shigzeo

shigzeo

Lives in Japan Chiba, Japan
Works as a Writer, Audio Critic
Has a website at http://ohm-image.net
Joined on Sep 14, 2010
About me:

utterly impressionable

Comments

Total: 1303, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Nikon D850 vs Sony a7R III: Which is best? (1060 comments in total)
In reply to:

Max Iso: Hmmm.....

"it’s simply a question of whether you prefer a mirror in your camera or not"....

But then....

"you can no longer summarily decide which camera is going to be better for a given situation, based simply on whether it's Mirrorless or a DSLR."

Am i missing something?

The word ‘prefer’ explains whatever logical inconsistency you think exists.

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2017 at 14:12 UTC
On article Panasonic G9 added to studio scene comparison (168 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gravis: I compared RAW image with cameras that I have. This G9 is slightly, just marginally better than my Fuji X-Pro2 and Nikon D750 and actually on par with Nikon D810 (just less resolution). Impressive.

I'll take two of what you're on.

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2017 at 16:15 UTC
On article Panasonic G9 added to studio scene comparison (168 comments in total)

Such a nice looking camera and cadre of lenses.

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2017 at 16:12 UTC as 39th comment
In reply to:

aramgrg: Leica, supercars, rolex watches, they only have increased demand because of increased income inequality

@hypno:

Yet again you misunderstand me. I certainly take sides in ththe economic debate, though am nuanced enough a thinker to realise that economics is subjective
like any social science.

What I dislike is bald assertions upon reality that necessitate the application of governmental policy. If economic theories objectively falsifiable as they are in science the discussion would begin and end as theories establish themselves as repeatable, expandable and able to make predictions.

I care very much about social discussions. But I don’t for a moment think that there is an end point to a discussion not so I think there is a right answer.

That said, I stand against the idea that income and capital return must rise at the same rate. And the reason is because the world doesn’t work like that. If you want to control things, you really need to control things, and from a deeper place than mere economics.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2017 at 08:10 UTC
In reply to:

Chriscotech: Leica's strong Revenue growth may be attributed to a global trend of tax cuts to the extremely wealthy.

@photo:

We are going to have to disagree. Where you see ostentatious wealth at the top end I see a growth away from poverty and the middle class.

It’s all perspective.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2017 at 07:01 UTC
In reply to:

aramgrg: Leica, supercars, rolex watches, they only have increased demand because of increased income inequality

@hypno:

I should add: what’s with this catalogue of logical fallacies? Is this 2011 all over again post atheist/creationist debacle in which so-called skeptics were born?

Logical fallacies mean nothing unless your arguments are free of them: and no one’s arguments are free of them. Partisans pick apart the arguments of the other team and ignore partisan fallacies. It’s why I don’t bother pointing them out.

To be an ass, I used to. But it is pointless to argue aimed at the speck in your detractor’s eye because if and when that detractor decides to go for the speck or log in your eye, the entire argument is destroyed- as I may add, the original one is now dead.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2017 at 07:00 UTC
In reply to:

aramgrg: Leica, supercars, rolex watches, they only have increased demand because of increased income inequality

@hyp:

Had I laid down a narrow vat of conservative or capitalistic works to justify my reasons would have have been lucid enough reason to prove my argument? No, it would not have been.

Economics is a social science with no right answers though with observable trends. Of course you know this. But every argument relies on entrenched practices from which it can’t be divorced.

Arguing for the lowering of income taxes for instance requires a narrow look at years or periods of growth in high tax years and refuting them based on partisan ideas. The same goes for the opposite side.

Principles are one thing, reactionary theories another. In fifty or a hundred years, Capital may stand with other classics. And even then it will have its detractors precisely because economics is partisan.

That at least should be patently obvious.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2017 at 06:53 UTC
In reply to:

aramgrg: Leica, supercars, rolex watches, they only have increased demand because of increased income inequality

@hypno:

Well, if your understanding of ad hominem is so broad, why not. You can have your definition of ad hominem. Which may explain why it is you so appear stringently devoted to economic theories, which again, are unscientific at the start, and themselves appeal to one dogma or another.

Had it been me that suggested an economic theorist, and had that person been a capitalist rather than a socialist, and had you pointed that out- as it would be a fact about that theory, I'd not have called it ad hominem. I'd also not have been so simple as to read it as an indictment of the theory as much as it is a feature of it.

Because that is precisely what justifications for or against the idea of income inequality, and their attendant coutnermeasures amount to.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2017 at 05:11 UTC
In reply to:

aramgrg: Leica, supercars, rolex watches, they only have increased demand because of increased income inequality

@hypno:

You are sorely mistaken about ad hominem. What I said made was an assertion on reality which may or may not be true but which was in no way an attack on a person, their character, or anything else unrelated to the argument itself.

As to repetition, a little self reflection is in order.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2017 at 03:42 UTC
In reply to:

aramgrg: Leica, supercars, rolex watches, they only have increased demand because of increased income inequality

@hyno:

Continued-

Whatever is left in the cracks is driven by resentment where the enemy is the rich, or capital return, or the fact that inequality is inevitable and if you want to change it you need totalitarianism at the extreme and involuntary resdistricution at a minimum. And none of that accounts for or fixes human nature. This is about social engineering and freedom.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2017 at 01:39 UTC
In reply to:

aramgrg: Leica, supercars, rolex watches, they only have increased demand because of increased income inequality

@hypno:

You’ll have to spell out my use of ad hominem. Because i think it immaterial to discussion, I didn’t point out anyone else’s use of it. As hominem is entirely partisan and up to personal interpretation.

As is economics. It’s not a science. It ant be falsified in order to derive truth. If a person thatbread and disagreed with Piketty came here with evidence contrary to Piketty it would be fun watching you dig in to your position- which would happen.

The poor will always be with us. And they are being lifted out of poverty at a rate unprecedented. Whether or not the rich and the upper middle class are getting richer at a faster pace is or is not true is immaterial to that fact.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2017 at 01:38 UTC
In reply to:

aramgrg: Leica, supercars, rolex watches, they only have increased demand because of increased income inequality

@hypno:

It’s easynto check: almost everyone lived like animals in dingy caves until a hundred and twenty or thirty years ago. And even before then standards of living were going up as they hadn’t for centuries.

The last century alone is testament to this like no other time. What normal kids have and their parents can afford today is in stark contrast even to even when I was a kid in the 80s.

This empirical evidence you mention had to either be partisan to a socialist belief system or must focus on outlier decades.

The obvious fact is that we are all getting richer.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2017 at 00:53 UTC
In reply to:

aramgrg: Leica, supercars, rolex watches, they only have increased demand because of increased income inequality

@aram

The build quality on leica cameras is far in advance of their competition. The only cameras as well put together are the high end canons and Nikons. There is no one out there that machines as precisely. Add to that exclusivity as a small market both of photographic tools and as you suggested jewellery.

@hypno:

I don’t think of so-called income inequality as a problem to be solved because I don’t think of it as a problem. The poor are not getting poorer. They are getting richer. If the rich get richer at a faster pace, that is of no concern to me, and should be to no one.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2017 at 00:39 UTC
In reply to:

aramgrg: Leica, supercars, rolex watches, they only have increased demand because of increased income inequality

@hyno:

Am I correct in assuming that your argument is that because we read different things, or that a person has or has not read certain material that their arguments are right or wrong?

Because if that is the case, we could go all night long trading reading lists and misses. And by then, we would have evaded the point that the idea of income equilaity is or is not a realistic goal and/or salient talking point.

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2017 at 14:22 UTC
In reply to:

aramgrg: Leica, supercars, rolex watches, they only have increased demand because of increased income inequality

@Hypno:

You accused me of indicting you as lazy due to nothing more than the line I said about work. I'm being extremely extremely fair to you by not demanding an apology.

As to rate of return, that is a secondary and wholly partisan fact that lends itself too comfortably to the idea that markets and other portions of a society must be controlled.

And it's one I disagree with. If you compare our lives today to the lives lived on average for every fifty years down the line I think you'll find the results satisfactory. If you don't, you must be hardline into a hard philosophy.

For instance, you assume that I'm a laissez faire capitalist, when I'm merely against ideology that conflates today's richness with penury for the sake of advancing another social or political system on the populace.

If I'm anything it is against arbitrary control- of anything or anyone.

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2017 at 13:19 UTC
In reply to:

aramgrg: Leica, supercars, rolex watches, they only have increased demand because of increased income inequality

No I'm not. Notice that I actually mentioned luck and unluck. I'm surprised that you didn't see that part. I'm as surprised that you missed the fact that I'm talking about the idea of income equality as achievable, which is the entire reason I indict 'income inequality'.

In other words, you are freely interpreting parts of my language to your advantage whilst ignoring the larger tenor. Of course capital contradictions apply. This is obvious and has been obvious since credit was first used en masse with labour and ownership.

My issue isn't with people, it's with the idea of income inequality as a problem itself. A problem existing suggests a remedy. A term like that suggests a theoretical remedy. But you can't remedy luck, hard work, great/ungreat environments and technologies without also destroying the competitive landscape.

But go on... decide for yourself that I'm writing about you. You are after all an obvious mind reader.

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2017 at 12:23 UTC
In reply to:

aramgrg: Leica, supercars, rolex watches, they only have increased demand because of increased income inequality

@hypnotictortoise:

I'm not sure where or why you think it is that I called you lazy. I said no such thing, nor would I. I don't know you, and as you run a business, I assume you are not, or can't afford to be. I said quite simply that there is no such thing as equality. You can force it, but you've not created equality, you've created moulds, as even in hard social experiments, unless you lobotomise people, everything from their disposition to their willingness to work and approach authority will differ among many many other things.

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2017 at 12:06 UTC
In reply to:

Chriscotech: Leica's strong Revenue growth may be attributed to a global trend of tax cuts to the extremely wealthy.

What is a mammon-based gear site like this doing with so many wannabe socialists?

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2017 at 11:37 UTC
In reply to:

aramgrg: Leica, supercars, rolex watches, they only have increased demand because of increased income inequality

@hypnotictortoise: and none of that has to do with income inequality. The thing is that, bar a hard social or soma system no one ever will live in a completely equal society. Hell, even in our insular photography world, it's obvious: some sites run good content and have talent; others do not.

Some people put in work. Others do not. And, some are lucky and some are not. If the idea is to control for everything to make sure everyone has exactly the same chance going in and the field is level, you will still get unequal outcomes... but you will have first ruined the competitive field.

What is clear as days is that income inequality is a stupid term to hide base emotional arguments that themselves are refuted by the most cursory of glances at history, wages, productivity, populations.

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2017 at 11:34 UTC
In reply to:

mahonj: You have to hand it to them, they have done a brilliant job of prospering in uncertain times.
They have blurred the line between Jewellery and photography to their benefit.
If you want to take pictures, get a Canon*, if you want to look good, get a Leica.
(or Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Olympus, Pentax, Panasonic, etc.)

Mahoni:

This reply system is broken. I’m pretty sure that the reply was aimed at the op what said that leicas are for looking good while canons are for taking pictures

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2017 at 04:20 UTC
Total: 1303, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »