Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Results 1 to 10 of 73

Thread: Photokino

Threaded View

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,421
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    This point-by-point assault is getting nowhere.
    the point by point "assault" is to disprove every untrue statement you make and show it up for what it really is...rhetoric without substance.

    Rooz, if you have a true "SIDE" to present, make it so. In so far as your tear down of my contentions go ... it seems almost arbitrary. I have tried to present a side that says ... keep the two separate. Like church and state. Video may seem like photography, but it is intrinsically different.
    yes, as i said before you have argued it and failed. becasue you cannot say WHY to keep them seperate. if you said...i think movies in dslr is a useless feature i would never use...then there is no arguement. but your not saying that at all. you want to deprive others of their choices based on your arguements which make no sense at all.

    you actually have NO logical arguement. just saying "you should never mix the 2" over and over and over again doesnt make your baseless argument more valid. it just makes it baseless and annoying.

    Homogenizing (STILL/MOVIE) is nothing more than torturing your DSLR in ways it really was not designed to do.
    who are you to say what it was and wasnt designed to do ?

    There are plenty of alternative ways to do this and do it CORRECTLY,
    answer my questions, what video camera gives you dslr like low light performance ? wide angle lens ? dof ? the fact is that dslr's do video better than video cameras do stills. so if you want one thing to hold when doing something, this is the way to go.

    in fact in alot of conditions, dslr takes better video than video cameras.

    without heaping this kind of nonsensical drama into your camera's workload.
    there is no drama. you;re inventing it.

    It has nothing to do with age or experience,
    no, thats right. it doesnt. which is why i called you up on it.

    although having that view certainly allows the argument to be reflective.
    which enables you to do what exactly. this is technology which moves FORWARD. you are talking about looking BACKWARDS.

    As a purist, I am happy with the SONY Full Frames not having to share this "burden" of obligation on the camera.
    whats the burden if you dont use it ? stop sidestepping the questions and just answer.

    There is no expectation of a MOVIE with the α850 or α900. When and if it gets used ... I know when I yank out the CF card or Memory Stick ... they are not full of animated, poorly laid out or poorly lit/composed footage, taking up all my shot space!
    so you want to blame the camera capability for the user's poor ability ? again, you are not making a rational argument here.

    In essence, what I am saying is: If someone wants footage ... get a "footage-maker." Leave the DSLR alone and do not tempt people to do with it what they should not.
    i know WHAT your saying, you;re just not providing a rational argument as to WHY. do not tempt people ? lol wtf is up with that ? dont you live in the "land of the free ?" you know where people are enabled to make their ownb choices ? your argument is just laughable.


    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    I suppose tucking the convenience into a low-end camera makes some sense, but corrupting the integrity of the Full Frame DSLR for the sake of a cheap video solution ... seems rather ludicrous. When you are spending that kind of money on something ... you are probably a purist, to some degree.
    a purist ? what is a purist exactly ? oh yeah thats right...the same purists that objected to AF ? or metering ? or TTL ? or digital ? or photoshop ? the same purists who would scoff at a "SONY" .

    The argument stands that sleazing your images through a Translucent Mirror solution would be ... unnecessarily silly for 100% of your work, just to have a 1% (maybe) chance need for making a MOVIE!
    i didnt say anything about SLT. they are one form...sonys form. dslr is what im referring to cos thats what i'll use and there is no comprmise at all to photos. none. zero. zip. zilch. nada.

    I suggest that it would be better to have the new SLT-α77 on hand as not only a "backup", but your movie-maker (if you must) ... it would be a lot cheaper, too
    i dont want to take 2 devices. i get to have a choice and so do you. your choice is just dont use the video mode.

    Wrecking a 100% of my work ...
    how does it wreck your work ?

    for a simplistic movie feature ... borders on cutting your nose off to spite your face.
    how so ? your analogy makes no sense. do you even understand what that saying means ?

    I suggest you reexamine your approach to your photography. Regardless of how you look at it, that mirror is an inherent corruption to the light.
    as above, i'll use my dslr thanks. no comprimise needed...so your attempt to wriggle out of the old argument you were losing and move to a new argument is redundant cos i'm not referring to SLT cameras.

    I do not know about you, but I did not spend thousands on my well-ground lenses and optically pure filtration just to have some cheap semi-permeable, dust-collecting, fingerprint-harboring mirror corrupt all of them.
    as above. this was about video in dslr. dont confuse the issue just cos you're confused.
    Last edited by Rooz; 09-24-2010 at 08:14 PM.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

Posting Permissions

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