rrcphoto said:
sorry, the entire theory that primes can be used in leu of zooms is silly and argumentative.
Fine, but that's not my theory. It's not even close. I was rebutting the idea that the only use for and benefit of primes is to achieve shallow DoF.
If you want to fabricate a position on someone else's behalf then argue against it...that's about as silly and argumentative as it gets. Well done. :
rrcphoto said:
Stating "They can be smaller and lighter than zooms covering their FL." is obviously not the case, because you simply can't cover their FL with one prime. You're the one that stated it. put up or...
"A prime can be lighter than a zoom covering its focal length," is not the same as, "A set of primes covering the focal range of a zoom can be lighter than that zoom." I stated the former, which was abundantly clear from both the words and the examples, but you somehow interpreted it as the latter.
First, you egregiously missed the context of the word 'light' (also abundantly clear), now this. I hope this is merely an ESL / language barrier issue. If not, please try to 'put up' some better reading comprehension.
rrcphoto said:
and I thought we were talking about the M's here. Not canon's L zooms. Internal zoom endurance engineering and focusing and IS creates complexity.
We were talking about lenses in general, if you want to factor out endurance engineering, compare the EF 75-300 (about as cheaply-built as you can get, the 'silver ring for a luxury touch' notwithstanding) to a prime in its range like the 85/1.8 or 100/2 – the prime is smaller and lighter (albeit not cheaper).
rrcphoto said:
neuroanatomist said:
Sensors are easy to clean. If you're afraid of doing so, you'd best stick with a G-series or S-series P&S.
oh good grief.. now who's being silly and argumentative. and who wants to clean a sensor in the field? what an idiotic comment as a response.
Who said anything about 'in the field'? Oh, wait...you did. You seem to enjoy fabricating strawman positions for others, then knocking them down. For example, you stated, "
one of the nice things about my clip filters for the M that I like is that the sensor is no longer full time exposed to the elements." Should I, then, assume you habitually walk around without a lens or body cap on your M-series camera, so that your sensor is 'full time exposed to the elements', then try and convince you that it's really idiotic to leave your sensor exposed all the time? No, I shouldn't. But it seems like a silly and argumentative tactic that's right up your alley.
One key advantage of an ILC is the 'I', as in 'interchangeable'. If you change lenses anywhere but a clean room, laminar flow HEPA hood, or some other certified dust-free environment, you're going to get some dust on your sensor, eventually. FWIW, I change lenses on my M2 about as often as on my 1D X, yet the FF sensor seems to collect dust faster. Of course, given the consequences of a smaller sensor in terms of ISO noise and framing-based DoF, I'm also less likely to stop the M2 down to the point where the dust is noticeable.
rrcphoto said:
seems you took silly and argumentative to extremes here.
As I stated, manufacturing a position for someone else that bears no resemblance to what they actually stated, then proceeding to argue against that fabricated position, is the pinnacle of silly, argumentative behavior...and something you've done...twice, now. The prize is clearly yours, friend.
rrcphoto said:
So perhaps you should take a chill pill and try again as well.
You may want consider the glass house in which you live, before casting stones like 'idiotic comment' and 'take a chill pill'. But the fault may be as much mine, for responding to you. Heinlein's advice probably applies here...don't try to teach a pig to sing, it frustrates you and annoys the pig. In that spirit, you can go on grunting...I'm out.
