mamallama
Forum Pro
There's a problem here. One man's truth is another man's lie. If you think one man's truth is every man's truth, you need help.
--mamallama
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Which brand has the worst fanboy zealots?
- Thread starter Heikki Kultala
- Start date
--mamallama
gnarayan
Senior Member
If A then B. With a sensor diagonal of 23mm and a register distance of 19mm exactly how do you think the light rays are going to come out parallel for wide angles? Seriously sit down with a piece of paper and draw it.
why? This isn't an argument. And if I'm wrong I'll be happy to learn but what I've learnt thus far is that smaller exit pupil distance translates to steeper angle of incidence at focal plane.
Exactly the opposite - the M lenses are not rubbish. The point I'm making is that some of the best lenses are not telecentric and they work great even on digital sensors, particularly if you can correct for some of the aberrations in firmware. This is why I thik Oly over stated the case for telecentric design.
Like you say further down - who cares what Nikon does. Telecentric lens design certainly has its benefits. I never argued the point. I claimed that Oly was still overstating the case for it as late as May this year when I last talked to their reps. Suddenly with the micro FT development they dropped the requirement too.
Because they are well designed and have optical properties that have nothing to do with telecentricity. The 25/1.4 isn't very telecentric but it is still sharp in the corners wide open, has very little resolution loss, not a lot of vignetting. It isn't very resistant to flare without the hood which is huge. This is why I own the damn thing. It is a superb performer because it has a complex and smart optical design but it isn't telecentric.
http://www.four-thirds.org/en/about/benefit.html
a bunch of stuff on that page is marketing BS. Particularly the possible degradation when using a film camera lens with a DSLR camera. I've used plenty of my OM lenses on the E510 and they perform well. This was also my point about flare. Some of them are a lot more resilient to flare than the 12-60 that I also have.
Yes telecentric design is about getting light from the rear of the lens parallel. The point was that the non paraxial rays cast shadows off the structures on the sensor which is not flat film. Much of the resulting aberrations can now be accounted for in firmware and so the telecentricity requirement is being relaxed with the new mount.
Yes I'm not arguing with this - their telecentricity ideas probably made a lot of sense in 2003 and still do now but the point is we've gotten around some of the requirement now in 2008. Yet that website still exists and still makes the same claims that are not justifiable. I see your point that they made sense in 2003 but today this is marketing nonsense.
I'm seriously done arguing with you - if you want to carry this further feel free to email me. If you have some insights on lens design that makes my statement about exit pupil distances vs angles of incidence false in particular because I would actually like to know if I'm wrong about that.
Cheers,
-Gautham
--
C&C always welcome.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gnarayan/
fyngyrz
Senior Member
Heikki... what you just said is one of the more sensible things ever posted on this forum. However, you need to remember that some folks refuse to believe that ALL major brands are capable of making outstanding pictures. So if you say anything negative, you're about as welcome as a Jew running into a Mosque to denounce Mohammed.
It's really hard not to like Olympus cameras. I've owned the OM1 and OM2, plus a Camedia C-4000 and a C-7000. And I curently am lusting over the E520. They really make nice stuff. But, I agree. The blind fanatasism gets way out of hand.
I'd guess it is exactly the same on all forums. Every forum has their fanboys, and their trolls. And when the fanboys visit other forums, then they become the trolls there.
--
Marty
http://flickr.com/photos/7735239@N02/sets/72157604030772272/detail/
Panasonic FZ7, FZ30, LX2
Not digital, but those who are incensed that anyone uses film.
--
Read my blog -> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101365/
--
Read my blog -> http://radio.weblogs.com/0101365/
shay guevara
Senior Member
For sure and now that is a a strange one, one or two of those fellers can be quite remarkably virulent & its hard to see just what it is that enrages them so.
Shay son of Che
Representing the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation
D P O'neil
Senior Member
I agree, I have never been able to understand why the film guys get so upset. Especially on a digital only site.
--
Kind Regards
Dennis P O'Neil APSNZ
'War does not determine who is right, only who is left'
shinndigg
Senior Member
shinndigg
Senior Member
shay guevara
Senior Member
Nice twist but I'm not sure where you get the 'digital only' site bit from. There is and as far as I know never has been a forum ban on discussing film or any other photographic process in the Open Forum. The Forum Rules are quite specific about this , as in :
"Please keep all photography related off-topic messages to the Open Talk forum".
Well, this here is the Open Forum, so what's the problem?
I'm fairly typical of a lot of people here, the kind who primarily or exclusively shoot digital but are OK and relaxed about film . Whats curious is why any mention of film seems to enrage a few fellers to a remarkable extent for no obvious or rational reason. Maybe I am missing something.
--
Shay son of Che
Representing the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation
RobertoAvanzi
Senior Member
No idea, but it seemed to me that Canon and Nikon fanboys are quite bad that often I feel ashamed because of them (I am a digital Canon shooter and used to be a film Nikon shooter myself).
best
Roberto
D P O'neil
Senior Member
No one that I am aware of ever said there was a ban on discussing film. However this is a digital only site, hence there is no film forum. If you think there should be ask Phil, at this point you will find it is a digital only site.
It also states "repeated posting of Off Topic messages can lead to a ban."
Not sure who the "fellers" are, but certainly the same film zealots appear as if by magic at the mere mention of film. Or start repeated threads about film "spanking" digital, the usual BS, from a rapidly dwindling group.
As is obvious, this is the premier digital site on the web, why the same few wish to turn it into a film v digital issue every chance they get is beyond any reason.
Maybe I am missing something.
