Why Waiting for The Next Rf Body Is So Frustrating

[Ozarker]

Golden ratio on steroids. Ming is a living genius

Absolutely!

 

[SecureGSM]

Depending on your target audience. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Training a neural network to select (or even actively seek) "golden ratio on steroids" images should not be a hard task.

there is a bit more to the image above then just a 2D geometry. as you would appreciate. It takes a genius to create what Ming does.
i hope you can see that.

 

[Ozarker]

No, it’s actually “not made for that” or simply; using the wrong tool. Nothing wrong with this Phillips screwdriver, but that is a flathead screw.

You don’t go up against F1 cars at their track in a WRC car, or the other way around.

 

[Kit.]

there is a bit more to the image above then just a 2D geometry. as you would appreciate. It takes a genius to create what Ming does.
i hope you can see that.

There is a bit more to a neural network than "just a 2D geometry".

For a neural network, it is much easier to represent a "genius" than to represent an "ordinary" person.

 

[tron]

I would just say that anyone who finds the R a 'hindrance to taking good photos should give up photography and stick to fingerpainting. Fact is there is no new ILC on the market that is a hindrance to taking good photos

This is YOUR opinion. My DSLRs (5DsR, 5DIV, 7DII) are certainly NOT a hindrance for me but EOS R would be. I like taking bird photos and I do not even want to spend time and money trying this thing. Plus my big white teles are just fine without any need for an additional EF-RF adapter. Now don't say you meant for everything but bird shooting because there are also sports photographers (I am not) out there.

Now when the new RF15-35 2.8 L IS and RF24-70 2.8L IS come out (and get a little cheaper) I would be tempted too for the other part of my hobby: taking pictures inside churches and museums. These two lenses would make a killer combination with an EOS R, even with an EOS RP!

But there are cases where EOS R is a hindrance. Let's don't express such absolute statements.

EDIT: SORRY! As I mentioned below I misinterpreted the ILC term. I thought it was referring to mirrorless cameras but obviously the "Interchangeable lenses" term covers both DSLRs and mirrorless.

 

[Ozarker]

This is YOUR opinion. My DSLRs (5DsR, 5DIV, 7DII) are certainly NOT a hindrance for me but EOS R would be. I like taking bird photos and I do not even want to spend time and money trying this thing. Plus my big white teles are just fine without any need for an additional EF-RF adapter. Now don't say you meant for everything but bird shooting because there are also sports photographers (I am not) out there.

Now when the new RF15-35 2.8 L IS and RF24-70 2.8L IS come out (and get a little cheaper) I would be tempted too for the other part of my hobby: taking pictures inside churches and museums. These would make a killer combination with an EOS R, even with an EOS RP!

But there are cases where EOS R is a hindrance. Let's don't express such absolute statements.

You miss the point and have not read through the thread. This is what we were responding to... an absolutist statement by somebody else saying that the R is, essentially, not a good camera. "Ten years ago we all would have killed for a camera like the R. But, today it's lackluster enough that it's seen as an unacceptable hindrance to taking good photos. " ----> KitLensJockey

So while it might be a hindrance to YOU and what YOU do, it is not a camera incapable of good photos, which is what the blanket statement is saying. NO camera is one size fits all. The R is anything but lackluster. The OP did not specify a genre. He included ALL genres, including photos inside churches, etc. He is wrong, and has likely never touched an R at all. Neither have you, according to your own words. BTW: The R is on par (actually better) than your 5D Mark IV, 5DSr, and 7D Mark II for what I do, in my opinion. It absolutely shreds my former 5D Mark III.

Aussieshooter said, "Fact is there is no new ILC on the market that is a hindrance to taking good photos." He's right, and was actually speaking against said absolutist statements.

 

[tron]

Of course it can take TERRIFIC photos but it seems you agree with me that it depends on the kind of photos (genre) one takes. As I already mentioned I would be TEMPTED with specific lenses. Since you agree with me in the sense that you disagre with absolute statements I cannot see your problem. I did not mention portrait photography by the way as my preference. Of course EOSR is excellent in portrait photography! It would be the same as putting some BIF photos and saying that my7DII, 5DIV and 7DII were better than your EOS R! What's the point in all this? Both of our statements would be true!

At the last sentence I just suggested that we refrain from absolute statements. That's all!

EDIT: The only issue that I think is that I interpreted ILC as mirrorless. If ILC includes both DSLRs and Mirrorless yes I was wrong and I apologise to Aussie shooter.

