Why so much animosity between DSLR users and mirrorless uers?

[MiraShootsNikon]

LOL!! That shows you how utterly bankrupt the mirrorless arguments are.

When I see a scene like that, the word "compensation" comes to mind, and not in the context of photographic exposure.

All those men, exposing, raising, twisting the rings of all those big, long lenses. Eager to show them off, ready to fight about who's got longest focal length and the widest aperture. Maybe some of those zooms are the old push-pull style, too?

It shows us how utterly bankrupt somebody's something is, that's for sure.

Anyway, carry on talking about the power of your big . . . cameras.

 

[MoreorLess]

You knocked it out of the park with this one, man:

I have been around long enough to know that there are only sports photographers in the world. If you don't think I know this, I would question your ability to reason.

For the record: I'm not accusing you of "not knowing" that there "are only sports photographers in the world." I've been accusing you of being bizarre for thinking exactly that--that there are only sports photographers.

Let me say that again: it's really, really weird to argue that sports journalists are the only photographers out there. I mean, yikes, what about Ansel Adams, Richard Avedon, Dorothea Lange, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Annie Leibovitz, Yousuf Karsh, Matthew Brady . . . any of these names ringing a bell? (Or are you going to say, "I don't know Annie . . . ")

How does appreciating Ansel Adams's non-motocross-action professional work make me an Oly fanboy? (As far as I can track you, shouldn't it make me a sheet-film / view-camera fanboy? Guilty as charged, I guess.) Are you going to argue that what Ansel produced wasn't "demanding" because it didn't involve tracking motion or "require" an SLR camera?

It's deeply stupid to argue that one kind of photography is "more demanding" than another. It puts you in this weirdo spot where you end up pimping a bunch of motocross action snaps as being somehow more indicative of photographic skill than an Ansel Adams still.

Its rather ironic that you mention Ansel, the man would laugh in the face of photographers who think a D800 is "too heavy" to shoot landscape seriously.

That's the reality for me, outside of situations like shooting on the street or perhaps very extreme location work(actual climbing) the size savings of mirrorless aren't really "needed", rather there a trade off removing functionality for convenience and fashion.

Photography doesn't need to be the be all and end all of everyones lives and many people happy admit this tradeoff. A lot of what drives the extreme mirrorless fanboy though is the unwillingness to accept that he's made such a tradeoff.

 

[Paul B Jones]

Mirrorless users have a fierce rivalry with Nikon and Canon users.

Nikon and Canon users have a fierce rivalry with one another.

 

[Richard]

LOL!! That shows you how utterly bankrupt the mirrorless arguments are.

When I see a scene like that, the word "compensation" comes to mind, and not in the context of photographic exposure.

All those men, exposing, raising, twisting the rings of all those big, long lenses. Eager to show them off, ready to fight about who's got longest focal length and the widest aperture. Maybe some of those zooms are the old push-pull style, too?

It shows us how utterly bankrupt somebody's something is, that's for sure.

Anyway, carry on talking about the power of your big . . . cameras.

While there may be a small minority of men who do this, do you think all these guy spent 8k or rented these long lenses so they could pose for this shot and everyone see how big their "lens" is?, look at what is happening. It appears to be indoors. I have shot in stadiums, the light is not that great. The are all in one section because they are not allowed to get on the field or track, they are not allowed to stand anywhere except right there. You think a pro would stand right next to another pro if he could move and get the shot from a different angle? If you were not allowed to get close to the action and it is your assignment, your livelyhood, the way you pay your bills would you choose a wide angle lens? Would you buy a $1500 dollar canon 100-400 pushpull lens when you know at 400 the lens is f5.6 which effects how much light comes into the lens and how fast/well the camera focuses.

Would you buy an $8k lens (now they are $12K) if you didn't have to just to show off to people you have a big lens? I doubt you would be in business long.

This is what the m43 people aps-c people cell phone people think. Oh, I can use this non pro gear and get pro results. And you can, and you may even get 1 or 2 good capture but what these guys are looking for is the money shot, the one that someone buys which pays their rent. They need every shot to be the best it can bet in hope one of them will be the money shot. It is not for compensation.

I see this compensation in cars and trucks, men buying them to attract woman. The sad thing is the women respond to this. For the percentage of men who compensate, that same percentage of women respond, or they wouldn't do it.

 

[EvokeEmotion]

Mirrorless users have a fierce rivalry with Nikon and Canon users.

Nikon and Canon users have a fierce rivalry with one another.

--
Paul B Jones
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulbjones/sets

The nonsense sprouted by the mirrorless fanboys (m43 especially) is doing the unthinkable to me; I actually feel more affinity with the Nikon folks these days.

 

[ApertureAcolyte]

You knocked it out of the park with this one, man:

I have been around long enough to know that there are only sports photographers in the world. If you don't think I know this, I would question your ability to reason.

For the record: I'm not accusing you of "not knowing" that there "are only sports photographers in the world." I've been accusing you of being bizarre for thinking exactly that--that there are only sports photographers.

It was late and that was a typo, it was suppose to say... I have been around long enough to know that there are NOT only sports photographers in the world.

Let me say that again: it's really, really weird to argue that sports journalists are the only photographers out there.

In my previous post. I never said there were, though I could see how you would see my last typo was bizarre.

"It's deeply stupid to argue that one kind of photography is "more demanding" than another."

It is true. Many people shoot landscape. They use manual focus and calculate hyperfocus distance. This type of photography puts no demands on the AF. It is not demanding on the camera so you could use a camera with manual focus and you would not need a camera that is accurate focusing at 10fps. That is not stupid that is a fact and landscape is not demanding on the camera.

I corrected my typo, now you can get back to your fanboi dream world thinking you know what pros use. I have shown you waves of pros using Canikon in a picture. We also know waves of pros use Canikon bodies in other areas of photography including wedding, commercial, street, landscape ect. and we also know as small minority use m43 or mirrorless. But live in your fanboi dreamworld. I prefer reality when I see it on a daily basis.'

You mentioned Ansel Adams, he used 8x10/6x6/large formats. He would never consider an M43 if you look at the choices he made in cameras, he chose pro level best in class stuff. Sorry to damage your m43 fanboi dreams.

That I am not saying is more pros will or will not migrate to mirrorless, there is no way to see the future, but when I see Sony come out with a camera like the A7r with 1.5fps the future is not bright for mirrorless and pros that have heavy demands on the camera and shoot demanding types of photography. Then you tell me the OMD AF is 9fps, but it cannot focus while doing that speed, it is less than 5fps with is lower than many of Canikons non pro cameras, pros in sports are not going to chose that,. LOL. Pros in other areas of photography will not choose it either because it is not pro level gear with the lens selection of the dominant force in pro level gear, Canikon. Again live in your dreamworld and carry on without me.

Do you need a tissue?

 

[Graham Hill]

Anyway, carry on talking about the power of your big . . . cameras.

Actually, I dont shoot any DSLR's much anymore. I'm primarily mirrorless. I am just not religious about it as most are.

 

[Roger Engelken]

I understand the internet is a place where people like to argue for no good reason, but it seems like the normal brand wars (Canon v. Nikon v. Sony etc.) have been subsumed by seemingly more virulent format wars (DSLR vs. ILC vs. superzooms vs. smartphones etc.). There have been many threads either bashing the smaller formats for being unprofessional or useless or the bigger DSLRs for being dated and predicting their imminent demise.

So my question is, why? Aren't they largely best used for different purposes? Aren't many people using cameras from more than one (if not all) of those categories? I would find it weird for people on a car forum to claim that the 1-ton pickup is so vastly superior to the compact hybrid that hybrid drivers are all stupid (or vice-versa). Or to see a computer forum where the desktop users, laptop users, and tablet users all argued about how theirs was the ultimate computing platform. Are cameras different for some reason?

It comes down in least in good part to wanting to justify to oneself why they made this choice or that choice, to attack to make one feel better about the choices one made. Photography and camera systems are no different in this regard, and the impersonal nature of the internet and these forums makes it all the much easier. One can so easily be a faceless zealot and find fault in the choices of others, again to self-justify their own personal choices. People make choices that work for them (well at least now and then), and it is often reprehensible that they cannot leave it at that. There are millions of photography buffs, and chances are no two carry exactly the same personal preferences. That is a hard lesson to learn, so we get hit with the preaching and the bashing. Be confident in your choices and other should respect those choices, just as each of us should respect the choices of others.

Now all I need to find is the pipe in my dream.

 

[jeffcpix]

BarnET wrote:

Rent an A99 for a few days and try to get a feeling for it. If it's not your thing you could always jump ship. Canon and Nikon would gladly take your money as well.

As soon as the a99 came out I visited my local Sony store to give it a try. Better EVF than the KMA2 which is what brought me back to the Minolta line after using film Nikons professionally. When the KM5D came out (aps, dslr, IBIS) I began accumulating A-mount glass. A great little camera but with a rather small and dim viewfinder. And then the a900 arrived -- with the best viewfinder I'd ever encountered. Big, bright and 100% -- and with interchangeable screens (I use the grid screen). And the old Minolta EH-7 eyecup fit perfectly.

I liked the a900 (and the images I was getting) so much that I bought a second body as a back-up. So far so good -- the back-up is still new in the box. The camera fits my hand, has enough 'heft' to keep it stable (especially with the grip) and has a solid 'no plastic' feel to it. And it's not as 'chunky' as the Canon 5D or the various FF Nikons. I'm very satisfied with the available lenses: the 17-35G is a gem as is the old 135 2.8. The 70-300G and AF 500mm are all I need on the telephoto end -- but, as I've written before, the latest Tamron 28-300 gives amazing results (at least for 13"x19") at f8 and paired with the Sigma 12-24 gives me the smallest, lightest package capable of producing stunning results of angles of view from about 120 degrees to 8 degrees. And with IBIS.

Sometimes one is lucky enough to find a product that really suits ones needs and preferences -- for me, that's the a900. Who knows, maybe some day Sony will resurrect it as a 'classic' -- like the Nikon dF.

 

[cainn24]

The nonsense sprouted by the mirrorless fanboys (m43 especially) is doing the unthinkable to me; I actually feel more affinity with the Nikon folks these days.

In other words hilariously enough they are hurting their own cause, in some small way at least. So there's good reason for the rest of us more emotionally stable m43 users to help shut them down.

You do realize though that every single time you take a picture with a DSLR, you risk 7 years bad luck? The mirrors in those things might not break very often, but it does happen. That's enough reason to go mirrorless right there!

 

[Ontario Gone]

LOL!! That shows you how utterly bankrupt the mirrorless arguments are.

When I see a scene like that, the word "compensation" comes to mind, and not in the context of photographic exposure.

All those men, exposing, raising, twisting the rings of all those big, long lenses. Eager to show them off, ready to fight about who's got longest focal length and the widest aperture. Maybe some of those zooms are the old push-pull style, too?

It shows us how utterly bankrupt somebody's something is, that's for sure.

Anyway, carry on talking about the power of your big . . . cameras.

I just printed and framed this post and its on my wall as of now.

 

[rjjr]

[No message]

 

[jayrandomer]

LOL!! That shows you how utterly bankrupt the mirrorless arguments are.

When I see a scene like that, the word "compensation" comes to mind, and not in the context of photographic exposure.

All those men, exposing, raising, twisting the rings of all those big, long lenses. Eager to show them off, ready to fight about who's got longest focal length and the widest aperture. Maybe some of those zooms are the old push-pull style, too?

It shows us how utterly bankrupt somebody's something is, that's for sure.

Anyway, carry on talking about the power of your big . . . cameras.

You're the big winner of the "I can't think of any intelligent rebuttals so I'll just use personal insults" award.

 

[Aberaeron]

All this sounds dangerously like a religion. 'Them and Us'

Have any of you 'preachers' actually read your own posts and those of others on this topic with a bit of detachment? It doesn't make a good impression. In fact I have to question the mental age of some respondents. No names and no references, but I'm sure some will feel uneasy about it as I do. If not, ask yourselves 'why not?'

 

[jayrandomer]

The war was started by group of "insecure" Mirrorless Users keep calling for the DEATH OF DSLR.....in spite that DSLR outsold every mirrorless camera combine.

Well spotted. There is no group of photographers more insecure, nor more scared, that the mirrorless advocate. Their relentless need to proclaim the death of SLR's and the victory of mirrorless shows how utterly frightened they are. Non stop condescending remarks about "flipping mirrors" etc, just shows how insecure they are.

What gives you this impression? I would venture that the number of mirrorless camera users is far far far greater than the number of posters who think that DSLRs are in for immediate demise. I really doubt that "frightened" would accurately describe them.

If I get hit by a drunk driver in a Ford, I don't think I would rail against the brand "because Ford drivers like to get drunk and hit people". Sure, some of them do, but that's a problem with the person not with the car.

 

[MiraShootsNikon]

LOL!! That shows you how utterly bankrupt the mirrorless arguments are.

When I see a scene like that, the word "compensation" comes to mind, and not in the context of photographic exposure.

All those men, exposing, raising, twisting the rings of all those big, long lenses. Eager to show them off, ready to fight about who's got longest focal length and the widest aperture. Maybe some of those zooms are the old push-pull style, too?

It shows us how utterly bankrupt somebody's something is, that's for sure.

Anyway, carry on talking about the power of your big . . . cameras.

You're the big winner of the "I can't think of any intelligent rebuttals so I'll just use personal insults" award.

I do what I can.

But I didn't intend my comments to be "personal," to rebut only one specific person's perspective. No, I offered them for the consideration of many, many people at once.

Did you feel as though I was addressing you alone? That's interesting.

Anyway, you appear to be in company jayrandomer: there's no need to feel as though you've been singled out for stroking a strong opinion.

 

[EvokeEmotion]

The nonsense sprouted by the mirrorless fanboys (m43 especially) is doing the unthinkable to me; I actually feel more affinity with the Nikon folks these days.

In other words hilariously enough they are hurting their own cause, in some small way at least. So there's good reason for the rest of us more emotionally stable m43 users to help shut them down.

You do realize though that every single time you take a picture with a DSLR, you risk 7 years bad luck? The mirrors in those things might not break very often, but it does happen. That's enough reason to go mirrorless right there!

Never had a mirror break on me; I'll take my chances. I also shoot mirrorless, by the way. Just not m43. I'd look into Sony, Fuji, Samsung, and even Nikon mirrorless first, before I would ever consider m43. Not logical I know, but the attitude of some of the m43 fanatics totally put me off. So yeah, m43 would be the last ILC I would ever consider. Ruined for life.

 

[bosjohn]

because both sides are having way too much fun arguing

 

[Martin.au]

All this sounds dangerously like a religion. 'Them and Us'

Have any of you 'preachers' actually read your own posts and those of others on this topic with a bit of detachment? It doesn't make a good impression. In fact I have to question the mental age of some respondents. No names and no references, but I'm sure some will feel uneasy about it as I do. If not, ask yourselves 'why not?'

+1

I guess it's human nature though. There's probably always going to be a portion of people who favour tribalism over variety.

They're easy to spot though. Generally their arguments revolve around belittling and demonising their opponents, rather than arguing through logic and evidence.

eg: Richard.

 

[Aberaeron]

All this sounds dangerously like a religion. 'Them and Us'

Have any of you 'preachers' actually read your own posts and those of others on this topic with a bit of detachment? It doesn't make a good impression. In fact I have to question the mental age of some respondents. No names and no references, but I'm sure some will feel uneasy about it as I do. If not, ask yourselves 'why not?'

+1

I guess it's human nature though. There's probably always going to be a portion of people who favour tribalism over variety.

They're easy to spot though. Generally their arguments revolve around belittling and demonising their opponents, rather than arguing through logic and evidence.

eg: Richard.

Is there any wonder there are terrorists and wars. :-(