Really that much difference btw d600/6d autofocus system???

Started Sep 22, 2012 | Discussions thread
ultimitsu
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: lol. Dream on.

Press Correspondent wrote:

Wow, I must've pushed a sensitive button

No you haven't, it was just an irrational and unsubstantiated post that got challenged.

What I posted was my opinion.

They are not opinions, they are representations of facts. Surely you understand the difference between the two

What I provide is essentially a warning against the opinion of the majority that in this case I consider misleading.

But your warning is not backed up by any evidence, here again you claim it to be a matter of fact that PZ is "misleading".

This is what I said, it performs only after f/2.0.

The fact that 50 F1.4 only performs after F2.0 is a deal breaker because people buy it for F1.4 performance. F1.8G on the other hand, costing just 55% of canon F1.4, it actually performs well at F1.8.

I suspect your definition of microcontrast is different. Read the Zeiss white paper on the subject.

The zeiss white paper, just like all other sources, does not really define what micro-contrast is, how about you paraphrase what you think zeiss is saying and we start from there?

This is by far the lowest personal attack I have seen on this forum. You made some serious defamatory allegations yet produced no evidence to substantiate any of them.

Sorry if it sounds harsh,

No it doesnt sound harsh, harsh would mean they are objectively true, what you said, without supporting evidence, can not be considered true . "Malicious" would be the right word.

but it is my honest opinion, take it or leave it.

It purported to be matters of facts. But even if you did qualify them as opinions, you still have to explain you basis for forming such opinion.

Not a personal attack at all, just an opinion of his results and conclusions.

you called the guy clueless without explanation and that is not personal attack?

Compare his conclusions of Canon 24-70 II with the test of Roger from LensRentals.com.

As you said Roger is not a true lens tester, Roger also has an interest for 24-70II to be popular - he wants to rent them. On the other hand PZ gets no additional benefit whether they say 24-70II is good or bad, who has more reason to be biased?

Secondly PZ didnt say 24-70II is bad, it acknowledges 24-70II is superior to MarkI, but it questions whether the small amount of optical gain justifies its x2 price tag against tamron 24-70VC.

Lastly, if you really want to brand PZ as being inconsistent with other reviews, you need to at the least wait till TDP and DXO both releasing contrary reviews. Just one differing review is not enough to draw this conclusion.

I have posted my thoughts on Photozone in more details before and don't care to repeat.

how hard is to provide a link? so seem to care enough to justify yourself in the following post.

why does my opinion bother you so much?

You purport them to be facts and they are unsupported. This sort of irresponsible defamatory rubbishing talk do way more harm to this community than a few inaccurate reviews.

why wouldn't he check the other sites before posting his results?

How do you know he doesnt? and if he doesn't what is the problem? if he got a abnormally bad copy and DXO got an abnormally good copy of a lens, then both should publish their results as they found them. consumers should know there is significant sample variation.

If anything, PZ appears to be more generous in this regard, in several reviews they had gone through a few copies to get a good one. DXO on the other hand, is still sitting on their poor 70-200II review.

The remark about making money is a cheap shot

You didn't get me. Money is good. My point was that he had no real photographic experience, but just started doing this for money without a good understanding of how the specs translate into real life images. There is a lot of criticism on this forum for Ken Rockwell, but IMO Photozone is substantially lower in photographic expertise.

I did not get you because you did not explain yourself properly in your previous post. However, after explaining yourself this time you still have not shown your proof that he had no photographic experience when he started or that he has not improved and gained sufficient expertise in this area which would qualify him as a good source today.

What I provide is a warning that doesn't require a proof. It is like, "Be careful, the steps are slippery".

Such a warning would not be defamatory and your "warning" is clearing damaging to PZ's reputation, you must provide some justification to do so, you provided none.

Again, you are off on what microcontrast is.

I didnt tell you my take on what it is, how can I be off? see how you jump to conclusions?

In a nutshell, it is what the thick lines on Canon's MTFs show.

Zeiss white paper you pointed to us have this to say:
"MTF measurements say nothing about this macro contrast. "

now where is your "significantly better image with tons of micro-contrast"?

Nice try Like you ain't gonna trash anything I post regardless

I am not inviting myself to judge your photo, I am simply asking you to present example to back your argument.

What chance does one have for a fair trial in a fanboi argument?

This begs the question - who is the fanboi? is it :
A, the person who doesn't own a single nikon gear, or
B, the person who argues against general consensus and defends a lens he owns.

But no, seriously, I am on an iPad at a hotel, long away from my toys

Surely if your 50 F1.4 is so good you must have some keepers stored online somewhere that you can just link.

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