Yogi Bear.
I did not make up the explanation, I agree that I don't take many photos at a diagonal
. But it is the standard way of doing so .
If it is a jury of our peers here in the forum I am heading for death row
--
That’s only a very limited personal perspective Hic Hic
I assume his own perspective is the only one he has
I think he is having a bit of fun with a number of his posts. Perhaps a snubbed nose aimed at some of the many attacks he has received in the forum
I have not seen his serious efforts so can't comment
I said I use one for serious results. Doesn't mean the other one can't get serious results. Reading comprehension.
We can measure our perspective against expectations and the reality of what others present and achieve.
He gets as good as he gives. That these so called "attacks" are unprovoked is another question.
His attempts at "testing" and user errors are well placed here. I have debunked his own "tests" to the point that he is offering his RAW files to me becuase he is unable to achieve the results presented back to him. This gives me a very good indication of where his "serious" output is limited.I have not seen his serious efforts so can't comment
Thank you for your informative post. Real experience is very helpful
I agree with that, at least! Very nice flowers, incidentallyGary , I have asked a few folk in the forum from different countries now and it seems to be a very widespread phenomena . The lavender patch was the most noticeable to us as it is normally full of bees there buzzing is usually the background chorus when sitting in the garded . I was just reading this pageI have the same nagging observation.Now you mention it, yes.I am sure if I look really hard there will be a bird in there somewhere . Have you noticed a decline in insects in general down in your neck of the woods. There seems to be a lot less in our garden this year bee , butterflies and lady birds in particular seem in much lower numbers. We have a "wild garden" section at the bottom of the garden with insect hotels and wild plants including a patch of lavender which is normally alive with bees.Lupins to you too!ThanksI stand corrected, you do actually take photos! Very nice
A
Even the dreaded midges are down in number down to the 10's of millions instead of billions
A
https://scitechdaily.com/the-great-insect-apocalypse-why-are-bugs-vanishing/
And the 2017 paper referenced
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809
It makes for some scary reading with some staggering declines :-(
Not easy to do unless you have access to friends with the gear in question, local rental outlets or very deep pockets.
You assume I am only referring to this specific comment... The below is just a quick search. A number of similiar comments you have made (which many here I have no doubt would attest to) are along the lines of and aimed at those who are happy to "slum" it with M43 as their standards do not meet your own "high standards" I have not seen any evidence that your standards are high at all. Your "tests" tend to spell out your own technical short comings more than your poorly masked agenda to highlight the supposed deficiencies of M43.
Thank you for a balanced reply.Tom, Thanks for your OP and I hope you won't let yourself be discouraged by the usual flurry of knee-jerk reactions. They always come in droves, but here and there someone sprinkles in thoughtful comments that warrant consideration. That's about as good as it gets on a thread such as this one.
I'm very late to this discussion but would like to share a few observations nonetheless:
- What I particularly like about this forum, which sets it apart from the Canikony ones, is that it gets lots of technical discussions AND lots of image sharing. Let's not pretend that it is one OR the other, and let's PLEASE not demand that it becomes either one. The blend is what makes it attractive and useful.
- Negativity comes with the territory. I frequent several photography online forums and have yet to find one where that isn't the case. Yes, it might have intensified on this forum lately, owing to the fact that new MFT product introductions are few and far between, but the principal noise floor will always be there. Like others already suggested, it is best ignored, and the Ignore function DPReview offers is a great tool I've used several times, for instance for one of the folks you mentioned in your OP (not you, Jim!). ;-)
- As every psychologist will be able to tell you, it is perfectly normal and human that we defend our choices by thinking -and expressing- that they are better than the alternatives we decided against, even if we never tested those and don't fully understand the differences. Let's take that as nothing more than a way of saying "I like my gear", and be happy with our own.
- We are all different in that we shoot different subjects, use different approaches (e.g., hand-held vs mono-/tripod, etc.), handle our cameras differently, have different expectations of the results, etc. That's perfectly fine and good, yet it gives every one of us a different 'lens' through which we look at the gear.
For instance, when someone says, as one of the posters on this thread did, that "pretty much every mirrorless camera is good enough for bird shooting these days", he must have different expectations from mine when it comes to "good enough", or a different understanding of what exactly "bird" means. (This last one may sound funny, but if you contrast the requirements of someone who normally shoots, say, eagles and gulls, as that poster seemingly does, with those of folks like me, who often shoots small birds with very long lenses while still needing to crop because it is impossible to get any closer, it starts making sense.)
The gist of this is that many posts make perfect sense, but only if taking the poster's personal 'lens' into account. Which, unfortunately, is rarely disclosed (maybe even recognized) in full. In some ways, all of us "don't know what we don't know".
- (Alright, here comes the gear talk, finally
I can name situations where the OM-1s will perform worse than some of the others, and I can name others where they perform better. That principle is pretty much true for every camera I've owned. Each body has its own set of quirks and its own sets of limitations, many of which require workarounds in the form of changing settings like AF modes, AF areas, subject detection, ... in order to get the best results. Which, alas, will still not be perfect.
Yes, there are small differences, and yes, I might argue that on average, camera X gives me a SLIGHTLY higher keeper rate than camera Z, but those differences are definitely smaller than those caused by not completely mastering the body you have, whichever one it is. In other words, once you have a decent body, which the OM-1s clearly are, it makes more sense to advance your understanding of its AF system and become more proficient with it than to look at other brands, unless there are OTHER requirements your current bodies does not meet.
I can't claim with any good conscience that I have mastered all of my own cameras, but I at least have an idea of what that takes. ;-)
Lothar
All true.
No, just unqualified opinion - unqualified in the fact that you think that it is true.
The value of any and all photo forums (and many others) is what you describe, so yes, intellectually, your conclusion makes sense. Emotionally, however, it ignores the points I made about negativity and defending one's choices, which I see getting in the way of objective discussions in many cases.Thank you for a balanced reply.Tom, Thanks for your OP and I hope you won't let yourself be discouraged by the usual flurry of knee-jerk reactions. They always come in droves, but here and there someone sprinkles in thoughtful comments that warrant consideration. That's about as good as it gets on a thread such as this one.
I'm very late to this discussion but would like to share a few observations nonetheless:
- What I particularly like about this forum, which sets it apart from the Canikony ones, is that it gets lots of technical discussions AND lots of image sharing. Let's not pretend that it is one OR the other, and let's PLEASE not demand that it becomes either one. The blend is what makes it attractive and useful.
- Negativity comes with the territory. I frequent several photography online forums and have yet to find one where that isn't the case. Yes, it might have intensified on this forum lately, owing to the fact that new MFT product introductions are few and far between, but the principal noise floor will always be there. Like others already suggested, it is best ignored, and the Ignore function DPReview offers is a great tool I've used several times, for instance for one of the folks you mentioned in your OP (not you, Jim!). ;-)
- As every psychologist will be able to tell you, it is perfectly normal and human that we defend our choices by thinking -and expressing- that they are better than the alternatives we decided against, even if we never tested those and don't fully understand the differences. Let's take that as nothing more than a way of saying "I like my gear", and be happy with our own.
- We are all different in that we shoot different subjects, use different approaches (e.g., hand-held vs mono-/tripod, etc.), handle our cameras differently, have different expectations of the results, etc. That's perfectly fine and good, yet it gives every one of us a different 'lens' through which we look at the gear.
For instance, when someone says, as one of the posters on this thread did, that "pretty much every mirrorless camera is good enough for bird shooting these days", he must have different expectations from mine when it comes to "good enough", or a different understanding of what exactly "bird" means. (This last one may sound funny, but if you contrast the requirements of someone who normally shoots, say, eagles and gulls, as that poster seemingly does, with those of folks like me, who often shoots small birds with very long lenses while still needing to crop because it is impossible to get any closer, it starts making sense.)
The gist of this is that many posts make perfect sense, but only if taking the poster's personal 'lens' into account. Which, unfortunately, is rarely disclosed (maybe even recognized) in full. In some ways, all of us "don't know what we don't know".
- (Alright, here comes the gear talk, finally
I can name situations where the OM-1s will perform worse than some of the others, and I can name others where they perform better. That principle is pretty much true for every camera I've owned. Each body has its own set of quirks and its own sets of limitations, many of which require workarounds in the form of changing settings like AF modes, AF areas, subject detection, ... in order to get the best results. Which, alas, will still not be perfect.
Yes, there are small differences, and yes, I might argue that on average, camera X gives me a SLIGHTLY higher keeper rate than camera Z, but those differences are definitely smaller than those caused by not completely mastering the body you have, whichever one it is. In other words, once you have a decent body, which the OM-1s clearly are, it makes more sense to advance your understanding of its AF system and become more proficient with it than to look at other brands, unless there are OTHER requirements your current bodies does not meet.
I can't claim with any good conscience that I have mastered all of my own cameras, but I at least have an idea of what that takes. ;-)
Lothar
So if we start from your viewpoint that all modern mirrorless cameras have good and bad points (a view with which I agree) the value of this forum is in helping M4/3 users to get the most out of our cameras, not trying to score points for or against the format.
Following from the above premise, it is easy to pick an area where M4/3 does less well than another format. Rather than presenting the point as a reason to knock the gear, it would be more helpful (and adult rather than school playground behaviour) to suggest ways to overcome the shortcoming.
I guess it is the common failure to behave this way, with too many negative and unconstructive posts which led me to start the thread.
Andy Rouse stated on his youtube videos that he moved to Sony because the various agencies he was signed up with were asking for larger files. The RSPB for example, now ask for 25mb uncompressed. This rules out the OM-1
