Simply the best Fujinon 35mm

Fujiukian wrote:

And all of that is true and correct. Your images (those ones anyway) don't show the potential to differentiate the f2 from f1.4. As many have said, and is the case, the 1.4 stop provides that potential with the right subject and conditions. Then the advantage of the 1.4 can be accessed, where the f2 can't. An indoor image of a speaker on a stool with no 'interesting lighting' doesn't illustrate any potential and therefore the images are difficult to differentiate.

As I sold the f2 I can't now directly illustrate this point with identical images.

You could select 100 other shots that don't show potential. Potential isn't present in all circumstances.

So what you're saying is that I'm just going to have to take your word on it that the lens has special magic abilities?

No thanks. I gave up on dpreview forum mass hysteria years ago.

Varkdriver wrote:

deednets wrote:

Varkdriver wrote:

deednets wrote:

Varkdriver wrote:

deednets wrote:

Varkdriver wrote:

Since when does number of posts make your opinion more valid than anyone else

Since forever.

I don't mind opinions! But he told me further up that I lack knowledge and further down he is speaking for "us".

Speaking with authority on a new platform can on occasion mean that you might first tell people who you are. And not pontificate as a new leader of any pack.

Clearer now?

"Since Forever"

So you do believe that numbers of posts make your opinion more valid than anyone else.

Yes, much clearer now! Thanks for the confirmation.

NO. It seems you don't want to understand!

I don't have any problem with an opinion, BUT with somebody who claims to speak for "we".

You are doing this deliberately?

When you end a thread with a question (i.e. "Clearer Now?") it begs a response. Your statement of "Since Forever" was direct response to my statement about numbers of posts making your opinion more valid than anyone else. Your statement confirmed my point and I was only thanking you for your confirmation.

To respond in writing is deliberate by definition, but I am not trying to provoke anyone.

Yes you are (!!) by deliberately leaving out my assertion that I don't mind other people's opinions, but I DO mind that people claim to speak for some majority (the "we" or "us" here). It is a commonly used (not particularly clever imho) technique to draw lines where "we" are right - and typically "you" are not.

You are cherry picking something I never said (I never mentioned that I disliked other people's opinion or did I now?)

In our original exchange, I said:

"Since when does number of posts make your opinion more valid than anyone else"

You responded:

Since forever.

I don't mind opinions! But he told me further up that I lack knowledge and further down he is speaking for "us".

Speaking with authority on a new platform can on occasion mean that you might first tell people who you are. And not pontificate as a new leader of any pack.

Clearer now?

(end quote)

So exactly what did you mean with the opening line retort of Since forever?

The opinion about being on tops of the hill with very little previous exposure to the hill as such.

You want to argue. I don't.

Unless you can add something substantial to the issue of somebody who has 14 posts talking about an "us" or a "we".

How long would it take you to understand what "we" want? And then how long to become representative of this group?

14 posts?

Will leave it at that and put you on ignore, just too little time to rub against you. I repect your opinion, but fail to see what exactly your opinio is - and am no longer interested in BOLD print etc.

All the best!

*ignore*

Interesting discussion. Lots of pros and cons on either side. It's a wash.

Ron