But be my guest lobby Phil for a film forum
--
Kind Regards
Dennis P O'Neil APSNZ
'War does not determine who is right, only who is left'
shay guevara
Senior Member
Why on earth would I want to lobby Phil Askey for a film forum? I know I'm restating the bleeding obvious but er.............film related posts go in the open forum, always have done.No one that I am aware of ever said there was a ban on discussing
film. However this is a digital only site, hence there is no film
forum. If you think there should be ask Phil, at this point you will
find it is a digital only site.
It also states "repeated posting of Off Topic messages can lead to a
ban."
Not sure who the "fellers" are, but certainly the same film zealots
appear as if by magic at the mere mention of film. Or start repeated
threads about film "spanking" digital, the usual BS, from a rapidly
dwindling group.
As is obvious, this is the premier digital site on the web, why the
same few wish to turn it into a film v digital issue every chance
they get is beyond any reason.
Maybe I am missing something.
But be my guest lobby Phil for a film forum
--
Kind Regards
Dennis P O'Neil APSNZ
'War does not determine who is right, only who is left'
"repeated posting of Off Topic messages can lead to a
ban." Your point was?
Yes its a 'Premier Digital Site' and its always been a broad enough tent to include some discussion and divergence of views over film and digital. OK a few digi zealots get bent out of shape by this , but the majority of us digital camera users are relaxed about it and simply not that fussed at all.
Anyways, you want a ban on film talk, be my guest, lobby Phil......................
--
Shay son of Che
Representing the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation
Deejaybee
Forum Enthusiast
no, there is no problem here. Facts are unassailable; how one assembles a 'fact', and interprets it is a different matter and subject to opinon.
For example- point 2: how many professional photographers use olympus kit? for the sake of argument, say 10%. Does that mean that Olypmus has a professional presence, or is largely out of the game? Does the answer to that last question depend on how many chose this kit while a pro, or 'upgraded' to pro when they had already bought the kit as an amateur? Etc etc...
He didn't claim that; don't put words in others mouths, it just makes you look like you are unable to argue the point, resorting to hyperbole to discredit instead.
--
DeeJayBee
deejaybee.smugmug.com
I think that dpreview is a very good site.But fundamentally as someone who is an ageing Hippy(and happy).I think it's a bit sad that Forums have to be segregated into different headings of manufacturers. As if playing sport should be divided into who wears Adidas or Puma or...It's by know means a critiscisme of Dpreview,they have to bow down to certain criteria,but when I see a good photo,honestly the make of camera is the last thing that comes to my mind."Hey Mister Monet wear did you buy your brushes"?Anyone know what guitar Bob Dylan used and uses? John.
We are a cult. And you will be a believer with the second and third coming of the DP series.
lolDefinitely film fanatics. The same blind & extreme worshiping as can bee seen in some religions, and yes, once you say something that is construed, by them, as "anti film" it will be considered as sacrilege. Basically what we have here is a group of fanatics that are trying to form a cult.
shay guevara
Senior Member
Say hi to the Black Knight folks.
--
Shay son of Che
Representing the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation
morninglight
Senior Member
I have read quite a few threads since joining this forum wherein people seem to compare and contrast “digital” and “film”. These threads tend to quickly develop into acrimonious arguments, despite the fact that the threads normally are in the Open Talk sub-forum category.
Granted, this may be the result of people who simply like to argue, or engage in virtual insults, being in a non-face-to-face situation. But the discussions could be of use, especially to those of us with a foot in both worlds.
So I thought I would post some thoughts on certain problems of this type of thread, in addition to the previously discussed, obvious social skill deficits that seem to be regularly displayed. These are problems exhibited in the communications of devotees of both film, and digital capture methods.
1. The very phrase, film vs digital, and the using of the general words film or digital when trying to make a specific statement.
2. The failure to separate the areas of digital capture and film capture, and the chemical darkroom process and scanning/post-processing/inkjet printing and a totally “digital” workflow.
3. If discussing capture technology, the failure to state and specify format of capture (either the various film formats, or various digital formats).
4. The intended use of the images, printing or something else, and if printing, by yourself, or another.
Posters who favor film capture, and those who favor digital capture, both seem to not specify this detail in there missives. Instead, they deal in generalities. While such is very supportive of misunderstanding, it does not lead to edification.
--
'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
Granted, this may be the result of people who simply like to argue, or engage in virtual insults, being in a non-face-to-face situation. But the discussions could be of use, especially to those of us with a foot in both worlds.
So I thought I would post some thoughts on certain problems of this type of thread, in addition to the previously discussed, obvious social skill deficits that seem to be regularly displayed. These are problems exhibited in the communications of devotees of both film, and digital capture methods.
1. The very phrase, film vs digital, and the using of the general words film or digital when trying to make a specific statement.
2. The failure to separate the areas of digital capture and film capture, and the chemical darkroom process and scanning/post-processing/inkjet printing and a totally “digital” workflow.
3. If discussing capture technology, the failure to state and specify format of capture (either the various film formats, or various digital formats).
4. The intended use of the images, printing or something else, and if printing, by yourself, or another.
Posters who favor film capture, and those who favor digital capture, both seem to not specify this detail in there missives. Instead, they deal in generalities. While such is very supportive of misunderstanding, it does not lead to edification.
--
'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
You just made it into my top 10 favorite Dpreview posts ever. Brought tears to my eyes laughing... whew...
Actually, I think "fanny" should apply to males too. Because that's what these people basically are: buttheads.
If you want to be really gender neutral though, try "significant fan."
Actually, I think "fanny" should apply to males too. Because that's what these people basically are: buttheads.
If you want to be really gender neutral though, try "significant fan."
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum