Defining a 'fast' lens

[Sergey_Green]

..
[rubbish]

Note that this was taken with my E-510 and a forty year old OMZ f3.5/28 lens at f/5.6 to get sufficient DoF for what I wished to achieve ...

Several times faster than than, @wide open (I tried very hard to find wide aperture images with something in the corner.),











Please find more realistic examples next time.

--
- sergey

 

[simpy]

Why do you hate us???

Why would you consider this hateful and who do you mean by 'us' anyway?

 

[simpy]

Does it mean the samsung ex1 f1.8 can't be considered a fast lens? What about the canon s95 or LX3 at F2?

Personally, I would still consider them fast within their size class. That's what the f-number tells you, because things generally get very expensive as you creep towards f/1 (or f/0.7 really).

However, as a system they are about as fast as a 4/3 camera with kit lens (a bit faster because the 4/3 sensors are behind the curve) or a full frame camera at f/8. Not particularly fast, no.

 

[Great Bustard]

I have not the slightest difficulty understanding what you wrote.

Yeah, John, you do. Actually, not merely difficulty -- you appear incapable of understanding.

YOU, OTOH, appear to be having great difficulty understanding what I wrote ...

I even went to considerable trouble and used simple words and a simple example ...

I'll explain it again: the portions outside the DOF, by definition , are not sharp. Therefore, you do not need sharp corners wide open unless you are taking pics of scenes where the corners are within the DOF, which is rather rare except for photographing flat surfaces, extreme corner composition, or astrophotography.

This is plain nonsense.

See what I mean? If you cannot understand that the portions of the photo outside the DOF are, by definition , not rendered sharply, then there's no hope for you.

It may be true of your preferred photographic "style". However, that does not for one instant make it true of all photography, which is what you are suggesting that we should all believe.

Let's demonstrate it with a more pretty pic where I stopped down to f/8 to get the DOF I needed to render the scene sharply from corner to corner (I've also posted this for you in the past):

Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L + CPL @ f/8, 1/60, ISO 100



Now what moron would think it would be sharp corner to corner wide open even if the lens tested sharp corner to corner on a flat surface? Figure it out, John. Please.

One would have hoped that someone with "50 years of experience in photography" could understand such a simple point.

I do. You apparently do not ... Res ipsa loquitur

AND BTW this is a straight argumentum ad hominem attack on my credibility that is neither correct, nor logically or morally allowable ...

John, it is exactly as written.

Regardless, as was demonstrated, sharp wide open with FF, even for corner composition, is not really a chore, for the portions of the scene within the DOF:

There are significant limits imposed by lens quality, diffraction, etc. All points that you seem to very conveniently ignore.

I have a whole section on exactly those points:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#dof

That and the fact that my E-30 appears to be better for noise at ISO 1600 than the 5D II (certainly at least as good, from samples I have seen from one); don't ask about the WB.

That basically backs up everything I've said about your technical competence. Check out how you totally contradict yourself all over the place in these three posts:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=31041205

He thought the images from my E510 were every bit as good as those from his D300, and quite possibly better ... It looked very much that the E-510 had better detail in the highlights , specially the white printed areas on the tops of the bins.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=33955043

I can assure you that the E-30 is very significantly better for both shadow and highlight detail than my E-510. It is also very, very difficult to blow highlights when using matrix metering for high DR scenes. This is so easy to do with my E-510, that I always use centre spot metering with this camera, except for rare occasions. With my E-510, the detail doesn't disappear into the shadows, it is just not there at all - i.e. its DR is far less than that of my E-30.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=33945834

BTW, the D300 does as well as the E-30/620 in JPEG and about the same in RAW, and 'holds' this to around ISO800 (truly a remarkable achievement, IMNSHO) - which is why it is my favourite Nikon body.

No, John, I'm afraid we're on two different planets any way you slice it. That's a good thing, by the way.

I don't read your links either. They are mostly self-serving BS or out of context posts or quotes by yourself. These are completely untrustworthy, at least as far as myself is concerned. I generalise from my experience to your quotes of others as I have tracked a few of them down from time to time and found your "quotes" to be highly inaccurate accounts of what was actually written by others as well ...

Here's you playing yourself the fool on exactly that point:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=36479855

It seems that Dr Martin et al disagree with you here, as does almost everyone else ... He seems to be of the opinion that noise is predominantly a pixel-level phenomenon. AND it is very hard to see how it could be otherwise. Of course some (pink and white) noise is added in the attendant post sensor circuitry, but that's what electronics engineers and negative feedback loops are for ...

And now Dr. Martin's reply:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=36482291

I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. Perhaps because the raw data of noise is pixel-level observations, which are the bulk of the data reported in the web article I wrote. But that is just a starting point for the further analysis of how pixel level noise relates to the perception of noise in an image. For that one should at the least take into account how to scale measurements of pixel level noise to noise at some fixed scale in the image, say for instance a fixed percentage of the image diagonal or picture height, or perhaps the circle of confusion. I have endeavored in writings here over the last year or so (basically since Phil's unfortunate blog article on pixel density) to stress the importance of the scaling of noise over fixation on pixel-level noise.

 

[mcabato]

great bustard

think 10 years back, whether there were fast lenses or not.

at that time sensor size did not matter in terms of absolute light quantity and noise, but only to resolution and possibility to enlarge a photo.

and at that time shutter speed depended on film speed used and f-stop number of lens.

and at that time there were fast lenses. they were used to have fast shutter speeds in sports fotography and for nitghtlifefotos. and everybody used fast films if needed. they were available for any cam. and pepole were not talking a f/5.6 becoming a fast lens because of the fast film.

and there the "fast lens" expression is coming from ---> enabling at a given iso a fast shutter speed.

so do not confuse the term "fast lens"

everyone knowledgeable in fotography knows the impact of sensor size in usability of iso settings. and everyone knows that film speed or iso speed is to be distinguished from lens speed.

the actual speed you get by multiplication of lens speed with film speed.

if one would use the expression lens speed in the way you used it before and then does the multiplication of lens speed with film speed as he is used to do so, he would get a completely wrong result - the result would contain quadruple of film speed.

so, be happy that everyone knows that you use a large sensor camera, nearly larger than maximum format with minimum noise at iso 2 million. but please let him
understand this correctly by not confusing him with wrong lens speed.

lens speed is related to exposure, i.e. light quantity hitting each square millimeter of sensor, which then defins shutter speed at given iso.

best regards
gusti

 

[Rriley]

IMO you dont get half of what you deserve

I so agree on that. My 5D is what, four years old? I definitely deserve a D3s and Nikon lenses by now.

clueless
then you are to be surprised

nikon FF by its mount geometry isnt especially s suitable home for ultra fast glass
f/ 1.2 anyone ?

As I just discussed:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=37229068

f/1.4 works just fine for me.

pity you didnt figure that out before blowing all that gold on f/ 1.2

I already addressed that:

whatever it says...
at least now you can flog it and get 10 more sigmas

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=37229261

I have a 15 / 2.8 FE, 24 / 1.4L, 50 / 1.2L, 70 / 2.8 macro (Sigma), 100 / 2, and 200 / 2.8L. If I went Nikon, I could get the Sigma 15 / 2.8 and 50 / 1.4 (see the link above on that), but I don't know if Nikon has a 100 / 2 and 200 / 2.8 that I could use.

youre chances of getting 5 good sigma's in a row is 28%

Of the Sigma's I've owned, the 18-50 / 2.8, 70-200 / 2.8 EX DG Macro, 70 / 2.8 macro, and 150 / 2.8 macro, all but the 70-200 / 2.8 EX DG Macro were nothing less than stellar.

ever closer to 28%

The 70-200 / 2.8 EX DG Macro wasn't a duff lens, though, it's just that the Canon 70-200 / 2.8L non-IS I bought at the same time to compare it with was better, ironically at the two points that were supposed to be the strengths of the Sigma -- flare resistance and close focusing.

Regardless, I'm not so good a photographer that switching systems would really make that much of a difference, although it sure would have for this pic:

Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L @ f/1.2, 1/10, ISO 3200 (minor crop)

minor crops appear to be more necessary more often with canon lenses

I suppose I should say how much I like the grain.

i guess we arent talking whole wheat, but it probably stresses the sewage system in a similar manner

But not as much as these:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=31572663

you do not own Olympus gear.....just why are you here?
just why are you here continually

I thought you asked me to come here once with your question:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=27563516

who do you know that uses UWA bokeh
thats just dumb
WA is about more DoF not less

indeed fast UWA is more about being pointless than anything else, to me its a gimmick

Yep -- just like the link showed:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=36057373

and another reason i rarely open links you provide

You mean you even click on some of them? That's surprising. I mean, why would you bother? You know they're just going to contradict you (like the link above), so why would you bother? I'm not posting the links for you, I'm posting them for others reading. Save yourself some time and skip the links. Shoot, save yourself even more time and skip my posts!

• im pretty sure nobody opens all of those links

Me, too. Roel seemed to like them, though.

lawyers are like that
consider that without crime he'd be out of work

• i gave up when i figured mostly theyre only thinly related to the discussion

No, they're always right on target. It's just that you don't like how they contradict your BS.

pretty far from that, i was more often left thinking, this is way out of context, why is it this dork cant see that

• often theyre tired dried up arguments from somewhere before in yet another character assassination that for some reason you feel proud of

I like how you equate links and quotes with "character assassination". Kinda puts it in perspective, doesn't it?

they usually involve what you would term 'entertainment, and what is really, 'character assassination'

• or more sickening barf food joeisbeautiful BS from the self starter pump club

Feel free to link and quote when I've been otherwise. I mean, I've bitched out a few people in my time, so I'm sure you can dig up some dirt. Here, I'll give you a hand (last two paragraphs):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23703515

I sound a lot like you in that post, with the exception of being right about what I said.

olympus ought develop the self cleaning monitor for them
just sayin

You should say less. Really.

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

 

[mcabato]

it seems that you feel ment by "us", otherwise you would not have asked?

 

[Great Bustard]

Why do you hate us???

Centre bullseye with that question, mate.
Go to the head of the class ...

Maybe after he has actually handled some 4/3rds gear he will not be so totally prejudiced against the form factor ... and anyone or everyone who uses it ...

Oh my:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=36379784

And then there's even this:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37220259

It's amazing the kind of conversations two adults can have, isn't it, John?

It is the first "adult" to adult relationship I have observed you to have with practically anyone on this forum, and the fault has not been the other party's ...

No, John, it's the usual way things go with me when I'm talking to people who are photographers, technically competent, or otherwise unlike you.

Sorry, but this tripe you constantly regurgitate here is just irritating to me, and interferes with you spreading your well-ingrained prejudices, so I am going to go and watch something mindless on the telly, rather than stressing my arm engaging in a mindless "discussion" with you here ...

The OP was in my name, and you came in just to pick a fight. Now that you've been battered up a bit, you leave. Not that I'm objecting, mind you, but I'm just saying that you should put me on your ignore list and not come in the first place. The same with your bud. It just makes so much more sense.

 

[Rriley]

ok someone just messaged me this one from your link which rings of the something familiar to me, something i have also felt

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23701156

Have to ask.

So many posts about yourself. So many 'cat pics' with daughter substituting for absent cat.

Blogs were designed specifically for your needs. Sometimes I look at the forum and think I've accidentally gone to Joe Mama's personal blog!

This thread should be in samples and galleries. It has nothing to do with photography. It's just you posting about yourself and your daughter (again).

I wonder at what point does the same person posting the same shots of the same subjects at the same apertures with the same gear no longer qualify as useful information?

If there were 20 threads on the same 'subject' (in this case Joe Mama) around the forum, people would tell the OP to look at the other threads and add to them rather than keep starting new ones on the same topic.

Use the search function and find some of your own threads. Add more pics to those.

Why have a new thread every time you indulge your wide-aperture-daughter-image-displaying-fetish? This must be almost every day.

It's like you need to hear someone tell you that you have a cute daughter every five minutes. Make an MP3 for yourself to listen to. "Joe you have such a cute daughter..."

Get a noob to record it for you so you know the coms are coming from someone that doesn't know about bounce flash or wide apertures or high ISO...

I agree with you though. You SHOULD try telephotos and maybe even try a different subject. Poor kid being paraded on the web every day of her life.

You post so many pics of that kid that it's a little scary imho. Why not give it a rest, give her a little privacy for a week or two, or, if you absolutely can't help yourself, why not at least post the shots on the Samples and Galleries forum where they belong.

Better still: Get a blog and talk about yourself all day every day without filling the forum with the same ole same ole.

Sorry. But however much the noobs like your samey snaps and however cute your daughter may or may not be, you have a v unusual addiction and I can't see how it helps a photographic forum.

You could do a "Tips on shooting kids" thread to get it all over with I suppose. That would be relevant and helpful to some. Share some settings and techniques.

Hold on let me do it for you: Use wide apertures all the time. Take shots only of your daughter. Looking at the camera if possible. Post them on the wrong forum with no technical info every single day and always in a new thread even if the last one only got half a dozen coms only yesterday. The end.

--
Keep photography wild.

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

 

[Great Bustard]

great bustard

think 10 years back, whether there were fast lenses or not.

at that time sensor size did not matter in terms of absolute light quantity and noise, but only to resolution and possibility to enlarge a photo.

You're wrong. Sensor size did matter. The DSLRs, with the larger sensors, had less noise than the compacts with the smaller sensors for the exact same reasons as today -- they gathered more light for the same exposure.

and at that time shutter speed depended on film speed used and f-stop number of lens.

Film is different from digital in that film has a non-linear response to light, unlike a digital sensor which does have a linear response to light, and where the size of the "grain" is not pre-determined by chemistry.

and at that time there were fast lenses. they were used to have fast shutter speeds in sports fotography and for nitghtlifefotos. and everybody used fast films if needed. they were available for any cam. and pepole were not talking a f/5.6 becoming a fast lens because of the fast film.

and there the "fast lens" expression is coming from ---> enabling at a given iso a fast shutter speed.

I understand that.

so do not confuse the term "fast lens"

I am not confusing the term. I am placing the term "fast" in context, where people feel that somehow an f/2 zoom on 4/3 is "superior" to an f/2.8 zoom on FF because it's "f/2". Not so.

everyone knowledgeable in fotography knows the impact of sensor size in usability of iso settings. and everyone knows that film speed or iso speed is to be distinguished from lens speed.

the actual speed you get by multiplication of lens speed with film speed.

Not everyone is knowledgeable, however.

if one would use the expression lens speed in the way you used it before and then does the multiplication of lens speed with film speed as he is used to do so, he would get a completely wrong result - the result would contain quadruple of film speed.

I don't use the term "lens speed" when comparing different formats.

so, be happy that everyone knows that you use a large sensor camera, nearly larger than maximum format with minimum noise at iso 2 million. but please let him
understand this correctly by not confusing him with wrong lens speed.

lens speed is related to exposure, i.e. light quantity hitting each square millimeter of sensor, which then defins shutter speed at given iso.

Except "lens speed" in a discussion between formats is rather meaningless in the way you put it, is it not? That's all I'm saying.

 

[Great Bustard]

ok someone just messaged me this one from your link which rings of the something familiar to me, something i have also felt

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23701156

Please tell me you're not serious. That's the post I responded to in the link I gave in my post right above.

Really, Rriley. Really.

 

[simpy]

it seems that you feel ment by "us", otherwise you would not have asked?

Just checking, because it sounded awfully like erdipurdi was attempting to speak on behalf of all forum users or Olympus users. I am both of those, so if he did mean it that way, consider this my request to speak for him/herself.

 

[bobn2]

I so agree on that. My 5D is what, four years old? I definitely deserve a D3s and Nikon lenses by now.

clueless
then you are to be surprised

nikon FF by its mount geometry isnt especially s suitable home for ultra fast glass
f/ 1.2 anyone ?

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to correct one of the most common ant-Nikon brand bashes. Of course, this 'can't have Nikon lenses above f/1.4' thing is a story put around by mindless Canon fanboys (originally from Canon propaganda that the wider diameter of the EF mount allowed faster lenses), but gets taken up by other mindless fanboys when that think they'd like a bash at Nikon.
It is, of course, completely untrue. Nikon makes f/1.2 lenses in the F mount.

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/mf/normal/50mmf_12/index.htm

There was a post around here some time ago from an optics expert explaining that there was no real problem getting down to f/1.05 on the F mount:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=25518957

Edit: didn't read that post well enough - he's saying the F mount could get down to f/0.9

Just to clarify something, since I know how people interpret such comments. There is no doubt in my mind that the EF mount design is better than the F. I don't think that impacts the overall usability of the two brands' cameras a great deal, however.
--
Bob

 

[Rriley]

i can be very serious
as you might expect

ok someone just messaged me this one from your link which rings of the something familiar to me, something i have also felt

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23701156

Please tell me you're not serious. That's the post I responded to in the link I gave in my post right above.

thats what im told

after all, you provided the link, and as usual the context about it says more than you say it does (which is really my point). I think the guy makes some points for the learned, after all children are not only within our control, but powerless to prevent this sort of soft exploitation.

i particularly felt the impact of

So many posts about yourself. So many 'cat pics' with daughter substituting for absent cat.

This thread should be in samples and galleries. It has nothing to do with photography. It's just you posting about yourself and your daughter (again).

It's like you need to hear someone tell you that you have a cute daughter every five minutes. Make an MP3 for yourself to listen to. "Joe you have such a cute daughter..."

You post so many pics of that kid that it's a little scary imho. Why not give it a rest, give her a little privacy for a week or two, or, if you absolutely can't help yourself, why not at least post the shots on the Samples and Galleries forum where they belong.

Better still: Get a blog and talk about yourself all day every day without filling the forum with the same ole same ole.

Sorry. But however much the noobs like your samey snaps and however cute your daughter may or may not be, you have a v unusual addiction and I can't see how it helps a photographic forum.

it is a bit OT, but then you opened it up, and your threads always are since you dont have any 4/3rds gear to compare.

But i wondered how you felt about those comments he made, or if you ever even considered any of these salient points ?

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

 

[John King]

ok someone just messaged me this one from your link which rings of the something familiar to me, something i have also felt

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23701156

Please tell me you're not serious. That's the post I responded to in the link I gave in my post right above.

Really, Rriley. Really.

Just as true here on the OSTF today as it was in 2007 in the Canon forum ...

You mean that you reallybelieve that it is OK for you to quote bits and pieces of 3 year old posts, but it's not alright for someone else to quote this post about you in its entirety?

BTW, I have been aware of that particular post for over a year now, but thought I would refrain from linking it ...

AND before you ask: No, I didn't send Riley the link.

--

-

 

[Great Bustard]

ok someone just messaged me this one from your link which rings of the something familiar to me, something i have also felt

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23701156

Please tell me you're not serious. That's the post I responded to in the link I gave in my post right above.

thats what im told

after all, you provided the link, and as usual the context about it says more than you say it does (which is really my point). I think the guy makes some points for the learned, after all children are not only within our control, but powerless to prevent this sort of soft exploitation.

i particularly felt the impact of

So many posts about yourself. So many 'cat pics' with daughter substituting for absent cat.

This thread should be in samples and galleries. It has nothing to do with photography. It's just you posting about yourself and your daughter (again).

It's like you need to hear someone tell you that you have a cute daughter every five minutes. Make an MP3 for yourself to listen to. "Joe you have such a cute daughter..."

You post so many pics of that kid that it's a little scary imho. Why not give it a rest, give her a little privacy for a week or two, or, if you absolutely can't help yourself, why not at least post the shots on the Samples and Galleries forum where they belong.

Better still: Get a blog and talk about yourself all day every day without filling the forum with the same ole same ole.

Sorry. But however much the noobs like your samey snaps and however cute your daughter may or may not be, you have a v unusual addiction and I can't see how it helps a photographic forum.

Except that my reply showed it to be total BS:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23703515

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Find'em and link'em. Please. I'll start by helping you. I'm gonna give links to all my threads in this forum in the past month (besides this one, of course):

"Bayer vs Foveon -- a different question" (no pics at all):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23699066

"Fine art prints" (no pics at all):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23676376

"5D newbie..." (no pics at all):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23611312

"Direct request for joe mama" (pics, but, duh, at the direct request of someone):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23633017

"Open letter to Canon" (no pics at all):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23552319

"Help with 5D and 580EX II" (no pics at all):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23560353

"What's the point of a 5D?" (pics to support a claim):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23440319

"135f2 or 85mm f1.8 for my 5d" (no pics but a link to an old thread with pics):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23485296

"Full frame or not?" (no pics at all):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23469312

"What are your 3 favoite lenses??" (no pics at all):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23464784

"5D vs. Olympus for macro photography" (links to pics supporting my answer):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23459646

"Canon 5d IQ compared to..." (no pics at all):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23421683

"Need a portrait lens for my new 5D..." (links to pics to supporting my answer):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23421036

"Shooting mode poll" (no pics at all):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23321267

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

its a bit OT, but then you opened it up and your threads always are since you dont have any 4/3rds gear to compare.

Yeah -- in fact, every single one of your posts in this thread is OT . Same with your bud, John King. Isn't that something?

Hey! Maybe we can agree on something after all -- this thread is perfect to link back to when you want to show what a "dork" I am, and when I want to show what a, well, er, you know what I want to say, you and your bud are.

Well, that's pretty much every thread, actually, is it not?

But i wondered how you felt about that, or if you ever even considered any of these salient points ?

I answered them all in my reply -- here's the link again:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23703515

 

[Great Bustard]

You mean that you reallybelieve that it is OK for you to quote bits and pieces of 3 year old posts, but it's not alright for someone else to quote this post about you in its entirety?

Once again, you live up to your reputation by missing the mark. Absolutely feel free to link and quote me! But when you come in with a link and quote that you were "just PMd" that was the post that I just posted a link to that I replied to, well, try not to make it sound like I was hiding something. I mean, please.

BTW, I have been aware of that particular post for over a year now, but thought I would refrain from linking it ...

You know why you've been aware of it? Because I gave you the link:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/dprban/joemamaban.htm

You know when you quote my past IDs as if you're embarrasing me? You know where you got them? From my link:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/dprban/index.htm

So, spare me the "I got you" BS. I stand by everything I've ever written. Yes, I've made mistakes, and I'm not standing by the mistakes, but I've corrected them when they were pointed out to me, in stark contrast to you:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28665818

John got it wrong (re: plate formats), and when his error was pointed out, took zero time to investigate what the truth might be, but stoneheadedly kept to his original position in defiance of all available facts, and threw in some meaningless obfuscation for good measure,

Which is merely a simpler case of what Joe spent his time railing against--willful, indulgent ignorance that would rather fight than learn.

Not to mention all these:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=36379784

Please -- entertain us by showing how they were maliciously quoted out of context. I'm particularly interested in how I got it wrong in this one:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=26759020

I thought we had shown that the 5D cannot even keep up with an E-510. The 40D compared to an E-3 is just laughable. ... ROTFL.

