“Fear is the path to the dark side…fear leads to anger…anger leads to hate…hate leads to suffering.”

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
LoneTree1 Senior Member • Posts: 1,636
Re: Insecurity of the majority

It's not the job of the other guy to bolster people with the emotional "buyer" maturity of 13 year olds.  Buyer remose?  Too bad, don't take it out on people with tangible experience and valuable advice to offer.

nevada5
nevada5 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,116
Great title
1

That was sarcasm.

-- hide signature --

Stay thirsty, my friends.
I'll try to be nicer if you'll try to be smarter.
It's fun being me -- Denny Crane.

 nevada5's gear list:nevada5's gear list
Canon PowerShot S120 Panasonic LX100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 II ASPH Mega OIS +4 more
Aberaeron Veteran Member • Posts: 7,675
Re: If I want one ....

LoneTree1 wrote:

Anyone with an average income who ruminates on not being able to afford a Ferrari is likely mentally-unstable.

And probably a cow or bull.

 Aberaeron's gear list:Aberaeron's gear list
Fujifilm X20 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Sony a7 III +23 more
ahaslett
ahaslett Veteran Member • Posts: 5,574
Re: If I want one ....
1

Aberaeron wrote:

LoneTree1 wrote:

Anyone with an average income who ruminates on not being able to afford a Ferrari is likely mentally-unstable.

And probably a cow or bull.

Maybe a llama?

Andrew

-- hide signature --

Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin

 ahaslett's gear list:ahaslett's gear list
Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Olympus E-30 Olympus E-M1 Sony a7R +27 more
Aberaeron Veteran Member • Posts: 7,675
Re: If I want one ....

ahaslett wrote:

Aberaeron wrote:

LoneTree1 wrote:

Anyone with an average income who ruminates on not being able to afford a Ferrari is likely mentally-unstable.

And probably a cow or bull.

Maybe a llama?

Andrew

Could be. Poor llamas can't afford Ferraris any more than average bovines.

 Aberaeron's gear list:Aberaeron's gear list
Fujifilm X20 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Sony a7 III +23 more
RedDog Steve
RedDog Steve Senior Member • Posts: 1,805
Re: Sweet Nothing
2

Okapi001 wrote:

NCV wrote:

Brand fans are pathetic creatures, full stop.

The only pathetic thing here is your patronizing attitude.

"Ask and Ye Shall receive"

-- hide signature --

I'm not a perfectionist, I'm a precisionist.
rd

 RedDog Steve's gear list:RedDog Steve's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 Leica Nocticron 42.5mm Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 15mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic 35-100mm F2.8 II +15 more
New Day Rising
New Day Rising Senior Member • Posts: 3,053
Re: Sweet Nothing
4

Donald B wrote:

They are not fans but sales reps. i recon half the members here are sales guys.

Don

That's funny, Don.

You have to admit, you do a pretty good job of sounding like an Olympus sales rep with the way you praise and promote the superiority of your chosen gear!

 New Day Rising's gear list:New Day Rising's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S1 Pro Nikon D50 Canon EOS 550D Fujifilm X-T1 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II +6 more
Forgottenbutnotgone Senior Member • Posts: 1,224
Re: Sweet Nothing

Okapi001 wrote:

NCV wrote:

Brand fans are pathetic creatures, full stop.

The only pathetic thing here is your patronizing attitude.

You may have missed a thing.

Robert

Forgottenbutnotgone Senior Member • Posts: 1,224
Re: Sweet Nothing
4

New Day Rising wrote:

Donald B wrote:

They are not fans but sales reps. i recon half the members here are sales guys.

Don

That's funny, Don.

You have to admit, you do a pretty good job of sounding like an Olympus sales rep with the way you praise and promote the superiority of your chosen gear!

Many are probably prone to agree, including myself. On the other hand, the best sales reps are generally satisfied customers.

Apparently he's pretty satisfied.

Robert

Marty4650
Marty4650 Forum Pro • Posts: 15,457
What negativity?
3

You might be perceiving a lot of "negativity" about this lens, but I don't see it that way.

I see three responses:

  1. Great lens, and I want one
  2. Great lens, but it isn't for me
  3. Great lens, but it was a mistake to make it rather than some other lens I want

The one response you just don't see is "not good enough, it is a piece of junk." That is a response that I would personally consider negative, even if deserved.

I suppose you could consider that third group as being negative, but they really are a small minority of M4/3 users. They are simply expressing their frustration about a product they won't buy because it fails to meet their needs or their budget,

And these same responses are true for every lens created for every system.

Most of us are thrilled to see yet another wonderful lens added to a long list of wonderful lenses. And even though some of us won't want them it, or be able to afford it we still are glad it exists.

Someone will want it and buy it, and it's existence makes the entire system more appealing.

 Marty4650's gear list:Marty4650's gear list
Panasonic LX100 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5 +15 more
Kaso Veteran Member • Posts: 4,480
Re: What negativity?
1

Marty4650 wrote:

You might be perceiving a lot of "negativity" about this lens, but I don't see it that way.

I see three responses:

  1. Great lens, and I want one
  2. Great lens, but it isn't for me
  3. Great lens, but it was a mistake to make it rather than some other lens I want

The one response you just don't see is "not good enough, it is a piece of junk." That is a response that I would personally consider negative, even if deserved.

Clarity. Objectivity. Calmness. Wisdom.

MarkDavo
MarkDavo Senior Member • Posts: 1,485
Read and contribute to other threads
1
-- hide signature --

Cheers, Mark
Wouldn't be dead for quids

 MarkDavo's gear list:MarkDavo's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F2.8 Macro Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Pro Olympus M.Zuiko 300mm F4 IS Pro +4 more
JakeJY Senior Member • Posts: 3,636
Re: What negativity?

Marty4650 wrote:

You might be perceiving a lot of "negativity" about this lens, but I don't see it that way.

I see three responses:

  1. Great lens, and I want one
  2. Great lens, but it isn't for me
  3. Great lens, but it was a mistake to make it rather than some other lens I want

The one response you just don't see is "not good enough, it is a piece of junk." That is a response that I would personally consider negative, even if deserved.

Well you are missing a 4th which falls closer to the last response: it's a 20-50mm f/3.4 equivalent costing $1800 and thus is overpriced/pointless.

 JakeJY's gear list:JakeJY's gear list
Nikon Coolpix S9300 Nikon D5000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR +5 more
NextShowForSure Contributing Member • Posts: 765
“Fear is the path to the dark side…fear leads to anger…anger leads to hate…hate leads to suffering.”
3

Difficult to imagine the fear and suffering from someone being rude about camera equipment rates very high on the scale of such things.

Marty4650
Marty4650 Forum Pro • Posts: 15,457
That is only a problem for non system users
1

JakeJY wrote:

Marty4650 wrote:

You might be perceiving a lot of "negativity" about this lens, but I don't see it that way.

I see three responses:

  1. Great lens, and I want one
  2. Great lens, but it isn't for me
  3. Great lens, but it was a mistake to make it rather than some other lens I want

The one response you just don't see is "not good enough, it is a piece of junk." That is a response that I would personally consider negative, even if deserved.

Well you are missing a 4th which falls closer to the last response: it's a 20-50mm f/3.4 equivalent costing $1800 and thus is overpriced/pointless.

It is only pointless if you use some other format.

If you use M4/3, then it is the fastest wide to normal zoom lens available. No other lens even comes close.

(OK... now I will indulge you by playing the silly equivalence game.)

Your only other options are:

  • a Panasonic 24-70mm f/5.6 or
  • an Olympus 24-80mm f/5.6 lens

And those lenses cost around a thousand dollars each. This new lens will cost a bit more, but it is a lot wider at the wide end, and a lot faster than either one of those.

If price is a problem, then M4/3 has a solution for that too. You could get

  • a Panasonic 24-64mm f/7.0-11.2 or
  • a Panasonic 24-120mm f/7.0-11.2 lens

for around $100 or $200 respectively.

 Marty4650's gear list:Marty4650's gear list
Panasonic LX100 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm 1:2.8-3.5 +15 more
JakeJY Senior Member • Posts: 3,636
Re: That is only a problem for non system users

Marty4650 wrote:

JakeJY wrote:

Marty4650 wrote:

You might be perceiving a lot of "negativity" about this lens, but I don't see it that way.

