"abelits wrote:
I don't see where exactly such a claim is made, as applied to kinds of photography that actually are helped by large lens. Some sports (team games, races, etc.) and wildlife photography are among those kinds because they require long focus distances and fast autofocus, however they are a small minority, and many photographers just aren't interested in those.
I would disagree, people shoot children sports which would require similar equip.
Don't invent "genres" on the spot. The age of participants is irrelevant, the nature of the movement is.
Have you ever taking pics at a high school american football stadium at night?
I also did not take pictures of American high schoolers racing motorcycles. You are arguing no point at all.
if you do things that require a long lens, you are justified in having one
Good we are in agreement.
For most outdoor and indoor scenes, portrait and landscape, an FF DSLR camera with a thick lens, indeed has only very little or dubious advantages against a mirrorless APS-C with similar (with focus distance scaled down by 1.5) optical parameters.
You don't understand the value of narrow DOF in portrait (pros know this) and you don't understand the advantage of wide or superwide angle lenses FF has
"Pros" (and everyone else) also know that narrow DOF is achieved by widening the aperture. What happens to be a strength of smaller formats -- a lens with the same DOF and viewing angle will be smaller for APS-C than for FF because the same diameter will give it wider aperture but focus distance will be shorter.
Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with DSLR vs MILC because there are both FF and APS-C of both kinds, and "professionals" use APS-C DSLRs just fine.
You could have a point if you argued with m4/3 users, however again, no one is claiming that m4/3 are superior to cameras with a larger sensor.
No, in this conversation we were talking about how pro photographers do not really need long lenses but were compensating.
No, that's a conversation you are having with someone else. I am pointing out that your arguments on all points you are trying to make in this thread, don't support your claims.
- It is not an appeal to popularity. Canikon pro cameras are made for pros, that is why they choose them, not because everyone else does.
That's not an argument at all..
Maybe not to you, because you are not a pro, but this is where the discussion went.
You are still making a fallacious statement.
If anything, no modern camera is "made for pros"
We will agree to disagree. But Nikon and Canon have cameras that are made for pros.
Only for pros? Really? You really think, Nikon D800 would ever reach production if it was not intended to be used by non-pros? How many professional photographers are in the world? How many of those cameras were produced? How many would be necessary to cover R&D and tooling costs alone?
Your credibility dropped about 20 points with this ignorant statement.
You are still wrong, and this is completely irrelevant to the discussion this thread is about, but merely shows that all your claims are unsupported by any evidence you provide.
We know that some cameras are better for some things. Medium format has its place for a particular look that a FF cannot get in a single shot. We know FF and pro cameras do things that apsc or m4/3 cannot. It is not until Sony realeased a FF mirrorless that even has a glimmer of hope of being able to match a FF DSLR,
That's a very dubious statement, considering that FF is more of a remnant of the film days than some consciously chosen sensor size.
You don't understand the impact and quality of using FF camera. Again, you are talking speculation and false logic, not from experience.
You provide no support for your statements at all.
Improvement of sensor technology make APS-C superior to previous generation FF already,
So what is your point, the sensor tech of current FF is superior to previous generations of FF. But when it comes to noise and over all quality of the image. I would take a previous gen FF over the latest APSC
The discussion is about both current state and direction of DSLR and MILC development.
There are huge numbers of previous-generation DSLR equipment in the hand of "professionals", and they seem to be able to use it just fine while they have no advantage over current generation APS-C, so at very least there is nothing "unprofessional" about modern APS-C cameras, be they DSLR or mirrorless.
It is also a completely realistic expectation that in the next generations of technology mirrorless APS-C will completely overtake APS-C DSLR (see my long post about that), and then FF DSLR (due to improved sensor and more better APS-C lenses from manufacturers that don't care about keeping FF ahead of APS-C).
and there is nothing to prevent them from catching up, however this is for a completely separate discussion.
This was not even part of the original discussion that pro photographers compensate. You are going off on some tangent.
Again, talk about photographers compensating for something is irrelevant for anything but your annoying trolling. The somewhat related point you are supposed to disprove, is a statement "many DSLR users, professional and otherwise, bought DSLR without good reason to prefer it over mirrorless".
Demonstrating that some people use DSLR for a good reason, does not disprove it. Neither do your arrogant exclamations about your professional status.
For all I care, the next generation of the top of the line cameras may be mirrorless with 36x54mm sensor -- should I then argue that you are "insufficiently professional" for rejecting it because long lens for it would be prohibitively heavy and expensive?
What we find is that pro gear costs more and does more things/more capabilities. Amatures often cannot afford pro gear or cannot justify the extra cost. Pros have an advantage. Rating someone professional or not because of gear is meaningless, some pros can get better images with a point and shoot than someone who lacks knowledge with a pro camera. It do not change the fact that the camera is a pro camera or not.
That's a lot of words that don't answer my question.
but they are not pro cameras and do not have the lens support, at least not yet.
Again, complete strawman.
Strawman... "To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having denied a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet inequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to deny it, without ever having actually denied the original position.
Yes, I know what attacking a strawman is, and it is exactly what you are doing.
They are not pro cameras. This is a fact. They do not have the the lens support that Canon or Nikon has, Fact. No strawman.
Again, this is a meaningless tautology, but it only means that Nikon and Canon like calling some of their products "professional", and that you happen to agree with that. Everything else is a baseless implication.
You have not shot sports so you would not understand why FF or pro gear is necessary.
no one claims that modern mirrorless cameras are good for taking photos of motorcycle races.
You are wrong, m43rds people claim that camera can do all sorts of things.
We are not talking about what some of those people said -- that would be a strawman. The point you are supposed to refute is that some mirrorless cameras (not necessarily m4/3) are already suitable for majority (not absolutely everything) of photography that is traditionally thought to be exclusive domain of DSLRs.
If your point is that any professional photographer has to have all his gear suitable for all kinds of photography,
Never said that. I said Pros more often than not choose pro gear, for a very good reason
Again, this is meaningless.
then you are just completely wrong.
We agree to disagree
No, I can only agree that you are bringing completely irrelevant anecdote and arrogant boasting where an actual discussion is supposed to be.
So implying that does not improve your argument but only annoys people. What seems to be your goal to begin with.
You have taken so many deviations from the original conversation I don't know where you come up with this stuff.
" or they may be simply wrong" how can you even state this when you are neither a pro or have shot sports like the one I pictured.
Logic. You seem to have no understanding of it. Even if you are right, your arguments are still wrong because they do not support what you are arguing for.
Sorry Mr. Spock. Logic does not trump real world experience.
Logic is applied to the experience, so it can be interpreted. An illogically interpreted experience is a superstition.
You can study all the child behavior and raising children books, until you raise one, you don't know what you are talking about.
Technology is not parenting. Regardless of that, judging by how people are raised, most parents don't have a clue about parenting even after raising their kids.
Your opinion has very little value like many of the mirrorless/m43 people here because many (perhaps not all) have no experience with pro level shooting of sports/night/event.
My opinion is irrelevant here,
I agree, you have no practical experience.
My opinion is irrelevant not because it is wrong or baseless but because its content has no effect on your claims being completely unsupported by your arguments. The burden of proof is on you, and so far you have produced nothing in that direction other than "trust me, I am a professional".
the problem is you not being able to argue against it in a way that actually supports your points
I support my points well enough, my evidence picture speaks for itself.
Again, it speaks for an argument against a strawman that you have created. Admit it, you are out of your depth here.
We shall agree to disagree. To me, you disguise logical fallacies as logic then take the conversation down a path never intended then read things into my statements that are not there. It is you who is not worth having a discussion with.
And you have the audacity to accuse your opponents in the exact things you are doing. Truly a magnificent example of an Internet troll.
