Dear Canon, I'm not buying anymore DSLR Gear get on with the M

Started Mar 1, 2014 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Forum ProPosts: 19,402
fatal flaw of your logic
In reply to rrccad, Mar 9, 2014

rrccad wrote:

T3 wrote:

The flaw of your argument is that you only focus on areas where there is little difference, while completely ignoring areas where there are differences.

I have time and time again mentioned there is savings if you are under the registration distance of a DSLR.

time. and. time. again. you just can't read.

also let's see.

there's usually one UWA lens in a kit. there is plenty of non UWA in usual kits so how much difference really? however it's not uncommon for a kit to have a normal zoom, telephoto of some capability and a macro. all of which show little difference per sensor size.

consider the most popular lenses for instance in amazon have conspicuously very little UWA lenses until around position 18 or so on the list. the rest? most of them are kit lenses, 50mm or telephotos. 6 telephotos rank on the list before the first UWA.

so what am I ignoring? that for the vast majority your benefit isn't one.

i'ts like saying the A7R is perfect for the limited amount of people with leica's .. well, yes it's great for that .. so what? It certainly isn't going to set any trends in the industry looking at such a niche market.

the M is perfect with it's limited set .. we start getting 18-200's or 55-250's while necessary to fill out a kit, will start to lose it's advantages. the 55-200 STM is fine on the M .. however it's dim as all heck .. what's better? guess what .. adding a 70-200 / 4 or a 70-200 /2.8 right back to square one.

the real winners as far as size is m43 and 1" - larger than that, for the majority of people; as proven above ... they don't care and there's little benefit.

I think you should open your mind, bro. A smaller body is a smaller body. A smaller UWA, such as a 10-22 or 11-22, is still a smaller UWA. A smaller 22mm pancake (a lens you can't make for a DSLR because of the retrofocus limitation) is still a smaller 22mm lens. Smaller filters are still smaller filters. Smaller lens hoods are still smaller lens hoods. A smaller camera bag need to carry this smaller gear is still a smaller camera bag. All these differences exist, pal. Even loaded up a with a few larger lenses where the differences in size not so great, it still doesn't negate the size advantages you gained elsewhere. It DOES NOT get you back to "square one", LOL. You have a terrible sense of math and mass. That's what you don't seem to get. That's the fatal flaw of your logic.  And I don't think you'll ever get to, because you're so rabidly against reality.

The fatal flaw of your argument is that you think that just because you add a couple larger lenses to your camera bag, such additions completely negate the size and weight reductions produced by other components of your gear collection. High performance car manufacturers try to trim weight wherever they can, knowing that a reduction of few ounces here or there can still contribute to an overall weight reduction of the car. The same applies to gear in your gear bag. That's the logic that you seem incapable of comprehending.

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