Which brand has the worst fanboy zealots?

[Heikki Kultala]

I'm a happy 4/3rds user with E-510 and 5 nice lenses, and I'm not considering switching brands

I Also know that 4/3rds system has some drawbacks and not all that Olympus marketing says is completely true, and I've tried to explain these technical things in oly forum in some conversations.

But saying these things aloud in olympus forum seems to have gotten me cathegorized into "olympus hater" by many of the oly forumers, and I've not yet seen as fanatical followers of any other brands.

Are there as big percentage of as fanatical fanboys for users of other brands?

 

[kwaller]

Well at times some of the Sigma forum members can give a very good impression of a zealot.

 

[baldeagle21b]

'Nuff said.

 

[Jim Salvas]

Volkswagen.

Well, for cameras, it has to be Leica. When you spend that much more money to get a camera which will quickly become obsolete, you have to defend it.
--
Jim
-----
My eBay Photography Guide: http://camerajim.com

 

[Tony Sx]

(n/t)

 

[richardplondon]

Are there as big percentage of as fanatical fanboys for users of
other brands?

I am a loyal enthusiast
You are misguided
He, she or it is a fanboy
We are misunderstood
You (plural) are crazy
They are beneath contempt.

;-)

RP

 

[gnarayan]

Oh dear lord not again Heikki - a lot of us are willing to openly admit to the system's drawbacks and the marketing BS particularly with regards to telecentric lenses and optimized for digital (whatever that means). You've said it many times- as have others. A lot of people do actually understand he drawbacks and don't particularly need a public service to explain things to them. You are telling a forum their choice isn't perfect and a good chunk of your audience knows that and the rest don't want to hear it anyway.

Heck, some of the drawbacks and cockups Oly made are public record -

Here is my favorite snippet on the sensor design
http://www.geocities.com/maitani_fan/camera_technologies.html

"We will stop the research on high resolution CCD."

In the Camedia E-10 press conference on 22 August 2000, the President of Olympus, Mr Masatoshi Kishimoto gave the following remarks.

"We have been continuously developing high quality digital camera with high resolution CCD. But E-10's 4M pixels CCD is able to give very satisfactory results even in enlarged prints. I think this is the end of the high resolution CCD competition."

"5M or 6M pixels are too much for consumer use. Operation, design and other added values are more important from now on."

And as for the telecentric nonsense well it is remarkable the sort of performance one can get out 30 year film lenses on the E series bodies.

There are also a whole bunch of disgruntled users that are upset that Oly did not deliver on the pro service promises they made with the E1 and so rant about it frequently. While they have more Oly gear than many of us they still get called trolls which while sad isn't surprising. Oly changed directions to adapt and they didn't - the company has moved on from the E1 like it or not, and the needs of these pros rarely has anything to do with the needs of regular users.

The point is that despite all of this its still a good system that is well designed, has relatively small bodies and excellent lenses and generally offers very good value for money. You neglect or often ignore that aspect completely and therefore people decide you are a troll. Joe Mama goes on about equivalence ignoring size and price. Gareth went on about how it doesn't compare to the best pro cameras out there and how it is a bad deal if you buy the top pro lenses when not everyone cares about large prints or is going to be buying even one of the top pro lenses. Sergey would go around blathering about DoF control with APS-C and use his 18-200 zoom as an example. I get all of the above and am happy acknowledging the options from other manufacturers and gave Oly my money anyway because it was a good set of compromises.

Some of us also have this strange concept that IQ is not what the camera delivers but what the photographer does with the damn thing.

So we know the drawbacks and don't need it all explained to us every week and do think the signal to rubbish ratio on the forum would be a lot higher if the idiots that tried would shut up. If in the process of your explanations you get called a troll well what exactly did you expect?

Cheers,
-Gautham

--
C&C always welcome.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gnarayan/

 

[jgb]

I own Canon equipment, but I also read the Oly and Nikon forums. They all have more than their share of zealots. It's getting to be a bit much.

 

[Rriley]

Heck, some of the drawbacks and cockups Oly made are public record -

Here is my favorite snippet on the sensor design
http://www.geocities.com/maitani_fan/camera_technologies.html

"We will stop the research on high resolution CCD."

In the Camedia E-10 press conference on 22 August 2000, the President of Olympus, Mr Masatoshi Kishimoto gave the following remarks.

"We have been continuously developing high quality digital camera with high resolution CCD. But E-10's 4M pixels CCD is able to give very satisfactory results even in enlarged prints. I think this is the end of the high resolution CCD competition."

"5M or 6M pixels are too much for consumer use. Operation, design and other added values are more important from now on."

And as for the telecentric nonsense well it is remarkable the sort of
performance one can get out 30 year film lenses on the E series
bodies.

hmm well, not that one feels the need to dismiss your rave rights outright, perhaps you could point out why Nikon have telecentric lenses if it is indeed nonsense

seriously its ok to 'lose it' on fora like you do here,
but its better to stay with the facts a bit, it makes the real idiots seem sane

There are also a whole bunch of disgruntled users that are upset that
Oly did not deliver on the pro service promises they made with the E1
and so rant about it frequently. While they have more Oly gear than
many of us they still get called trolls which while sad isn't
surprising. Oly changed directions to adapt and they didn't - the
company has moved on from the E1 like it or not, and the needs of
these pros rarely has anything to do with the needs of regular users.

The point is that despite all of this its still a good system that is
well designed, has relatively small bodies and excellent lenses and
generally offers very good value for money. You neglect or often
ignore that aspect completely and therefore people decide you are a
troll. Joe Mama goes on about equivalence ignoring size and price.
Gareth went on about how it doesn't compare to the best pro cameras
out there and how it is a bad deal if you buy the top pro lenses when
not everyone cares about large prints or is going to be buying even
one of the top pro lenses. Sergey would go around blathering about
DoF control with APS-C and use his 18-200 zoom as an example. I get
all of the above and am happy acknowledging the options from other
manufacturers and gave Oly my money anyway because it was a good set
of compromises.

Some of us also have this strange concept that IQ is not what the
camera delivers but what the photographer does with the damn thing.

So we know the drawbacks and don't need it all explained to us every
week and do think the signal to rubbish ratio on the forum would be a
lot higher if the idiots that tried would shut up. If in the process
of your explanations you get called a troll well what exactly did you
expect?

Cheers,
-Gautham

--
C&C always welcome.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot
be fooled.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gnarayan/

--
Riley

in my home, the smoke alarm is the dinner bell (just)

 

[morninglight]

hmmmm.

In wandering about I myself cannot really pick just one brand id as a spawner of zealots.

But the most impolite folks I have run into is when you mention anything to do with "film" in the Open Talk section.

I use both digital capture and film capture cameras, so I enjoy both.

But despite the fact the post is in "Open Talk" there is a handful of digital fanboy posters (if that is a term) that immediately descend and are frankly amongst the most insulting and impolite forum users I have run into anywhere.

Unfortunately, the thread also attracts the film fanboys also, who quickly descend to the levels of the first group.

But, it is a gear forum primarily, not really a "photography" forum. And, sometimes, if you are in the mood, it is very entertaining.

--

'Good composition is only the strongest way of seeing the subject. It cannot be taught because, like all creative effort, it is a matter of personal growth. In common with other artists the photographer wants his finished print to convey to others his own response to his subject. In the fulfillment of this aim, his greatest asset is the directness of the process he employs. But this advantage can only be retained if he simplifies his equipment and technique to the minimum necessary, and keeps his approach free from all formula, art-dogma, rules, and taboos. Only then can he be free to put his photographic sight to use in discovering and revealing the nature of the world he lives in.'
Edward Weston, Camera Craft Magazine, 1930.

'Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read.' G. Marx

 

[Brunobl]

Say the wrong things to them, and they will come and get you.

