Largobob

No comment necessary my friend. No substance here....only opinion.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

So now we can all see that you are just trolling. I wonder what you get out of it? It would be a lot better if people left their egos at the door upon entering, no matter how big.

So are saying that Mark’s work is not good enough for you? Because in that case how do you deal with your own?

Largobob

I see that somehow we got your panties in a wad. Is that your problem, buckoo?

I apologize that the images I posted don't meet your standards. I know that I wouldn't have criticized them publicly, as you just did.

My original comment on this thread had to do with "Inertia" and image stability......nothing else.

You pontificate...put words in "my mouth", and puff your chest.

I'm sure that the flash cube, instamatic, and other inventions were equally "breakthrough" technologies in their day.

I also notice that you are a mirror-less camera user. Good for you.

Who the hell is "Mark." I posted some of my images....now post some of yours.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Peter, if what you have works for you, keep it. Use it. I'd be the first one to say that.

In 2005, I quit using my film gear. It no longer did what I needed to do, efficiently or effectively. Digital cameras had "come into their own space." In 2012, it became clear to me that I needed something different to do what I wanted to do after leaving Lifetouch. So I really started searching in earnest. Mirrorless fit the requirements.

Yes, Magic Lantern is *great* at enhancing cameras and adding clever, useful, innovative features. One of their enhancements made the Lumix GH2 usable for some professional applications (TV commercials, "Friday Night Football" segments, video blogging... even a few independent films.) Some folks still use that as a filmmaking camera to get started, but the Magic Lantern enhancement is no longer available.

Panasonic took notice of the GH2 Magic Lantern hack, and said, "What if we did those things and made them stock? Hey, *professionals,* what to you want? What do you need?" The result was the GH3, which was "almost there" (what we wanted). A few years later, came the GH4, which was much, much closer (to what we wanted). With the GH5, they have truly pushed the envelope. It's more than a lot of us need. But they're not done.

What has bothered me, is that Canon and Nikon have rested on their laurels of good glass and market share, and the rate of innovation has slowed. They still refine things, but very selectively. I hope they've been buying all the competitors' models and reviewing them, tearing them down, and learning from them, and that the rumors are really true. I also hope they've been talking to their customers and taking copious notes...

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Maybe you are not familiar with how the internet works? In my first reply to you, I posted a link. It is the typed space in blue that is underlined. You click it and it will take you to Mark’s website. Were you able to do that? Have you seen his work? Are you saying that those photos are not to your standards?

As far as my snapshots, if you look under my post in the “signature” section, you will discover another link. This one will take you to my pictures stored in a photo hosting site called Flickr. I could post pictures for you in this thread but it isn’t considered nice, unless the OP says it is ok.

Largobob

Yes, I was able to view "Marks" website. Impressive, but not at all Germaine to my original comments. I'm not saying anything.....those are your words.

Glad you are happy with your images. I won't be so bold, as you have publicly done of mine, to comment...

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

We all move at our own speed, and it really does depend upon multiple factors. From what I hear, Canon actually is reaching out to a select group of customers to get feedback on requirements. That does not necessarily mean that they will listen properly, nor does it mean that they will get it right. At least not on first, second, or even subsequent attempts. That said they are doing very well in mirrorless cameras in certain markets. I have nothing against mirrorless, and try not to bad mouth any specific vendors as some do against Nikon and Canon - not your good self, Sir, - but these transitional markets frequently take a long time to play out as I think you know. Both Canon and Nikon have a few years to get it right, and the future market may not be anything like the UHH demographic.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Lol! When did I say that I was happy with mine? The difference is that you make silly statements about mirrorless cameras. What is next? All pictures taken with dslrs are work of art?

Btw, don’t forget what “you” said publicly about mirrorless cameras.

Largobob

Again, you pontificate with no substance.

Sorry. All I said was that when I see some breathtaking images taken with mirrorless cameras....I might consider them.

Mark's images, for the most part (IMHO) are WAY over processed. Probably not the fault of the camera....

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Many of Mark’s photos ARE breathtaking. How about you show a link to what you consider the standard and I promise you that I will match it.

therwol Loc: USA

Someone at my work sent around an e-mail asking to borrow a loupe for something. Several responses were, "What's a loupe?" Just pointing out that most people in America who have not worked in photography, jewelry, or done micro-surgery or other close up work would probably only know the term "magnifier, or magnifying glass."

Largobob

Sorry buddy...I'm done with you, and your snarky comments/opinions.

I tend not to deal with opinion. Your comments, in my opinion, fall into this category.

I am regretful that I said, "When I see a breathtaking image taken with a mirrorless camera, I will consider it."

I personally would not buy any of Mark's images...... way over processed in my opinion. (Yes, that is just my opinion)

I have no interest in seeing your "match." This is certainly not a contest.

I am not a professional....have never thought of selling an image....likely don't have any worth selling.
Sorry that the few images that I posted on this site do not meet with your approval.

Photography for me is a hobby. Until now, it has been very fulfilling. This conversation has caused me to rethink whether I should continue.

You may be interested in reading my first comment to this post...It had to do with Inertia.... My comments are/were a matter of
physics.

Over time, several unsavory trolls on this site goated me into further dialog. I should have stopped....but didn't. (my bad).

I don't know you....and have no compelling reason to offend you.

Sorry if my inferior abilities and images have caused you angst.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

So because someone called you out on your statement? No need to apologize, all you have to do is prove your point. That would shut everyone up. Except that you can not do that. Impossible. What ever you think is the best photo ever, that was taken with a dslr, the same photographer can do the same photo, processing with a mirrorless. The gear is irrelevant. What ever it is that you like about that particular photo, what you are really liking is the photographer’s talent. That is why there is a problem with your statement.

And that statement is very silly. It is the photographer who takes the picture not the camera or the brand. Why wouldn’t a mirrorless camera not be able to take as good a shot as a dslr? You still haven’t explained that opinion of yours.

therwol Loc: USA

therwol has left the building.

Largobob

Largobob has left the building.