You’re the case in point for that!Fools are often tireless, they do not learn from experience and they look to others to validate their foolishness.
Upvote
0
You’re the case in point for that!Fools are often tireless, they do not learn from experience and they look to others to validate their foolishness.
So all the agony over 24p is really about a camera that has it at higher resolutions, but not lower ones?
Really?
There were a number of conversations about this, both before and shortly after the R mount was announced. I think a lot of people are less concerned about this now that the adapters have been released and we've found they work remarkably well.
For me, I will continue to buy EF lenses so long as I am using both DSLRs and mirrorless. If I ever switch to exclusively mirrorless I will then gradually replace EF lenses with R lenses, but for the foreseeable future, I see no real advantage to R lenses, unless they produce something that I really want and can't get as an EF lens.
I continue to think that Canon made a mistake in not producing an adapter to allow R lenses to be used on DSLRs.
Bottom line: I don't think anyone should worry about their EF lenses suddenly going obsolete. Perhaps in the future, Canon will introduce some features that take advantage of the new R mount that can't be done with an EF lens, but even in that case, it's not going to suddenly make the EF lenses quit working, or work less well than they do today.
Sure there is. It would require optics in the adapter, and would almost certainly result in a loss of image quality, but it’s possible.There's physically no way to do this.I continue to think that Canon made a mistake in not producing an adapter to allow R lenses to be used on DSLRs.
No reason that you can discern. Again, the failing is on your part, not Canon’s. The fact that the R has 1080p24 and the RP does not makes it clear that the omission was purposeful. But you don’t get it, you don’t like it, you went on a rant over it, then you went off the rails when others chose not to jump in the crap pile with you.I criticized Canon for dropping support for a capacity that one would expect to find for no discernable reason.
Perhaps you should try to explain to him how higher end cameras have more features than lower end camerasNo reason that you can discern. Again, the failing is on your part, not Canon’s. The fact that the R has 1080p24 and the RP does not makes it clear that the omission was purposeful. But you don’t get it, you don’t like it, you went on a rant over it, then you went off the rails when others chose not to jump in the crap pile with you.
It’s a good suggestion, but it absolutely reeks of logic, and I’ve tried that approach already without success.Perhaps you should try to explain to him how higher end cameras have more features than lower end cameras
The problem is that there are so many posts by Sony trolls/shills/hopefuls in need of validation for a decision that they may or may not make if Canon don't do X Y or Z, that people vent their frustrations very easily now. And I say Sony trolls etc because there are not constant idiotic and annoying comments from people lauding Fuji or Olympus or Nikon etc. Just Sony. So basically now if anyone dares mention Sony then expect flak. Rightly or wrongly those making legitimate points will be lumped in with the trolls.I understand your position
I wish some of these discussions wouldn’t escalate but it’s a free country.
I wouldn’t be surprised if some of these intense debates turn more casual people off from posting. It might reinforce a troll vs fanboy image for websites like this. I want to assume that there’s a middle ground but am not sure what that is
If you’re serious about not wanting your Canon EF lenses anymore, send them to me. I’ll happily pay postage. DM me and we’ll sort this out. Thanks
You should have felt insulted. That you were unaware of or unconcerned about this insult does not alter the fact that it was an insult. If someone were to call you a dirty ~$?!*!%+×@ to your face and if you were not bothered by that fact, we would rightly say that you were insulted and also that you took the insult in stride. The act determines the characteristics attributed to it, not the feelings of the target.
My attitude toward photography is simple: "how can I stand out if I shoot like everybody else?". I hate repeating what a billion on our planet is doing. I want to do something else.
Your claim would make sense with respect to what I wrote if I had demanded outrageous performance capabilities in a modestly priced camera. I criticized Canon for dropping support for a capacity that one would expect to find for no discernable reason.
Fools are often tireless, they do not learn from experience and they look to others to validate their foolishness.
My attitude toward photography is simple: "how can I stand out if I shoot like everybody else?". I hate repeating what a billion on our planet is doing. I want to do something else.
You can start by framing something interesting in a way that others find aesthetically pleasing. Do that well and you can get away with the worst camera and lens currently on the market.
To be fair, I find it admirable that someone is trying to find a new way to express himself or herself through photography. The key, though, is to have something to say other than just making something look different. My college photography professor used a panoramic camera, but never shot panoramas. Instead he used the camera as a documentary tool, shooting ordinary scenes in extraordinary ways. He went on to work for Ansel Adams and his wife eventually became Adams' official biographer.
I mentioned Andreas Gursky in my original response. Gursky has used large format cameras and film and painstaking digital manipulation to create a unique vision and earn himself a permanent place in the history of photography. Kudos to Besisika for trying to forge his own vision.
To be fair, I find it admirable that someone is trying to find a new way to express himself or herself through photography. The key, though, is to have something to say other than just making something look different. My college photography professor used a panoramic camera, but never shot panoramas. Instead he used the camera as a documentary tool, shooting ordinary scenes in extraordinary ways. He went on to work for Ansel Adams and his wife eventually became Adams' official biographer.
I mentioned Andreas Gursky in my original response. Gursky has used large format cameras and film and painstaking digital manipulation to create a unique vision and earn himself a permanent place in the history of photography. Kudos to Besisika for trying to forge his own vision.
Yeah! Go Jerry. Amazing too because he had the courage to go against the then-dominant f64 heritage that preached straight photography as the only acceptable way to create photographic art. (In the U.S. at least -- in Europe there had long been a more accepting and inclusive view of photography as art thanks to artists like Man Ray and Moholy Nagy.)Along those lines, I like to recognize Jerry Uelsmann, who can make better composites with film, chemicals, and a darkroom than I can with photoshop and a supercomputer, e.g., this 1976 print (untitled):
View attachment 185908