my newest camera is a 2012 model, my main sporty camera is a 12 year old model, i use them regularly with different amounts of success.....my brain however is not melted in anyway.....well apart from the odd beer.
You're absolutely right. A personal attack is not a personal attack when the attack is taking place. When people who find enjoyment in both photography and photographic technology choose to discuss the latter at their discretion, only to be bombarded with taunts of practicing pseudo science, it's not a personal attack. When whomever has done so is invited to actively participate in the conversation by giving a logical explanation of why they hold such a position, only to repeat their unsubstantiated claims, it's not a personal attack. When they then resort to unveiled ad hominems, it's STILL not a personal attack.
No. Pixel-peeping is a a term used by some people who seem to be offended by the idea that someone else might like capturing the fine details of an aircraft that they may never have the privilege of seeing fly again in their lifetime.
Claims about what ought to be based on statements about what is are a fallacy.
Insecurity is more commonly found behind denial.
Sir you don't ever hear from me until after the trouble has already started. Surely if you wouldn't start it there wouldn't be any. As you can see there are others who see the same thing.
Robert
That's always true, but two different camera with such huge different in sensor size in the hands of the same skilled photographer, the different in the result still very obvious. we have a lot of people in the local astro group own multiple format cameras from 1in to M4/3 to APS C to FF and few guys has medium format too, everyone ended up carry their biggest format gears even we normally have to hike miles in the woods. high ISO is exactly the what separates the M4/3 apart from the rest of the format.
Supersonic seagulls?
We had a prime example just recently. The winner of a challenge, and a pixel-peeper who noticed (and regretted) a lack of some fine details that were supposed to be there.
why does anyone bother with expensive "sharp" lenses.......detail is so overrated
I have to say that in this particular instance, some of the details are actually obscured by things outside of any photographer's control, no matter what camera/lens they are using and what their skill level is.
Seems a shame to waste money on IS bodies and lenses when a little camera shake never hurt anything. As long as you can tell what the subject in question is supposed to be...
I've seen this all before on different threads, it did not need to be injected into this one.
And the logical fallacy you are making is called false dilemma. Because there are not either pixel-peeping sharp or no details at all.
That is true in general. But the difference between the best MFT cameras and the best crop APSC cameras are so close, that skilled photographers can produce as good if not better quality images than the APSC with MFT. Factor in a 5 to 7 year older FF or crop or APSC, and the latest flagship MFT will win in high ISO.
OK, that's fine, if you want compare stuffs from different generation technologies. yeah, my 2018 4 cylinder car has better power out put than my 1990 V6, so there is no difference between 4 cylinder and V6 power.