--
Best regards,

Bruno Lobo.



http://www.pbase.com/brunobl

 

[gnarayan]

And as for the telecentric nonsense well it is remarkable the sort of
performance one can get out 30 year film lenses on the E series
bodies.

hmm well, not that one feels the need to dismiss your rave rights
outright, perhaps you could point out why Nikon have telecentric
lenses if it is indeed nonsense

seriously its ok to 'lose it' on fora like you do here,
but its better to stay with the facts a bit, it makes the real idiots
seem sane

the "telecentric nonsense" I'm referring isn't that telecentric lens design isn't good - simply that Oly overstated the case for it. I vaguely recall an Oly website with images comparing 4/3rds to 35mm where they illustrated that telecentric lens design controlled flare better and was sharper overall and particularly in the corners and vignetted less. Perhaps at the time they didn't know about offset microlenses, or didn't think to test how much vignetting they'd get using their own OM lenses and figure out how sharp they'd be. Maybe they didn't realize that their 12-60 would flare more easily than almost every other lens I have - beaten only by the 25/1.4 for 4/3rds which flares more than every 50mm I have for 35mm. Or maybe they didn't think they'd be designing a 25mm pancake in 5 years and micro 4/3rds in 6 and compromise on some of this anyway. There is nothing wrong with telecentric lens design but the marketing to sell it as a plus was full of claims that were too bold. Remarkable how you don't see any mention of the advantages of telecentric design with this new m43 development do you Riley?

Cheers,
-Gautham

--
C&C always welcome.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gnarayan/

 

[shay guevara]

And as for the telecentric nonsense well it is remarkable the sort of
performance one can get out 30 year film lenses on the E series
bodies.

hmm well, not that one feels the need to dismiss your rave rights
outright, perhaps you could point out why Nikon have telecentric
lenses if it is indeed nonsense

seriously its ok to 'lose it' on fora like you do here,
but its better to stay with the facts a bit, it makes the real idiots
seem sane

the "telecentric nonsense" I'm referring isn't that telecentric lens
design isn't good - simply that Oly overstated the case for it. I
vaguely recall an Oly website with images comparing 4/3rds to 35mm
where they illustrated that telecentric lens design controlled flare
better and was sharper overall and particularly in the corners and
vignetted less. Perhaps at the time they didn't know about offset
microlenses, or didn't think to test how much vignetting they'd get
using their own OM lenses and figure out how sharp they'd be. Maybe
they didn't realize that their 12-60 would flare more easily than
almost every other lens I have - beaten only by the 25/1.4 for 4/3rds
which flares more than every 50mm I have for 35mm. Or maybe they
didn't think they'd be designing a 25mm pancake in 5 years and micro
4/3rds in 6 and compromise on some of this anyway. There is nothing
wrong with telecentric lens design but the marketing to sell it as a
plus was full of claims that were too bold. Remarkable how you don't
see any mention of the advantages of telecentric design with this new
m43 development do you Riley?

Cheers,
-Gautham

--
C&C always welcome.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot
be fooled.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gnarayan/

You guys fancy taking your spat back to the Oly Forum maybe? This is the Open Forum for us hardcore crazies with tinfoil hats, not niggly brand specific spats.
--
Shay son of Che
Representing the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation

 

[paulfozz]

I have to agree that I've seen idiot zealotry from all the major brands, but in my experience it is mainly from Nikon and Canon users who both need their heads smacking together. I used to use Canon kit and now use Nikon but have no idea why 'fans' of either brand feel the need to snipe at each other in the way that they do. I occasionally get on the receiving end of it and try to respond in good humour but find it really very childish.

Far and away the most irritating group are (as morninglight says) the film zealots though. I use film from time to time and used film cameras extensively throughout the '90s, but the snide and vitriolic acid that is written by some (note - some, not all) film 'users' makes me reluctant to mention film at all in online discussions and I have in fact left all of the film discussion groups on flickr and other forums that I used to occasionally take part in. Those places have way, WAY too much self-righteousness and anger for my taste. :-(

--
Paul

 

[Conrad Birdie]

I'm a happy 4/3rds user with E-510 and 5 nice lenses, and I'm not
considering switching brands

I Also know that 4/3rds system has some drawbacks and not all that
Olympus marketing says is completely true, and I've tried to explain
these technical things in oly forum in some conversations.