YOUR 5D with an f1.4/24 cannot even start to compare with my E-510 with the kit lenses ...

YES, let's stay on topic. Perhaps some of us should also stop trolling? That is to say, get out before the forum police?

AND before you ask: No, I didn't send Riley the link.

I wasn't going to ask -- don't care.

 

[John King]

Why do you hate us???

Centre bullseye with that question, mate.
Go to the head of the class ...

Maybe after he has actually handled some 4/3rds gear he will not be so totally prejudiced against the form factor ... and anyone or everyone who uses it ...

Oh my:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=36379784

And then there's even this:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37220259

It's amazing the kind of conversations two adults can have, isn't it, John?

It is the first "adult" to adult relationship I have observed you to have with practically anyone on this forum, and the fault has not been the other party's ...

No, John, it's the usual way things go with me when I'm talking to people who are photographers, technically competent, or otherwise unlike you.

Careful Joe, your Freudian slip AND your prejudices are showing ...

Sorry, but this tripe you constantly regurgitate here is just irritating to me, and interferes with you spreading your well-ingrained prejudices, so I am going to go and watch something mindless on the telly, rather than stressing my arm engaging in a mindless "discussion" with you here ...

The OP was in my name, and you came in just to pick a fight.

No. Just to educate you to try to help you overcome your obvious ignorance and prejudices ...

Now that you've been battered up a bit, you leave.

You try to beat me up behind my back, as usual, then claim that you were the victim all along.
What rot.

Not that I'm objecting, mind you, but I'm just saying that you should put me on your ignore list and not come in the first place. The same with your bud. It just makes so much more sense.

You are on my ignore list.
That way I only have to read the drivel you write once ...

However since you generally bad mouth me on a regular basis; ad infinitum, ad nauseam ; I do tend to keep an eye on what tripe and fantasies you are indulging yourself in.

If you didn't infest this forum, a forum in which you have no discernible interest other than for your "entertainment" by disrupting all sensible discussion here, I would have no need to ignore you.

In case you haven't yet noticed (you do appear to be a bit slow on the uptake with many things ... ), I shoot Olympus 4/3rds cameras. You don't.

So I really should be asking: " What are you doing here ? ".

Your putative reason is to correct all the mistakes that people make here, by informing us that your mistakes are totally, incontrovertibly correct; whereas ours, coming as they do from decades of experience (in many cases), with 4/3rds gear (for the 7 past years), are all wrong.

Pull the other leg, sport. The above, and your protestations regarding these things, ring very hollow.
So hollow that they appear to lack even a single grain of truth ...

--

-

 

[Sergey_Green]

..

In case you haven't yet noticed (you do appear to be a bit slow on the uptake with many things ... ), I shoot Olympus 4/3rds cameras. You don't.

But you seem to know so much about whatever else as well, not?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=32672729

Yeah, "FF" bodies with 'glue gun' lenses; play dough for elements; sharp like a blunt crow bar ... "Upgrade"? Only for the "bigger is better" brigade ... "FF" will be dead within a decade, like 10x8 cameras, IMAO.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=26759020

I thought we had shown that the 5D cannot even keep up with an E-510. The 40D compared to an E-3 is just laughable. ... ROTFL.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=29168393

This lens [Canon 50 / 1.4], according to DPR's own tests, is far inferior to the 14~42 Olympus kit lens ...

This is when it was pointed to you by one of the lens reviewers at DPR,

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=29168781

So what else have we missed?

So I really should be asking: " What are you doing here ? ".

I would ask you the same question, I thought the forum had something to do with photography, and not just plain bashing what you are completely clueless about.

--
- sergey

 

[Ramón]

Are there any information on the equivalence between pentax 645D and Caniksony FF?

--
My Galleries
http://picasaweb.google.com.au/sadwitch

Ramón