f/1.8, and you'll have a super-versatile system that will be very good for landscapes, macro, studio work, street and candid photography, general purpose photography and travel, but it will never be as good in a studio as a Hasselblad, it will never be as good for weddings as a 5dMkIII, it will never bee any good for sports and birds, but it doesn't have to be. It just needs to be good for what you need it for.

And please, I don't ever again want to hear how 43 isn't good for thin DoF because I shoot thin DoF most of my life and 43 is just great for that. Some people can make all sorts of calculations that make it sound as if f/2.8 is really f/5.6 and stuff like that, but honestly, the same people used to prove that film really has gazillion terapixels because it's made of that much atoms.

I'm tired of this s#&t, and that's why I want to see someone's pictures as proof that he has any right to have opinions. If he can't make pictures worth looking at then his theories aren't worth s#%t.


 danijel973's gear list:danijel973's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Olympus PEN E-PL1 Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM +12 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