But saying these things aloud in olympus forum seems to have gotten
me cathegorized into "olympus hater" by many of the oly forumers, and
I've not yet seen as fanatical followers of any other brands.

Are there as big percentage of as fanatical fanboys for users of
other brands?

--

I have the Oly E-510 also, and love it. I don't frequent the Oly forum all that much, because truthfully, I could care less about the drawbacks of the 4/3rds system. I sure didn't buy this camera because of the drawbacks, I work around them.

Hopefully you don't loose sleep over those who are catagorizing you either. In reality, there probably isn't one person in these forums who is a true friend of yours anyway, so why even concern yourself with their opinions. Enjoy your camera.
Conrad 'Bye Bye' Birdie
'Aspire to inspire before you expire'.

 

[Tim in upstate NY]

..just trying to stir things up aren't you?

 

[shay guevara]

Fanboys just arent hardcore, despite what they may think. The open forum is for serious strife like 'Film vs Digital', 'Photograher X is a porn scam artist', the liberal vs neocon wars, cops vs photogs (big right now), America good/America bad, interminable technical turf wars about equivalence or somesuch, slagging off the forum admins for whatever is the current complaint of choice, not to mention assorted musings and rants on the meaning of life.

--
Shay son of Che
Representing the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation

 

[morninglight]

Shay son of Che
Representing the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation

And few devotees of Open Talk have "Genuine People Personalities"

(Thank god(s))

--

'Good composition is only the strongest way of seeing the subject. It cannot be taught because, like all creative effort, it is a matter of personal growth. In common with other artists the photographer wants his finished print to convey to others his own response to his subject. In the fulfillment of this aim, his greatest asset is the directness of the process he employs. But this advantage can only be retained if he simplifies his equipment and technique to the minimum necessary, and keeps his approach free from all formula, art-dogma, rules, and taboos. Only then can he be free to put his photographic sight to use in discovering and revealing the nature of the world he lives in.'
Edward Weston, Camera Craft Magazine, 1930.

'Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read.' G. Marx

 

[Conrad Birdie]

Fanboys just arent hardcore, despite what they may think. The open
forum is for serious strife like 'Film vs Digital', 'Photograher X is
a porn scam artist', the liberal vs neocon wars, cops vs photogs (big
right now), America good/America bad, interminable technical turf
wars about equivalence or somesuch, slagging off the forum admins
for whatever is the current complaint of choice, not to mention
assorted musings and rants on the meaning of life.

--
Shay son of Che
Representing the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation

--
Hey Shay,

Maybe we should file a civil lawsuit on whoever came up with this word FANBOY. You see, I think the word is biased towards MEN. Where is the diversity in this world? FANGIRL!
Conrad 'Bye Bye' Birdie
'Aspire to inspire before you expire'.

 

[morninglight]

You see, I think the word is biased towards MEN. Where
is the diversity in this world? FANGIRL!

The "fanboy" thing is, across subjects (types of toys) a predominately male thing though. But in the spirit of non-biased labeling, how about:

Singular: Fanny
Plural: Fannies

?

--

'Good composition is only the strongest way of seeing the subject. It cannot be taught because, like all creative effort, it is a matter of personal growth. In common with other artists the photographer wants his finished print to convey to others his own response to his subject. In the fulfillment of this aim, his greatest asset is the directness of the process he employs. But this advantage can only be retained if he simplifies his equipment and technique to the minimum necessary, and keeps his approach free from all formula, art-dogma, rules, and taboos. Only then can he be free to put his photographic sight to use in discovering and revealing the nature of the world he lives in.'
Edward Weston, Camera Craft Magazine, 1930.

'Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read.' G. Marx