Bye Canon?

[jrista]

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.

I 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?

 

[RLPhoto]

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.

I 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?

You do know that have fulfilled my previous point to the Letter?

 

[jrista]

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.

I 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?

You do know that have fulfilled my previous point to the Letter?

*sigh*

Alright, I admit defeat. In the context of who can debate nothing, ignore your counterparty, and beat around the bush for the longest...you win! There isn't any point in waiting for you to actually acknowledge the points and arguments made and debate the same thing, so Adiós!

 

[RLPhoto]

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.

I 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?

You do know that have fulfilled my previous point to the Letter?

*sigh*

Alright, I admit defeat. In the context of who can debate nothing, ignore your counterparty, and beat around the bush for the longest...you win! There isn't any point in waiting for you to actually acknowledge the points and arguments made and debate the same thing, so Adiós!

I never did such things but hey, thanks for not elaborating more on your ramblings.

 

[CarlTN]

Again, tiresome, redundant, unnecessary...BOTH OF YOU.

To attempt to be fair...(and I'm not going to waste minutes of my life looking back over this trivial nonsense...)...I had thought that RL had indeed said something to the effect of, but not in these exact words: "35mm digital does not compare to medium format". Maybe he did not say this, but I thought I saw it.

If he did say that at one point, but somehow that is not really the point he is trying to make...then Jrista might have a point, himself. Because Jrista is saying...35mm digital DOES compare to medium format digital, now in 2013...but he acknowledges the advantages of medium format over "full frame" digital.

However, having some brief history of my own with Jrista (whoever he is)...I can only say my opinion of him from my perspective. He is here to argue. "Debate" is too high minded and evolved for what you usually intend to do in this forum, Jrista. Not that you are necessarily a "bad" debater...but clearly...it's obvious to me, that you BOTH...are here to argue in this thread...like school children on a playground. You are not here to share knowledge or enlighten anyone...at least not in this exchange.

Neither of you will convince the other that he is wrong, so if you want to behave like adults, you should let it go. If you want to behave like teenage "meangirls", then by all means, continue. You're just embarrassing yourselves.

I'm not here to win popularity contests, myself. It seems to me, that if I have an opinion, and share it, I will immediately lose brownie points to whoever doesn't like what I said. Well, too bad.

I'm here to share and discuss photography and equipment, sometimes to debate, sometimes I sink to someone's personal level and I argue or insult...I've gotten 1 10-day ban so far. Not looking to get banned again, but frankly, if it happens, so be it. Not proud of it, but also not remotely ashamed of it either. Like every blowhard you've ever heard in your life..."I have no regrets".

 

[RLPhoto]

Best MF vs Best 35mm

IQ180 vs D800.

IQ 180 wins without a shadow of doubt. (for what it is)

I've condensed those several pages to that.

 

[CarlTN]

Best MF vs Best 35mm

IQ180 vs D800.

IQ 180 wins without a shadow of doubt. (for what it is)

I've condensed those several pages to that.

That's fine, and so you are disagreeing with the almighty DXOMark rating? haha...(regarding the sensor performance only, of course...which I guess is not really the full nature of both of your arguments.)

 

[jrista]

Best MF vs Best 35mm

IQ180 vs D800.

IQ 180 wins without a shadow of doubt. (for what it is)

I've condensed those several pages to that.

Just to demonstrate that that statement is not actually true, here are some photos (taken from this link: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/36838-someone-had-do.html) that compare the D800 to the IQ180. The D800 images have been downscaled 2x, the IQ180 images have been downscaled 3x. If what RL is saying is correct, the IQ180 photos should be winning hands down, no questions asked, stomping ALL OVER the D800. The extra downscaling factor should be giving it a FURTHER edge.

Now, for the facts. First image is D800, second image is IQ180 (As they are in the linked article). These are lifted a MERE 1.5 STOPS (EVERY camera on Earth can currently handle a 1.5 stop lift...so we aren't even remotely close to the realm of "only Exmor can do that" territory! )


MIDWAY BETWEEN CENTER & EDGE:

v--- sharp, clear, NOISELESS!! D800

^-- mostly sharp, noisy in the shadows! IQ180

CORNER:

v-- sharp, clear, NOISELESS!! D800

^-- not sharp, NOISY!!!!!!!!!! IQ180


Hmm...well, hell has obviously frozen over, the planets have stopped their rotation around the sun, the galaxy has certainly stopped spinning....because, the D800 appears to be...winning....HMM!

 

[RLPhoto]

^
http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/

And that's not even full Frame MF, That's a past Gen MF. An IQ180 would utterly destroy d800.

Those tests you showed the OP said not to take them seriously and I don't.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

Get a room guys.

 

[eml58]

Get a room guys.

Yep, Agree, take a break guys and move your lives on, you'll both feel better for it.

 

[jrista]

;D

Anyway, I thought I'd give it one more try to convince the guy. Even the article he linked proves my point (which is that the gap between FF and MF is shrinking):

There is difference, Hasselblad produced slightly more details and color was more balanced to a girl skin tone. On a first sight the difference in image details seems to be so minimal that it will be hard to notice it.

However, I have never seen such a great details and resolution in $3200 35mm DSLR before! Will it be any visible difference between large prints from both cameras? May be, if we’ll look at those prints with the loupe. But how many idiots use loupe to enjoy large prints?

Both cameras did a great job recovering very dark areas of the image, with slight advantage on Hasselblad’s side:

There is a difference in IQ and very low difference in shadow recovery between both cameras, which was a surprise for me. Knowing the difference in sensor technology I expected to see more advantage of Hasselblad over the Nikon. And if we consider the price difference, the Nikon become a true hero: $3200 (body) and $1000 (lens) against $16900 (body+DB) and $ 5900 (lens) is a huge…

The only thing which stops me from getting Nikon instead of Hasselblad is a freedom to use Medium Format back in technical view cameras like my Cambo Ultima.

I rest my case on that article!

It is apparently impossible to convince RL, so I'm done for good now.

 

[bdunbar79]

Ok let's examine history to determine who's correct.

35mm film vs MF film. - MF wins.

Canon 1ds vs kodak DCS MF back - MF wins. (Available on Luminous landscape)

Canon 5D2 vs Hasselblad MF backs 40MP variety - MF wins.

D800 vs IQ180 - MF wins.

D900 56MP camera vs next gen MF 120+ MP - MF will win.

This is because MF is bigger than 35mm. MF has a specific use for low ISOs and slow subjects. There is no replacement for displacement. The bigger sensor/film will always serve better in those situations.

I can only imagine what will be possible when MF will move to full CMOS tech, then you will have the pixel density of a d800 + all the advantages of MF. It's just a better tool for what it does.

Doesn't matter.

 

[RLPhoto]

Ok let's examine history to determine who's correct.

35mm film vs MF film. - MF wins.

Canon 1ds vs kodak DCS MF back - MF wins. (Available on Luminous landscape)

Canon 5D2 vs Hasselblad MF backs 40MP variety - MF wins.

D800 vs IQ180 - MF wins.

D900 56MP camera vs next gen MF 120+ MP - MF will win.

This is because MF is bigger than 35mm. MF has a specific use for low ISOs and slow subjects. There is no replacement for displacement. The bigger sensor/film will always serve better in those situations.

I can only imagine what will be possible when MF will move to full CMOS tech, then you will have the pixel density of a d800 + all the advantages of MF. It's just a better tool for what it does.

Doesn't matter.

Exactly.

 

[bdunbar79]

Alright, I'll stop ;D.

 

[Krob78]

Ok let's examine history to determine who's correct.

35mm film vs MF film. - MF wins.

Canon 1ds vs kodak DCS MF back - MF wins. (Available on Luminous landscape)

Canon 5D2 vs Hasselblad MF backs 40MP variety - MF wins.

D800 vs IQ180 - MF wins.

D900 56MP camera vs next gen MF 120+ MP - MF will win.

This is because MF is bigger than 35mm. MF has a specific use for low ISOs and slow subjects. There is no replacement for displacement. The bigger sensor/film will always serve better in those situations.

I can only imagine what will be possible when MF will move to full CMOS tech, then you will have the pixel density of a d800 + all the advantages of MF. It's just a better tool for what it does.

Doesn't matter.

Exactly.

Okay, that was funny! ;D

 

[AprilForever]

Ok let's examine history to determine who's correct.

35mm film vs MF film. - MF wins.

Canon 1ds vs kodak DCS MF back - MF wins. (Available on Luminous landscape)

Canon 5D2 vs Hasselblad MF backs 40MP variety - MF wins.

D800 vs IQ180 - MF wins.

D900 56MP camera vs next gen MF 120+ MP - MF will win.

This is because MF is bigger than 35mm. MF has a specific use for low ISOs and slow subjects. There is no replacement for displacement. The bigger sensor/film will always serve better in those situations.

I can only imagine what will be possible when MF will move to full CMOS tech, then you will have the pixel density of a d800 + all the advantages of MF. It's just a better tool for what it does.

Doesn't matter.

Exactly.

Okay, that was funny! ;D

The 7D MK II will trump them all!!! "One camera to rule them all, one camera to find them; one camera to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them!!!"

 

[CarlTN]

The 7D MK II will trump them all!!! "One camera to rule them all, one camera to find them; one camera to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them!!!"

Laughing deeply...thank you!