Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 72 of 84 FirstFirst ... 2262707172737482 ... LastLast
Results 711 to 720 of 840
  1. #711
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,557

    Angry It was my impression...

    that abusive, senseless, and demeaning name-calling was not promoted by this website.

    If you have an opinion, post it, but getting personal for no apparent reason is not only counter-productive, but unworthy of the thinking mind. I have been doing this a long time and my opinion is just as valid as anyone's would be. If you need to do pick away, I recommend you simply take it elsewhere and have your pointless fun. I know I am not enjoying this rather disappointing exchange and I would have thought and expected better that this from you. You shame yourself.

    Image stability should be available whenever you need it. That is my contention and continues to be. You're lack understanding that point of view is the true disappointment, here... but, hey, it is YOUR photography. Enjoy the extra work.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  2. #712
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    My we have thin skin...I can think of a lot worse to call you. Vacuum...really? You continue to spout everything you say as absolute truth (it's not), when people challenge this, you deflect, evade, ignore, re state, re state again, and never acknowledge that other equipment out there is just as capable if not more capable of taking the same photo that Sony is capable of taking. Sony is not the best system out there, they are just one of the choices, SSS is a consideration, but it's a minor one.

    You had the same silly misguided opines on the Canon Rebel series when you were a Canon user. You classified them as toys, elf cameras, kung foo grip, etc. You effectively insulted anyone who would consider such a camera, and insinuated that it was impossible to get a decent photo with a Rebel. Don used a 20D at that time, therefore it of course was the best. You do the same now with Sony. You are patently WRONG. I've already proved you wrong on one occasion when you finally chose to actually try to challenge me with your silly opinion.

    Concede Don, Sony is just one choice, Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, Olympus, Fuji, etc. are all choices. They are all fine cameras in their own right. They will all get the shot. You bought Sony because you thought it was best for you, it's not for me, Rooz, JR, and millions of other users out there. Concede. There are other choices, other choices that are just as fine in their own right, I have never ever gone into another forum and argued with anyone, your take no prisoners, mine is best because I bought it, style is very abrasive. Concede, You'll never ever hear another argument from me, the only reason I argue is your incessant, half truthed, SSSony BS, touting it as the best there is....it most definitely isn't, its just one of the choices, one I'll NEVER make, but others have, and good for them, I wish them well, but I will never be deluded into believing anyone (including myself) has made the perfect choice.
    Last edited by TenD; 09-05-2011 at 10:14 PM.
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  3. #713
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,557

    Question What is wrong with wanting it all?

    As silly as this may sound, Jim... I would be happiest if Nikon and Canon did what they should and offered "in-the-body" stabilization along with those lenses that have it IN them! Then, we would be on an even footing and picking one or the other would be far more difficult. Right now, it's a snap.

    That has been at the base of this contention since I found out that they actively decided (2004) not to do it, just to tap each lens with a "stability tariff." I feel that is completely UNCOOL and I will not pay it. When SONY brought the Minolta digital SLR back from the dead, I said Canon could keep their silly system... and subsequently sold it off.

    Obviously, if you or others want to pay for "stability" in that way... you go right ahead, but do not believe for one second that I condone such abuse. I sincerely hope they come up with a SUPER-sensor to totally make it possible to see-in-the-dark, too, no matter what shutter speed you use. Happier days than those currently in play. Once image-stability is a thing of the past, for that reason... there are going to be a lot of lenses with a few more useless switches on them, out there.

    If SONY designs an in-the-lens stabilized 500mm f/4 lens, that would be understandable, due to the sheer length of the glass. Most people do not shoot with glass of that length (it's heavy (6-12 lbs), awkward and usually requires some additional support anyway), but I would understand the need. Shooting a 50mm or 90mm... leaves us in a whole different ball park. Lord knows, I have an assortment of PRIMES to consider. Not many Canon PRIMES come with stability. So what do you do? Oh yeah, grain up to ISO-3200 and shoot to overcome this missing element... or grab "Mr. Tripod" out of the closet... as an inconvenient tag along. Again... how hard would it be to simply add this capability to the new EOS 70D and give their users a friggin' break?

