In odd corners of the photographic internet, some lone voices of sanity and good sense remain. This is a nice article that puts in perspective the things that matter a little in photography.
I go to this site nearly every day to read a bit of photographic sanity in a web full of hype and bluster.
Interestingly in another post he wrote a couple of weeks ago, he reported that the phrase “a 2.8 lens is always a 2.8 lens” drew some hysterical responses from those strange evangelical “Equivalence” cretins. One wishing the failure and closure of his site no less.
Looking at this and the Nikon forums in these days we badly need some voices of reason.
Ok, I understand, Nigel, this is a nice change of pace to look at something different than the usual nerve wrecking discussions, who quite frankly are the ones who have to deal with all the collateral damage they produce, but calling the "Equivalence" evangelicals as you call them, cretins is not a good way to start a thread and will cause exactly the same response you are trying to avoid.
I understand that the Equivalence subject aggravates you considerably, but no matter what you do, how ugly you call them names or how harsh or polite you explain your point, they will not stop. Is a very popular subject, and is even encouraged by DPR.
So why not let it go completely even avoiding participating in such threads?
Sorry if I used harsher language than I should have done, but a non-controversial reasoned reply in another thread that touched on this subject got the usual sarcastic replies.
I was talking about the site I linked too and the replies he received, and not specifically about this forum.
Unfortunately, I get angry too, sometimes when I read certain things.
Yes, I feel strongly about this subject, it goes against my long experience of photography and how I believe one should learn this art. Keep it simple is my mantra.
I also think, and I think I am far from alone in this, that the concept in question is very often used as a subtle tool to “troll” this forum. The fact that it is encouraged editorially is not helpful to anybody in my view.
I think he asked you the question, it is in bold.
Perhaps because this thread isn't about equivalency to begin with. It was just used as an
example of how people reacted to the blogger when he made a certain statement.
You mean an example of how people reacted to the blogger saying “a 2.8 lens is always a 2.8 lens”? Sounds like a thread about Equivalence to me.
This thread is about how rare it is to find sites that don't focus mostly on gear.
The OP sure sounded like a thread about Equivalence (“a 2.8 lens is always a 2.8 lens” and "hysterical responses from those strange evangelical 'Equivalence' cretins"), but I didn't read anything in the OP that lead me to believe it was about how rare it is to find sites that don't focus mainly on gear.
Had the purpose of the thread been about how rare it is to find sites that don't focus mainly on gear, I'm really surprised that
1x.com was not mentioned right from the start and that all the stuff relating to Equivalence was mentioned at all. Is it just me?
You can never admit you erred, can you? YOU decided to take a comment that is an example of how people react to the blog in question and say that
someone else's OP means what you want it to mean. That's not only being obtuse, but a tad trollish. I thought you too intelligent for that.
To wit:
"In odd corners of the photographic internet, some lone voices of sanity and good sense remain. This is a nice article that puts in perspective the things that matter a little in photography.
I go to this site nearly every day to read a bit of photographic sanity in a web full of hype and bluster.
Interestingly in another post he wrote a couple of weeks ago, he reported that the phrase “a 2.8 lens is always a 2.8 lens” drew some hysterical responses from those strange evangelical “Equivalence” cretins. One wishing the failure and closure of his site no less."
That's it. No other reference to equivalence involved except as an example of how some people react to the author of the website. He even pointed out this was on a different post than the one he linked to (which I suspect you didn't bother reading, otherwise you would know the OP wasn't about equivalence. I read that article, combined it with the other comments and the title and had no problem understanding this thread is not about equivalence, but about "The Online Photographer" website.
Right now, you're not looking like an expert on anything more than being a troll who has an incessant need to prove you know more than others about equivalency. I like to think that's not what really motivates you, but then again, given your posting history...
Prove me wrong by 1-reading the article linked in the OP and cite where the subject of equivalence even comes up in the article and 2-failing that, admit you simply homed in on your pet subject and disregarded the true purpose of the OP.
