Time to move on from m43?

--

Bokeh is the aesthetic quality of the blur in out-of-focus areas of an image, or the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light. Bokeh is not the same as depth of field (DOF).

Bob Meyer said:

Geez, Tim, I even put a big wink smiley at the end of my post. How more more obvious do I need to be? People criticized Kirk Tuck when he ended a recent blog post with a note that the post was sarcasm, but some people are just so dense they won't get it if you don't rub their face in it.

Tim in upstate NY said:

. . . The OP is just trying to have some fun at the expense of what he perceives as the pixel peeping glass is always half empty crowd. That kind of obtuse humor rarely goes over very well in a text only medium but it never stops some here from trying it anyway. Writers and print journalists are taught to deliver the message so that it's understood by all if possible but that principle sometimes isn't well understood here on the internet.

Click to expand...

--

Bokeh is the aesthetic quality of the blur in out-of-focus areas of an image, or the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light. Bokeh is not the same as depth of field (DOF).

Click to expand...

Just to make it easy for all that are not happy with Micro Four Thirds I posted the link to escape!

http://camera.uniquephoto.com/search?asug=&w=CND3100+CND3101

Please don't wait this item will be in short supply.
--
john
my equipment is in Gear List
if you live near me you can test any of it...just e-mail

After your threads on "Why I don't like IBIS" and "unwritten posting rules" (or something like that) I pretty much expected that this thread would rapidly veer off the intended topic.

But for YOU to take it in that direction? I'm disappointed.

--

Bokeh is the aesthetic quality of the blur in out-of-focus areas of an image, or the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light. Bokeh is not the same as depth of field (DOF).

boyzo said:

Everdog said:

Michael Kaufman said:

Its interesting though because - like the EM-5 - in pictures, the 5dIII looks quite large. I am sure its just an optical illusion.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the e-m5 looks a lot smaller when you see it in someone's hand, and the 5dIII looks a lot smaller when you see it with the 2 people holding it.

Click to expand...

Its actually very comfortable to hold the 5Dmk11 with smaller lenses, the MK3 improvements are very real so its going to sell well.

As with all DSLR's no live view thru' the Optical viewfinder, if you resort to using the LCD in live view AF is slow.
--
John

http://boyzo.smugmug.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/48966961@N00/sets/

Click to expand...

I realised some time ago that i'm getting old, that my knees are weak and my eyes are poor, but I seem to remember that the view through the DSLR optical viewfinder was well - live?

Bluephotons said:

But does it have a Hump?
--
Bluephotons
Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now. Bob Dylan

Click to expand...

Very small all that don't like the new Olympus because of that BIG BIG hump should hurry right over!

http://camera.uniquephoto.com/search?asug=&w=CND3100+CND3101

But don't forget to cancel your preorder of the Olympus.
--
john
my equipment is in Gear List
if you live near me you can test any of it...just e-mail

We compare because we can.
ken

Bob Meyer said:

but some people are just so dense they won't get it if you don't rub their face in it.

Click to expand...

Have you lost your sense of humor? ;-)

--
Cheers,

Frederic
http://azurphoto.com/blog/

Bob Meyer said:

And I don't really appreciate having my post, which was intended to poke a little fun, associated with the insulting rant from JohnMoron. Oops, Myron. Sorry.

Click to expand...

That all right! Appreciate what you want.
But you did start the thread and it open to all.

JohnMoron

--
john
my equipment is in Gear List
if you live near me you can test any of it...just e-mail

Bob you did mention the "Why I don't like IBIS" thread Louis started. I think thats the one he really came down on the users of this forum. Check it out.
JohnMoron again
--
john
my equipment is in Gear List
if you live near me you can test any of it...just e-mail

SLOtographer said:

Horses for courses.

5D3 makes sense for people who get paid to shoot. They have to worry about the competition too and not just be good enough.

For the rest of us, just get what you like and shoot.
--

Click to expand...

Euh, no. The 5D3 doesn't make sense for people who get paid. It makes sense for just a few.

Weddings can be perfectly done by 43rds sensors and APS-C, absolutely no requirement for 35mm.
The requirement comes when needed in special environments.
And yes the 5D3 is massively overpriced imo.

--
Digifan

Michael Kaufman said:

Bob Meyer said:

I see the new EOS 5D MkIII has ISOs from 50 to 102,800. That ought to satisfy everyone from Louis to the most rabid cat-in-a-coal-bin, if I can't shoot in complete darkness the camera's no good crowd.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Its interesting though because - like the EM-5 - in pictures, the 5dIII looks quite large. I am sure its just an optical illusion.

Click to expand...

In fact 5D3 is bigger and heavier than 5D2

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=canon_eos5dmkii&products=canon_eos5dmkiii

--
Digifan

Bob Meyer said:

Geez, Tim, I even put a big wink smiley at the end of my post. How more more obvious do I need to be? People criticized Kirk Tuck when he ended a recent blog post with a note that the post was sarcasm, but some people are just so dense they won't get it if you don't rub their face in it.

Click to expand...

. . . Smiley faced emoticons fly around forums like this in such large numbers that many just don't pay any attention to them (myself included sometimes). Sarcasm isn't useful in a text only situation because the average persons sees and understands what they want without giving much thought to something as subtle as a note at the very end that alerts the reader that what they thought they just understood didn't actually have the meaning that they thought.

. . . It's just too indirect and difficult to communicate sarcasm with just text. In real life, the spoken word can be manipulated with inflection and phrasing that can give a different meaning than just what the words can do unless you're an exceptional writer like maybe Mark Twain - LOL. We're all dense to one degree or another and it's not because we're dumb so much as lacking in comprehension when reading a dry text message that doesn't have any real life to it. I can't offer too much of an excuse for myself as I grew up with a background of reading literature like Charles Dickens, Walt Whitman, Tolstoy, Maugham, Conrad, Hemingway, Joyce, Solzhenitsyn, etc. and it's still difficult for me to understand the real meaning of much of what I read these days. Imagine what it must be like for those here who learned English as a second language?