Full Frame Mirror Less Camera - WHEN?

Started May 20, 2013 | Discussions thread
meland
Senior MemberPosts: 4,027
Like?
Re: Oy
In reply to rjjr, May 30, 2013

rjjr wrote:

Skip M wrote:

rjjr wrote:

Skip M wrote:

rjjr wrote:

Skip M wrote:

rjjr wrote:

Skip M wrote:

rjjr wrote:

Skip M wrote:

rjjr wrote:

Lemming51 wrote:

rjjr wrote:

jimbrobb wrote:

Hi,

How long until full frame mirror less camera which is comparable in AF speed/tracking to a 5D3.

Just around the corner, or a long way off?

Has been around for decades...but it's film...I've had one for quite a while and still use it at times.

Canonet models were not autofocus.

I think it's a safe bet that a digital version of it would have autofocus.

The OP was asking for a camera with comparable AF speed and tracking to the 5D3, which the Canonet certainly can't provide.  So, strictly speaking, the answer to the OP's question hasn't "been around for decades."  I think that was Lemming's point.

That whooshing sound was my point going over you head.

Oh, I got your point, poorly as it was made.  Since the point to Lemming's post was probably to point out that the Canonet would not be the equivalent of anything in production now, I'm not sure you didn't miss his point, and mine, too.  Your statement that a full frame mirrorless camera with comparable AF speed and tracking to the 5D3 "has been around for decades" was off the mark, if you take your answer to be the extension of his question.

Actually, you just proved that you didn't get my point.

Ok then, Mr. Smug, just what was your point?

LOL...You're so smart, you figure it out.

In other words, I did, and you don't want to admit it, got it...

Thanks for showing how smart you are.

The fact is there was no point, it was a simple statement of facts.

Fact 1: I've used and sometimes still use a Canonet QL17.

Fact 2: I wouldn't mind a digital version of same.

The OP simply made me think of it so I just posted to put it out there and see what others thought...we now know that it caused you two rocket scientists to jump to pedantic critic mode.

Poorly worded, then, or at least poorly conceived.  (Yeah, everybody's a critic.) Because the first "fact" you stated was that a film version of a mirrorless camera with the AF speed and tracking ability of the 5D3 has been around for decades, or at least that's the inference of your phraseology.  A "point" that's not there, by your own admission, can't be said to "go over" my head, it would be more properly said to have fallen short.

And I'm finished discussing semantics for the day.

Good thing because you're not very good at it.  Your use of pretzel logic in some sort of childish effort to make yourself feel superior is very humorous.

My post wasn't poorly worded at all...You simply assumed too much.  That's your problem.

And yes, the fact that there was no real point other than simple curiosity flew right over your head.

Give it a rest you two, please!

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