The whole MF vs. 35mm format argument in this thread, went on too long. I did not read it all, but however much I read...was more than enough...too much. Why? Because both sides got redundant. Camera format first and foremost, is just a personal choice of the photographer. People are different. Yet fanboys in forums are very much alike...talk about children flailing their arms around!
I challenge each of you, from now on, to make your point with fewer words, and stop being redundant. It looks very silly. If you put as much effort into your photography as you do in typing about your opinions about hardware, you might not care so much about typing the same things over and over.
Hmm. I never made my responses overly lengthy, just the ones who don't know what their talking about.QuoteI challenge each of you, from now on, to make your point with fewer words, and stop being redundant.Well just because it is an argument or heated discussion, the nature of such is going to be redundancy from either or both sides, no? Making one's point over and over again, employing different words or strategies to try to entice the other to come over from the dark side or at least to get to a point where there is a clear winner, even if it's only in one's own mind? That being said, a myriad of examples presented in different forms can somewhat quell the redundancy, yet only on the surface...
The problem is that people often debate different points. Person A will make a point. Person B will squirrel around the point made by Person A, making an argument that sounds related, but it isn't (because the debate isn't about the original argument...its about winning the argument period.) Then both parties continue to argue "their" point, and there is no way to reconcile the debate...its two people arguing apples and oranges.
RL seems to think (or acts like he thinks) the point that was made was that FF will be "better" than MF. That was never the point. The point was that FF is "closing the gap" on MF...a true and factual statement. But that isn't the point RL wants to debate...so, the argument spins around the never-ending merry-go-round...he wins the argument for his point...a point no one else is really debating, but refuses to acknowledge the original point made. People try to approach the debate for the original points from different angles (thus the redundancy, the reiteration of the same arguments in different light over and over)...but when someone refuses to even acknowledge your point...well, no amount of reiteration is really going to matter.
Medium Format vs. Full Frame...Better Gear vs. Lesser Gear...the subject is irrelevant...when the other party ignores your original points and fabricates their own....never ending merry-go-round with perpetual redundancy.
My previous point made exactly.
You do realize that twice now, you have fulfilled the role of Person B, no?