 

[Ozarker]

Of course it can take TERRIFIC photos but it seems you agree with me that it depends on the kind of photos (genre) one takes. As I already mentioned I would be TEMPTED with specific lenses. Since you agree with me in the sense that you disagre with absolute statements I cannot see your problem. I did not mention portrait photography by the way as my preference. So the example was out of context. It would be the same as putting some BIF photos and saying that my7DII, 5DIV and 7DII were better than your EOS R! What's the point in all this? Both of our statements would be true!

At the last sentence I just suggested that we refrain from absolute statements. That's all!

Again, the absolutist statement was made by somebody else, not Aussie Shooter. Read it again. I have no problem with you. I know it does not fit your use case. I have a problem with what the OP said. You missed that when speaking to Aussie. So let me quote the OP again for context: "Ten years ago we all would have killed for a camera like the R. But, today it's lackluster enough that it's seen as an unacceptable hindrance to taking good photos. " ----> KitLensJockey

Now imagine such an ignorant statement being made about any camera you own for your use cases. Get the point? The R is not an unacceptable hindrance for my use case (far from it), but my use case was included in his uninformed remark.

 

[tron]

It seems you lost the EDIT of my post!

 

[Ozarker]

It seems you lost the EDIT of my post!

Which edit? I quoted as it came. I see it now. Have a grand day, sir.

 

[tron]

Which edit? I quoted as it came.

Immediately afterwards! We entered/updated almost at the same time!

 

[tron]

About my misinterpreting the ILC term (at the end of my post)...

 

[Ozarker]

About my misinterpreting the ILC term (at the end of my post)...

No ill feelings, my friend.

 

[tron]

I do hope Aussie Shooter reads my apology...

 

[Kit.]

Field curvature has very little to do with geometric distortion in a photograph, it has to do with the shape of the field of focus. Uncorrected, all refractive lenses have field curvature. Rather than being a flat plane, the field of focus is a portion of a sphere. Imagine a string attached to the front of your lens that is the same length as your focus distance. As you move the string left or right and up or down, the point of focus moves in an arc equidistant from the center of your camera's lens.

It's not that simple. Even for a single element lens, all other in the scene being equal, a higher refraction index (i.e. a thinner lens with the same focal lenght) will lead to a lower field curvature.

 

[SteveC]

Even the original poster wasn't saying he himself thought the camera was an obstacle.

He was saying that others saw it that way, and he said so in such a way, and in such a context (only because this is now, not ten years ago), that implies he would disagree with them.

 

[BillB]

Even the original poster wasn't saying he himself thought the camera was an obstacle.

He was saying that others saw it that way, and he said so in such a way, and in such a context (only because this is now, not ten years ago), that implies he would disagree with them.

If he disagrees with them, what was he trying to say? It came across to me like he was hoping Canon would come up with camera that he wouldn't be embarrassed to take out in public.

 

[Aussie shooter]

This is YOUR opinion. My DSLRs (5DsR, 5DIV, 7DII) are certainly NOT a hindrance for me but EOS R would be. I like taking bird photos and I do not even want to spend time and money trying this thing. Plus my big white teles are just fine without any need for an additional EF-RF adapter. Now don't say you meant for everything but bird shooting because there are also sports photographers (I am not) out there.

Now when the new RF15-35 2.8 L IS and RF24-70 2.8L IS come out (and get a little cheaper) I would be tempted too for the other part of my hobby: taking pictures inside churches and museums. These two lenses would make a killer combination with an EOS R, even with an EOS RP!

But there are cases where EOS R is a hindrance. Let's don't express such absolute statements.

EDIT: SORRY! As I mentioned below I misinterpreted the ILC term. I thought it was referring to mirrorless cameras but obviously the "Interchangeable lenses" term covers both DSLRs and mirrorless.

You should probably have read the rest of the thread before posting that as I dealt with the specific situation issue. And again I say the camera is not a hindrance. If you choose the wrong camera for the job then the hindrance is your decision making, not the camera. Every camera on the market today(except those that stop working) actually HELP one take pictures. They do not hinder. What hinders is an individuals lack of knowledge of what camera they should be using. I got your apology by the way. All good and no animosity on my behalf by the way.

 

[tron]

You should probably have read the rest of the thread before posting that as I dealt with the specific situation issue. And again I say the camera is not a hindrance. If you choose the wrong camera for the job then the hindrance is your decision making, not the camera.

I agree and I apologise.

 

[Michael Clark]

Nup. Again. You have missed the point entirely. Anyone who is USING a Phillips head screwdriver to attach all types of fasteners shouldn't even be allowed to use duct tape. Clearly the screwdriver isn't the problem. It is the user. How are you missing this very basic point?

You're totally missing the point. Not everyone that wants to fasten something want to use a phillips head screw. Thus a blanket statement that any phillips head screwdriver is not a hindrance for any fastener is not accurate.