    However you cut it, you pay. I gave up being "taxed" like that a long time ago. I shudder to remind myself.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 09-05-2011 at 10:36 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  4. #714
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    As silly as this may sound, Jim... I would be happiest if Nikon and Canon did what they should and offered "in-the-body" stabilization along with those lenses that have it IN them! Then, we would be on an even footing and picking one or the other would be far more difficult. Right now, it's a snap.
    No it's not, SSS is not the only reason for buying a system, it's very minor. I am a Canonite because I owned an EOS 3 and 2 and had lenses already. I'd rather have cheaper stabilized pro lenses than ultra expensive pro lenses with inferior body based stability. I pretty much shun stability for most of my shooting anyway. It's not practical and doesn't do anything a tripod or proper technique with high ISO can do. Stabilization is a last resort, and it's rarely used. Not used at all in your best shots.

    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    That has been at the base of this contention since I found out that they actively decided (2004) not to do it, just to tap each lens with a "stability tariff." I feel that is completely UNCOOL and I will not pay it. When SONY brought the Minolta digital SLR back from the dead, I said Canon could keep their silly system... and subsequently sold it off.
    There you go insulting again, do you wonder why people call you names? You have the same personal attachment to your equipment, remember Canonites and Nikonians do too. We've bought into our system and it's a bit personal too. Not to mention reviews and photos support our opinion on a regular basis. It makes sense you chose Sony, even though as a company they are Lord Voldemort, and continually disrupt technology with their proprietary designs in an attempt to corner the market. It's actually amazing they didn't cut out the Minolta legacy glass altogether and start a whole new lens system that only fit their camera bodies after Minolta.

    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Obviously, if you or others want to pay for "stability" in that way... you go right ahead, but do not believe for one second that I condone such abuse. I sincerely hope they come up with a SUPER-sensor to totally make it possible to see-in-the-dark, too, no matter what shutter speed you use. Happier days than those currently in play. Once image-stability is a thing of the past, for that reason... there are going to be a lot of lenses with a few more useless switches on them, out there.
    And several camera bodies with useless switches too. Maybe one day, right now my stabilized lenses outperform your stabilized body. I cannot speak for Noink but Canon's lens pricing is excellent, their lenses with IS are completely in the ballpark and without they are a compete bargain. Cheaper than Sony Zeiss by a considerable amount. Tamron, yeah they have them beat, but you've seen the light there haven't you?

    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    If SONY designs an in-the-lens stabilized 500mm f/4 lens, that would be understandable, due to the sheer length of the glass. Most people do not shoot with glass of that length (it's heavy (6-12 lbs), awkward and usually requires some additional support anyway), but I would understand the need. Shooting a 50mm or 90mm... leaves us in a whole different ball park. Lord knows, I have an assortment of PRIMES to consider. Not many Canon PRIMES come with stability. So what do you do? Oh yeah, grain up to ISO-3200 and shoot to overcome this missing element... or grab "Mr. Tripod" out of the closet... as an inconvenient tag along. Again... how hard would it be to simply add this capability to the new EOS 70D and give their users a friggin' break?
    Canon's and Nikons long lenses have stability, and are cheaper than Sony's to boot. I would say that sport shooters and wildlife shooters would have to disagree with you on the 500mm lens. Length is where stability is needed most, if I can't handhold a 90mm lens, maybe I'd better look at my technique, or up my ISO...either way, no one's gonna get a shot with stability and a slow shutter speed if the subject's moving. Yes? Yes? Cmon, you are so pig he...oops name calling sorry (not really)...

    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    However you cut it, you pay. I gave up being "taxed" like that a long time ago. I shudder to remind myself.
    I remind you again, you stubborn, half truthed, bast...oops name calling again, I will remind yourself just about EVERY Canon lens WITH stability is cheaper than the Sony counterpart WITHOUT stability, just repeating this argument over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.............does not change this fact, look it up in the B&H catalogue...Sony is not your friend, they want your $$ every bit as much as Canon does, more so when it comes to the pricing on their lenses.
    Last edited by TenD; 09-05-2011 at 11:34 PM.
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  5. #715
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,557

    Question Why do you keep missing the obvious?

    Look, despite your STILL having fun with the name-calling nonsense, I have to remind you that all this did not happen overnight. A lot of tragedy is involved in much of this and one of those tragedies occurred right in the Canon executive board room. If anyone suffered from this, it was the Canon users. I know, I used to be one (EOS 20D, Canon Speedlights, 10 Canon-mount lenses {including the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM}, off-shoe cables, and a bunch of accessories)... and I very purposely cut those ties. No one gets my money for less than the desired product. Believe me when I tell you that this was no accident. While, it is true that I also had Minolta-glass in dusty bags from my earlier SLR days, I had much more "advanced" glass with the relatively new Canon DSLR system, but once I started getting "bit" by the merciless cost of IS-equipped lenses, it became a planned response to blatant abuse of the buying public. I happen to call it: The STABILITY TARIFF

    Feel free to use this phrase as needed (like on every "IS-equipped" lens box you purchase -> "STABILITY TARIFF included." And, as you like to point out, Jim, you do not even make use of image stabilization... but, hey, you still pay this tax! Bang for the buck, right? That's just nonsensical. IS-equipped or not IS-equipped... you mean that's still a question? Not with the SONY-system.

    Zeiss quality glass has a price tag and believe it or not, that had NOTHING to do with anti-shake. You can get Zeiss lenses for Canon... and drop big coin in doing so. Heck, the lens may not even have autofocus. It is still Zeiss glass. Imagine, no stabilization or autofocus... man, that Canon system. Boy-Howdy, huh?

    Again, you can spend your money any way you please... and I will do likewise. If you have found Canon to be your method, then more power to you. Personally, I cannot go along with that kind of abuse (and as insulted as you may feel, I felt similarly... but I DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT) and if a few more people had had the backbone to stand up and not tolerate this horse-pucky, then you might have also benefited from having "A CHOICE."

    CHOICE is good. Wait a second... let me check that, again...
    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    Yep, choice is still good.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 09-06-2011 at 12:37 AM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  6. #716
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,334
    Don,

    It would seem to me that the obvious choice for your camera would be an Olympus body and Panasonic lenses. As far as I know it is the only way to build a full system with both sensor and lens based stabilization. Pick and choose which to use.

  7. #717
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    Sigh...the arguing will continue. You must enjoy the abuse. You do no have the ability to argue in a rational fashion, and, when you do argue in this irrational fashion I will always be there to argue one thing...the truth.
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  8. #718
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,557

    Lightbulb Again...

    Most, if not all of these decisions are based on corporate greed. So, I ask, what is it about my personal stand that makes that any less true?

    I tend to see the idea of giving the people the whole "enchilada" and just eliminate the need for making a choice. That idea should be so acceptable in a time where socialism threatens to swallow up any vestige of capitalism. It is the "one size fits all" scenario, which this administration is perpetuating at every opportunity. Also, throw in the fact that the government should now supply these "one-size" cameras to all of us and tell us that all images produced should "look the same" and inspire the same level of mediocrity, from the newest user to the most gifted.

    C'mon, get with the program, Jim. What's with you? You trying to be, dare I say it... different? How dare you? Creativity is the first thing on the pike outside the walls of the city. It is "inspirational"... like Spartacus and his legion of rebellious slaves were, nailed up along the Appian Way. You have to ask yourself... "Where does the hilarity end?"

    Nah, do as you wish, as we all should. There are significant parallels to this argument and the general way things work. Like I have told you and you well know, I have been down the Canon road... and the tolls are just too high along that way. I choose another, as I am afraid that looks a little too dangerous to my financial wherewithal... okay, you go first.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  9. #719
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    324
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Most, if not all of these decisions are based on corporate greed. So, I ask, what is it about my personal stand that makes that any less true?

    I tend to see the idea of giving the people the whole "enchilada" and just eliminate the need for making a choice. That idea should be so acceptable in a time where socialism threatens to swallow up any vestige of capitalism.
    You really don't care to be in touch with reality, do you? Can you not see your statements are contradictory? If it is corporate greed, that is the VERY ESSENCE OF CAPITALISM. You know, the one you claim to want but complain when Canon and Nikon use it. And to equate this nonsense with Spartacus and the Third Servile War??? Madness.

    I've refrained from personal attacks, but I must say you are pushing me!

  10. #720
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,557

    Red face Experience...

    I worked for a large manufacturer, years ago, who had corporate planners walk through the plant and actually propose material designs that would make it difficult or impossible for others to build on the technology. To me, that represents an occlusion, not development, in the way things work. I am afraid that I am of the belief that is just unconscionable.

    Once patents expire, the market begins to move, again. Purposely ruining a development is counter intuitive and I do not care who disagrees with me on this point. Capitalist or otherwise. Make it and they will come. Screw them and the smart ones will flee.

    Some people just need to wake up and smell the coffee. The evolved leadership in the country is on a mistaken path... and this roller coaster ride is turning out to be very, very destructive. Corporate decisions need to be in the best interests of the customers, not the board room, otherwise you get invasive government and roadblocks. This kind of greed is destroying the very fabric of the commerce sector. Watch Wall Street and witness it.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •