I don't know what the heck you are talking about. go find your sense of humer before you come back. Your accusations are nonsense.
John
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
I was happy...
- Thread starter Hope1943
- Start date
John
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
“I trust that every photographer here appreciates the sacrifice that Comrade Bustard has made in taking this extra labour upon himself. Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure! On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Bustard that all formats are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”
;-)
rurikw
Senior Member
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Forgottenbutnotgone
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,745
- Reaction score
- 2,742
No, I didn't miss it at all. But the context in which he said it was in regard to what someone accused him of saying versus what he actually said, IE the source. I will assume you missed that. I will also assume you missed the fact that he has on several occasions referred to Richard Butler's writings on the subject. I would also assume that the capitalized word "THE" is not capitalized in his hyperlink, only in your question. What led you to that interpretation over the one that would seem to be far easier to obtain from the context of the conversation?
You ( not you) accused me of saying something, I didn't say it. Let me "quote" from the source.
Not to mention, this misquoting thing is nothing new. It took me exactly 3 minutes to find an example thread of more of the same kind of stuff. I just picked a post in the thread but you can certainly read more of them if you'd like.
In contrast - the ridiculous notion that...
Well, you have to know what you want, If you buy a Ferrari you also will face major disappointment when you try using it as towing vehicle for a caravan. That is kind of a poor example. The difference is that for your cash, you will get an ultra high performance vehicle that compromises utility...
Robert
Last edited:
Forgottenbutnotgone
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,745
- Reaction score
- 2,742
Join the club. No one knew what the heck you were talking about from your original post up until now especially if it was an attempt at humor.
Robert
FingerPainter
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,593
- Solutions
- 37
- Reaction score
- 13,643
I don't believe it violates rule #7, as I didn't identify which relative it is. So I guess that means I've broken rules #12 and #14. Let me rectify that:
(Nice whiskers!)
Forgottenbutnotgone
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,745
- Reaction score
- 2,742
I'm not oblivious at all and still enjoying FT and mft. The fact that there are faster cars than mine does not lessen the enjoyment I get from driving the one I have at all. But it also does not make me foolishly proclaim that my car is definitely the fastest no matter what common sense says.
I've more than paid for every piece of equipment I own selling prints, portraits, 2nd shooter at weddings etc. People that understand equivalence realize there is nothing to be butt-hurt about no matter what format you shoot with, especially since equivalence helps explain why to a large degree the shooting envelopes of mft/FF overlap. It helps to point out how to overcome noise in a smaller sensor, how to use IS as Olympus intended, to help put more light on the mft sensor and how there is no sleight of hand that overcomes the realities of total light.
People who are offended by Equivalence don't really understand it.
Robert
Forgottenbutnotgone
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,745
- Reaction score
- 2,742
Which is exactly what some people who only shoot with m4/3s just cannot seem to prevent them selves from doing. Constantly comparing their gear to FF.
Robert
Mark Ransom
Veteran Member
Sometimes it's not a matter of which system is better, just which system is optimized for the kind of pictures you want to take. For example if you're really into the shallow DOF look, you should really be considering FF. It's not that m4/3 can't do it, just that FF will do it easier and possibly cheaper.
The difference between FF and APS-C is much smaller than the difference between FF and m4/3, so there's less incentive to call out the differences. Plus most manufacturers that offer APS-C also offer FF, so there's an upgrade path if you find yourself tempted. The manufacturers aren't going to offer equivalent options, because they really want you to think your only option is to spend thousands of dollars on new equipment.
I've never hung out in the Fuji forum, I'd be curious to know if it ever comes up there.
Robert, that's patently not true!
GB mentioned "the source", rather than "a source" which to me suggested that his web page was the original source of writing/information on equivalence.
There was no implied criticism in my question - I was honestly curious to know if GB was the person who invented or first wrote about the concept of photographic equivalence because he is an expert on the subject matter and it's entirely possible that he was that person.
GB responded and apologised for the inference that his web page was the original source of information to which I responded 'no need to apologise' because I honestly was curious to know if he was the originator of the concept.
I went on to say that GB always explains equivalence clearly and fairly and patiently.
So there is simply no need for you to get so defensive on behalf of GB. I know that some forum users have attacked GB over his posts about equivalence but I would say he is big and strong enough to handle them and he always does so with intelligence, grace, humour and aplomb.
Now, having seen a few of your other posts in this thread, I think you may need to go and have a good lie down, stop over-reacting and being so melodramatic.
--
Pete
Last edited:
rovingtim
Veteran Member
They are the ones that need equivalence the most.
Doug Janis
Leading Member
- Messages
- 860
- Reaction score
- 1,194
Then why are they on DPR?
It's a review website specializing in format and brand comparisons.
Even the forums are divided along those lines.
Wellington100
Forum Pro
Equivalence is rapidly becoming a big nothing burger now that the market is settling on FF as the future sensor size for most cameras.
Anyway phone and action camera users care not a whit about it and they account for 90 percent of the market these days.
Anyway phone and action camera users care not a whit about it and they account for 90 percent of the market these days.
bobn2
Forum Pro
It does happen on particular forums where some people think they got something for nothing by buying a camera with a smaller sensor. One example was the 'Nikon Pro DX' forum, centred on the Nikon Dx00 cameras, which some buyers used to think of as smaller versions of the Nikon FX pro range, and wouldn't accept that there was a reason why their cameras cost half the price of the FX cameras.
Eric Nepean
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 6,418
- Solutions
- 8
- Reaction score
- 4,069
[No message]
cameron2
Senior Member
I don't mean to be a d!ck about this, but who elected you sheriff here? Seriously, I've noticed that a significant number of your posts are horribly negative and really drag down the level of discourse in this forum. I'm going to block you, not because I don't like you, and not because you're necessarily "wrong" about something technical, but because so many of your negative posts recently have made it truly awful to be here at all.
For me, photography is a joy. Yeah, I'm not very good at it. Yeah, I spend way too much money on it. Yeah, I like gear way too much and shoot way too little. But it's a joy. Please don't ruin that joy for others.
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
So you thought covering up the body with a Minecraft Uzi was somehow better? What is this world coming to?! :-DI don't believe it violates rule #7, as I didn't identify which relative it is. So I guess that means I've broken rules #12 and #14. Let me rectify that:
(Nice whiskers!)
Forgottenbutnotgone
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,745
- Reaction score
- 2,742
They are the ones who don't need it. They are mostly not comparing learn, but to make fun of FF in order to feel good about their camera choice.
There are a number of people who honestly seem to not care about being happy with their equipment, oh no. They need everyone else to be happy with their equipment choice. Not only that but they need for those same people to make fun of FF along with them.
Start paying attention to FF comparison threads and you'll see I'm not making this up.
Robert
MrALLCAPS
Senior Member
So true on so many levels. It's denial and trying to be big with a small sensor.
In actualty, if they would just leave FF alone and just keep it M43, positivity would flourish.
But they can't, they're Bitter.
It cracks me up when they act like they're the victims. The same victim that posts "FF is for losers" or "fool frame".
With the latest news however, the jokes on them.
While I don't doubt this is the case for some, you and Robert could probably take some responsibility for throwing fuel on the fire through antagonistic rebuttals.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum