If you've decided on Coolpix A instead of X100s, please share your thinking.

Started Mar 8, 2013 | Discussions thread
Velu Contributing Member • Posts: 505
Re: If you've decided on Coolpix A instead of X100s, please share your thinking.

Ray Sachs wrote:

leoda wrote:

@ Ray Sachs

Your postings on this thread are overbearing and obnoxious, and personally insulting of the people you are responding to.

If you want to improve your credibility, improve your manners.

Hey, people are entitled to like one camera over another and say why a set of features are better to THEM and I don't have ANY problem with that. But if someone is going to claim that to be a 'photographer', you MUST USE A VIEWFINDER, thereby denigrating all of the photographers who've used cut glass or LCDs or whatever to compose their images as "non-photographers", I'll come at them with all guns blazing and I'll be as nasty and overbearing as they are. If you can show me how I responded in an overbearing and obnoxious way when someone is just stating their case as an opinion without insulting a whole class of people who see photography differently than they do, I'll apologize. But in the case of this particular post, i was probably too nice.

Look, I have an X-Pro - its probably my favorite of my cameras. I shoot it both with and without the viewfinder(s). I have other cameras that have viewfinders and a couple that don't. I will never insult people who prefer to shoot with viewfinders. But if someone who prefers to shoot with viewfinders insults everyone who feels differently by suggesting they're not photographers, I'm going to get right up in their face and be as insulting to them as they just were to a whole class of photographers. And if he CAN differentiate which photographs were taken with and without viewfinders, I'll give him credit for that. But I'm betting he can't, disproving his ridiculous claim.

Looking back at my posts in this thread, I've arguably been obnoxious twice - in both cases to people who claimed that a camera could not be a good camera without a viewfinder. The first guy did not personalize it and claim that those using the non-viewfinder camera were less photographers, just that we were using inferior tools. I used sarcasm in my response. Perhaps I should have toned that one down a bit and still made my point. But the guy in this sub-thread portion of the thread who personally insulted all photographers who choose to shoot without a viewfinder deserved all I could give him and much more that I held back. In retrospect, I'll offer a partial apology for that earlier post, but not the one to this guy - no way.

-Ray
-------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/collections/72157626204295198/

Yes, Velu is from Belgium and NO, English is not his first language, it's actually his fourth ( Dutch/fFlemish, French and German are the official ones over here ! )

Ray, you were probably too nice. Any jerk deserves such reaction, only ... isn't there a saying in English ... "Never assume !" ?

My comment wasn't meant in a "jerky" way.

At first I did choose not to reply but in order to clear the air I'd like to emphasize a few things.

This is my original mail:

" I'm a photographer ... and therefore would not even consider a camera without a viewfinder !

I did not say you can't take great pictures with a "point n shoot", but again ... as a photographer ... NO ... plenty of reasons !"

You read " if you use a camera without a VF, you are not a photographer" ...

I mention that I am a photographer and perhaps this is a first "language barrier"-error.

A "photographer" over here means that you make a living (regardless if that's partly or 100%) by taking pictures, and that's, for several reasons, just not feasable doing so with a camera without VF).

( agreeing or disagreeing with that, we can discuss ...)

THEREFORE , having the choice between two camera's, I'd not even consider the one without a VF !

This might (or might not) clear the air ...

In order to reply the OP I prefer to provide facts. Image quality-wise, no one can tell (yet) ... size, you can ... and size is obvious for anyone ... but the lack or presence of a VF is not that obvious to everyone !

A number of posts here mention the lack of a VF. You "defend" and proof that working without is feasable, but please don't forget, owning several camera's with/without VF provides you with the CHOICE !

There are circumstances and moments you just can't use an lcd. At times using a VF can be more discrete ! Correct framing ... and so on ...

My question to you ... if you have to make the choice ... camera with or without VF ... what's it gonna be ?

By the way, you did post a number of nice "photographs", but unfortunately I'm not a genius so ...

Best regards

Velu

PS  By the way, the only "connection"  I have with H.C.B. is the fact that he had a viewfinder but he even managed to take great pictures through a hole in a fence with his viewfinder blocked

-- hide signature --

www.veluart.com

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