I see three responses:

  1. Great lens, and I want one
  2. Great lens, but it isn't for me
  3. Great lens, but it was a mistake to make it rather than some other lens I want

The one response you just don't see is "not good enough, it is a piece of junk." That is a response that I would personally consider negative, even if deserved.

Well you are missing a 4th which falls closer to the last response: it's a 20-50mm f/3.4 equivalent costing $1800 and thus is overpriced/pointless.

It is only pointless if you use some other format.

If you use M4/3, then it is the fastest wide to normal zoom lens available. No other lens even comes close.

(OK... now I will indulge you by playing the silly equivalence game.)

Your only other options are:

  • a Panasonic 24-70mm f/5.6 or
  • an Olympus 24-80mm f/5.6 lens

And those lenses cost around a thousand dollars each. This new lens will cost a bit more, but it is a lot wider at the wide end, and a lot faster than either one of those.

If price is a problem, then M4/3 has a solution for that too. You could get

  • a Panasonic 24-64mm f/7.0-11.2 or
  • a Panasonic 24-120mm f/7.0-11.2 lens

for around $100 or $200 respectively.

Note that I understand all that, I'm not arguing for the 4th argument I posted, and what you laid out would be a nice counter argument.

My point was mainly there were many comments by others along the lines of the one posted (as well as some saying it's too big a lens for MFT). I think comments along this line can be considered negative.

 JakeJY's gear list:JakeJY's gear list
Nikon Coolpix S9300 Nikon D5000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR +5 more
ahaslett
ahaslett Veteran Member • Posts: 5,574
Re: That is only a problem for non system users

JakeJY wrote:

Marty4650 wrote:

JakeJY wrote:

Marty4650 wrote:

You might be perceiving a lot of "negativity" about this lens, but I don't see it that way.

I see three responses:

  1. Great lens, and I want one
  2. Great lens, but it isn't for me
  3. Great lens, but it was a mistake to make it rather than some other lens I want

The one response you just don't see is "not good enough, it is a piece of junk." That is a response that I would personally consider negative, even if deserved.

Well you are missing a 4th which falls closer to the last response: it's a 20-50mm f/3.4 equivalent costing $1800 and thus is overpriced/pointless.

It is only pointless if you use some other format.

If you use M4/3, then it is the fastest wide to normal zoom lens available. No other lens even comes close.

(OK... now I will indulge you by playing the silly equivalence game.)

Your only other options are:

  • a Panasonic 24-70mm f/5.6 or
  • an Olympus 24-80mm f/5.6 lens

And those lenses cost around a thousand dollars each. This new lens will cost a bit more, but it is a lot wider at the wide end, and a lot faster than either one of those.

If price is a problem, then M4/3 has a solution for that too. You could get

  • a Panasonic 24-64mm f/7.0-11.2 or
  • a Panasonic 24-120mm f/7.0-11.2 lens

for around $100 or $200 respectively.

Note that I understand all that, I'm not arguing for the 4th argument I posted, and what you laid out would be a nice counter argument.

My point was mainly there were many comments by others along the lines of the one posted (as well as some saying it's too big a lens for MFT). I think comments along this line can be considered negative.

I’d say the point is debatable, even if you have another system.  It all depends on the optical performance of the lens.  Good T-stop, sharp wide open, sun stars, flare resistance etc, etc.

It’s a very useful focal length range for a wide shooter that wants more than 12mm and less than 8mm.  You could see it as the ultimate travel lens.

Launch prices tend to be higher than long-run prices.  Maybe the lens performance justifies the price?

Andrew

-- hide signature --

Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin

 ahaslett's gear list:ahaslett's gear list
Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Olympus E-30 Olympus E-M1 Sony a7R +27 more
(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 7,274
Re: Insecurity of the majority
2

Velocity of Sound wrote:

Pete_W wrote:

My guess is that many FF camera users have a nagging insecurity that a smaller and generally less expensive format can perform so well which makes their investment look silly.

Everyone is insecure. We all want to feel like we've bought the best that our money can buy.

Do we?

I often purposely buy things that are "inferior" to something else, not because price, but because I am interested to try new things, test things and simple curiosity that what value does something offer as it's purpose.

Like I purchased E-P2 and original 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 as I wanted to know what kind quality 12 Mpix 4/3" sensors can offer and how does the camera handle by is software, is logic, its design etc.

For same reason I purchased E-M5 and 12-50mm to company it. But that had as well a collector value for me, the original OM-D.

After 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO I wanted to know how does the R variant differ from it. And then 17mm f/2.8 as it got so much negativity.

I purchased Sony A7r II used as friend claimed that m4/3 can't do so well as the Sony and she was going to dump Canon for Sony. She got to use it for our week trip and then compare results that we both took on same places, only to find herself to buy m4/3 instead.

If I would be insecure, I wouldn't use m4/3, instead I would use something that others want and admire. And nothing in the camera market is such a thing like a "Full Frame" is.

But one and you are going to get amazing photographs as the full frame takes so amazing photos. You have so wide dynamic range that you can recover shadows or highlights like no other system. You get more bang to your money compared to medium format. The full frame is the standard, hence crop factor 1x. The most advanced technology is in the Sony full frame sensors and full frame lenses are sharpest that you can get, they cut your paper when printing. The full frame has tons of resolution so you are not limited in cropping. The Sony full frame allows you to use any legacy lens so you get great budget savings there. When you get full frame no one is going to say that you take bad photographs because you have best format there is. Remember, it is 864mm²!

Or how about being rational. Check that what are your requirements for camera settings, your use of ISO, F-stop and shutter speed. What kind a output you do, what are the requirements there.

Analyze all that, what proportion of the photos are impossible, difficult, challenging, easy, not a problem, with different formats?

What field of view, DOF and shutter speed you can have with a given system?

Build a few setups that you do require from all systems you could use. Compare setups weight, size, price, cost of service, service times, spare and rent availability etc.

Finally, take the gear for real tests, do comparisons not in sake of comparison but for production of the final image. Produce the final images and compare those. And do that as well by using third party opinions on blind tests.

If you don't have camera with you, or the lens with you, you can't take photos you want. If you can't service the tools, you can lose more money that you put to buy it. If you, or almost no one else can't spot the difference in image quality, does it matter?

Pixnat2
Pixnat2 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,767
Respect
2

Tommi K1 wrote:

Velocity of Sound wrote:

Pete_W wrote:

My guess is that many FF camera users have a nagging insecurity that a smaller and generally less expensive format can perform so well which makes their investment look silly.

Everyone is insecure. We all want to feel like we've bought the best that our money can buy.

Do we?

I often purposely buy things that are "inferior" to something else, not because price, but because I am interested to try new things, test things and simple curiosity that what value does something offer as it's purpose.

Like I purchased E-P2 and original 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 as I wanted to know what kind quality 12 Mpix 4/3" sensors can offer and how does the camera handle by is software, is logic, its design etc.

For same reason I purchased E-M5 and 12-50mm to company it. But that had as well a collector value for me, the original OM-D.

After 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO I wanted to know how does the R variant differ from it. And then 17mm f/2.8 as it got so much negativity.

I purchased Sony A7r II used as friend claimed that m4/3 can't do so well as the Sony and she was going to dump Canon for Sony. She got to use it for our week trip and then compare results that we both took on same places, only to find herself to buy m4/3 instead.

If I would be insecure, I wouldn't use m4/3, instead I would use something that others want and admire. And nothing in the camera market is such a thing like a "Full Frame" is.

But one and you are going to get amazing photographs as the full frame takes so amazing photos. You have so wide dynamic range that you can recover shadows or highlights like no other system. You get more bang to your money compared to medium format. The full frame is the standard, hence crop factor 1x. The most advanced technology is in the Sony full frame sensors and full frame lenses are sharpest that you can get, they cut your paper when printing. The full frame has tons of resolution so you are not limited in cropping. The Sony full frame allows you to use any legacy lens so you get great budget savings there. When you get full frame no one is going to say that you take bad photographs because you have best format there is. Remember, it is 864mm²!

