Reading mode: Light Dark

Faux-DSLR vs Faux-Rangefinder? -- IT IRRITATES ME NO END!

Go to last post
Pedagydusz said:
millardmt said:
Well, THANK YOU! Exactly what I was trying to say. Finally, somebody with brains.

Marc
Click to expand...
So, "with brains" means agreeing with you? That is very broadminded. Wait! You might not agreeing with this word either. Then put whatever suits you in its place.

BTW, you realize that you didn't really criticised the "faux-something" expressions at all?
Click to expand...
 
6f6ed9e4f58fb325596a9e9dfdacd370.jpg




--
 
GBC said:
From google:

Definition of faux:

made in imitation; artificial.
Why would an faux rangefinder, or an object made in imitation of a rangefinder, not be a suitable description of a Pen digital camera?

Why would a point and shoot camera that looks like a SLR not be able to be considered to be made in the imitation of a SLR?

Are you using a French definition, or an English one?

Now why don't you waste your time getting irritated by the use of the term shutter speed. It is shutter time everybody, get it right! The speed the shutter travels has nothing to do with how long the exposure is. I cannot believe people have stood by and allowed this atrocity to transpire.
Click to expand...
Your insightful distinction between shutter speed and shutter time provides much need verisimilitude to the forum.

Is it fancy enough for the OP? Am I puttin' on enough airs for the OP?
 
millardmt said:
I can't stand it anymore. Over and over I hear mention of the distinguishing phrases "faux-DSLR"
vs "faux Rangefinder" as if they are substantively grounded.
Click to expand...
I prefer "SLR-style" and "rangefinder style."

I mean, let's face it. Camera designers are deliberately making their cameras look like SLRs and rangefinders. Consumers think of them that way, too.

People know what it means, so I see no reason to stop using those terms.

I also can't help but notice that you haven't offered reasonable substitute terms. Ah well.

 
Let us in the future refer to "rangefinder style" as "Unhumped" or perhaps "virgin?", and "DSLR style" as "Humped" or "Experienced".

Does that work for all of you?
 
Really, I don´t care. If I would want to own a Rangefinder I´d buy a Leica M9 or Epson R1, but for the money I´d have to spend on these I´ve got me a GM5 and a few good lenses and get the same image quality up to 20 x 30 cm, which is the largest format I´ll print anyway, as if I would use one of the fancy ones.


Rudi.
 
No hump = "humpless". Simple.

Also, pretty ugly, but that's just an opinion, not a definition.
 
GBC said:
I would go with brains if you agree, faux-brains if you don't.
Click to expand...
Dear GBC,

Your reply asymptotically approaches semi-pedantic levels, may I humbly suggest we go "full pendantic" a la Tropic of Thunder, by discussing the various merits and demerits of using faux-brains versus pseudo-brains?

Yours truly,
 
dennis tennis said:
Pedagydusz said:
millardmt said:
Well, THANK YOU! Exactly what I was trying to say. Finally, somebody with brains.

Marc
Click to expand...
So, "with brains" means agreeing with you? That is very broadminded. Wait! You might not agreeing with this word either. Then put whatever suits you in its place.

BTW, you realize that you didn't really criticised the "faux-something" expressions at all?

--
Antonio
http://ferrer.smugmug.com/
Click to expand...
the OP's rather simplistic world view is as follows:

If you agree with me (the OP), then you "have brains". I will presume that he also added the "if you don't agree with me, you're "without brains". Clearly, the OP is the benchmark around which the universe revolves, at least along the "brains" dimension.

--
refugee from the Nikon Df dial and grip police
Click to expand...
... why you´re so harsh. Somehow the OP´s point of view aint that bad.

Rudi.
 
Last edited:
dennis tennis said:
GBC said:
I would go with brains if you agree, faux-brains if you don't.
Click to expand...
Dear GBC,

Your reply asymptotically approaches semi-pedantic levels, may I humbly suggest we go "full pendantic" a la Tropic of Thunder, by discussing the various merits and demerits of using faux-brains versus pseudo-brains?

Yours truly,

--
refugee from the Nikon Df dial and grip Police
Click to expand...
...could you explain "pseudo-brains" ( :-| ) a little deeper ?

Rudi.
 
Last edited:
millardmt said:
To my mind, whenever I see a "faux-DSLR" I think to myself, there's a "fake (or
imitation) DSLR"; on the other hand, when I see an Oly E-P3, or "Air" or cell-phone,
or a Go-Pro, or anything else, I simply remark on the endless elaboration that electronic sophistication has made possible.

You people enamoured of one or more of the plethora of mirrorless fake-DSLR cameras
out there, and eager to tout their merits through invidious comparison -- well, good on you. But please understand you're jousting with words, not necessarily substance, and I for one won't wear a mantle unjustly placed. To me, fake-DSLRs have little face-validity; they are, in fact, faintly ridiculous. To me, they'll have to earn their repute.

I'm a non-fake DSLR afficionado.
Click to expand...
I am personally bothered by the new trend of faux-faux-DSLRs, like the Nikon D500. It's obviously modeled after a faux-DSLR, but then they went and put a pentaprism in there, making it a complete fake.
 
cameron2 said:
millardmt said:
To my mind, whenever I see a "faux-DSLR" I think to myself, there's a "fake (or
imitation) DSLR"; on the other hand, when I see an Oly E-P3, or "Air" or cell-phone,
or a Go-Pro, or anything else, I simply remark on the endless elaboration that electronic sophistication has made possible.

You people enamoured of one or more of the plethora of mirrorless fake-DSLR cameras
out there, and eager to tout their merits through invidious comparison -- well, good on you. But please understand you're jousting with words, not necessarily substance, and I for one won't wear a mantle unjustly placed. To me, fake-DSLRs have little face-validity; they are, in fact, faintly ridiculous. To me, they'll have to earn their repute.

I'm a non-fake DSLR afficionado.
Click to expand...
I am personally bothered by the new trend of faux-faux-DSLRs, like the Nikon D500. It's obviously modeled after a faux-DSLR, but then they went and put a pentaprism in there, making it a complete fake.
Click to expand...
:-x uuuh - why did they do that ?


Rudi.
 
I'm sorry. I allowed my comments to become personal. They were discourteous and contemptuous. I can't take them back but I apologize to you one and all, and I do so most wholeheartedly.

Marc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top