Or how about being rational. Check that what are your requirements for camera settings, your use of ISO, F-stop and shutter speed. What kind a output you do, what are the requirements there.

Analyze all that, what proportion of the photos are impossible, difficult, challenging, easy, not a problem, with different formats?

What field of view, DOF and shutter speed you can have with a given system?

Build a few setups that you do require from all systems you could use. Compare setups weight, size, price, cost of service, service times, spare and rent availability etc.

Finally, take the gear for real tests, do comparisons not in sake of comparison but for production of the final image. Produce the final images and compare those. And do that as well by using third party opinions on blind tests.

If you don't have camera with you, or the lens with you, you can't take photos you want. If you can't service the tools, you can lose more money that you put to buy it. If you, or almost no one else can't spot the difference in image quality, does it matter?

And in the end, I'll add :

Enjoy your chosen system and respect other people's choices.

If someone choses FF, respect it.

If someone choses m43, respect it.

Respect.

-- hide signature --
 Pixnat2's gear list:Pixnat2's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Sony a7R II Fujifilm X-T2
NCV
NCV Veteran Member • Posts: 9,580
Re: Respect

Pixnat2 wrote:

Tommi K1 wrote:

Velocity of Sound wrote:

Pete_W wrote:

My guess is that many FF camera users have a nagging insecurity that a smaller and generally less expensive format can perform so well which makes their investment look silly.

Everyone is insecure. We all want to feel like we've bought the best that our money can buy.

Do we?

I often purposely buy things that are "inferior" to something else, not because price, but because I am interested to try new things, test things and simple curiosity that what value does something offer as it's purpose.

Like I purchased E-P2 and original 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 as I wanted to know what kind quality 12 Mpix 4/3" sensors can offer and how does the camera handle by is software, is logic, its design etc.

For same reason I purchased E-M5 and 12-50mm to company it. But that had as well a collector value for me, the original OM-D.

After 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO I wanted to know how does the R variant differ from it. And then 17mm f/2.8 as it got so much negativity.

I purchased Sony A7r II used as friend claimed that m4/3 can't do so well as the Sony and she was going to dump Canon for Sony. She got to use it for our week trip and then compare results that we both took on same places, only to find herself to buy m4/3 instead.

If I would be insecure, I wouldn't use m4/3, instead I would use something that others want and admire. And nothing in the camera market is such a thing like a "Full Frame" is.

But one and you are going to get amazing photographs as the full frame takes so amazing photos. You have so wide dynamic range that you can recover shadows or highlights like no other system. You get more bang to your money compared to medium format. The full frame is the standard, hence crop factor 1x. The most advanced technology is in the Sony full frame sensors and full frame lenses are sharpest that you can get, they cut your paper when printing. The full frame has tons of resolution so you are not limited in cropping. The Sony full frame allows you to use any legacy lens so you get great budget savings there. When you get full frame no one is going to say that you take bad photographs because you have best format there is. Remember, it is 864mm²!

Or how about being rational. Check that what are your requirements for camera settings, your use of ISO, F-stop and shutter speed. What kind a output you do, what are the requirements there.

Analyze all that, what proportion of the photos are impossible, difficult, challenging, easy, not a problem, with different formats?

What field of view, DOF and shutter speed you can have with a given system?

Build a few setups that you do require from all systems you could use. Compare setups weight, size, price, cost of service, service times, spare and rent availability etc.

Finally, take the gear for real tests, do comparisons not in sake of comparison but for production of the final image. Produce the final images and compare those. And do that as well by using third party opinions on blind tests.

If you don't have camera with you, or the lens with you, you can't take photos you want. If you can't service the tools, you can lose more money that you put to buy it. If you, or almost no one else can't spot the difference in image quality, does it matter?

And in the end, I'll add :

Enjoy your chosen system and respect other people's choices.

If someone choses FF, respect it.

If someone choses m43, respect it.

Respect.

I just use both M43 and FF as well as my cell phone. All do a great job when the format suits the photo or even when it does not.

Visual skills are usually the biggest problem with pictures I see on forums like this.

 NCV's gear list:NCV's gear list
Nikon D810 Olympus OM-D E-M5
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads