Before Arguing Brand This or Model That
Mar 22, 2015 09:03:14 #
Good Sunday Morning to lamiacea, and even dpullum. My studies of Objectivism revolves around Ayn Rand. I look forward to UHH to escape Politics & Philosophy. Excuse my rambling, but I never thought of having an objective base when choosing my friends, my cooking, where I live, or my Wife.
I probably would be more drawn to dpullum's flunked out 8th grader, at least he would vote for freedom rather than a progressive, out to "Transform" the USA.
My camera is a tool, once I find a more than adequate tool, I stay happy for years.
Sorry for posting "Non Objective".
I probably would be more drawn to dpullum's flunked out 8th grader, at least he would vote for freedom rather than a progressive, out to "Transform" the USA.
My camera is a tool, once I find a more than adequate tool, I stay happy for years.
Sorry for posting "Non Objective".
Mar 22, 2015 09:34:33 #
Kmgw9v wrote:
"That's a good picture. You must have a really good camera to take a picture like that".
I do, I do.
Mar 22, 2015 09:50:07 #
zigipha
Loc: north nj
dpullum wrote:
lamiaceae, those words of lament are indeed felt b... (show quote)
Yeah..or don't expect someone who got dropped from his hs basketball team to make it big in the NBA like Michael Jordan..oops..never mind..i guess that does mean that "Past Performance is No Guarantee of Future Results"
Mar 22, 2015 09:59:27 #
OldEarl
Loc: Northeast Kansas
It is kind of like judging optics from what they record from charts, realizing that museum pictures are observed from a reasonable distance. Get too close and even Bougereau or Bierstadt come apart--not to mention Monet. I doubt seriously that if I had made the decision for Canon back in 1965 that a DXOMark would have change my choice after half a century.
In the 60s the group I hung with knew (with absolute certainty) that the Alpa was superior to the Nikons, Pentaxes and Canons that we were using but it was out of our range. And then I read in UHH that someone had nothing but trouble with an Alpa. That is life.
We make decisions based on what we see. I have seen pictures taken with all sorts and brands and (granted that my left eye is a couple notches short of legally blind) I do not see that my life would be made better by a rating.
My reason for going with a Nikon F in the first place had to do with the fact that I was, in my early and middle years, extremely rough on equipment. And the reason I chose Nikon for digital is that I am invested in glass.
In the 60s the group I hung with knew (with absolute certainty) that the Alpa was superior to the Nikons, Pentaxes and Canons that we were using but it was out of our range. And then I read in UHH that someone had nothing but trouble with an Alpa. That is life.
We make decisions based on what we see. I have seen pictures taken with all sorts and brands and (granted that my left eye is a couple notches short of legally blind) I do not see that my life would be made better by a rating.
My reason for going with a Nikon F in the first place had to do with the fact that I was, in my early and middle years, extremely rough on equipment. And the reason I chose Nikon for digital is that I am invested in glass.
Mar 22, 2015 10:13:17 #
Don Fischer
Loc: Antelope, Ore
Dan Mc wrote:
Ken Rockwell makes a valid statement...."No one really needs more than 6 pixels or a lens better than the kit 18-55mm"".....and benchmarks and charts, and screens and benchmarks?
Do you REALLY use any of that, and if you didn't know it and couldn't EXIF it, would you see the differences????? REALLY? SERIOUSLY??
Do you REALLY use any of that, and if you didn't know it and couldn't EXIF it, would you see the differences????? REALLY? SERIOUSLY??
I haven't read his stuff a lot but believe he speaks with common sense rather than emotion. But, I find the statement above in error. My d70 took great photo, no doubt about it but, for shooting trial dogs casting off, the 6 pixels was not enough and 18-55 wouldn't cut it, to short on the long end, way to short. I can only do shot's of dog's pointing at trials in call backs and even if I could get around in the field well enough, the 18-55 is again way to short as I can't get near enough to the dog and can't change angles, I have what I have. I strongly suspect the same would be true of action sport's shooter's. I went out to the trial grounds yesterday and shot pointing photo's of dog's on point. For these the 18-55 and 6 pixel camera would work fine. I set these shot's up and can move around the dog where ever I want.
Mar 22, 2015 10:20:43 #
ole sarg
Loc: south florida
Ahhhh
Ayn Rand the great libertarian until she got sick and immediately applied for and took advantage of medicare because her free market ideas never materialized into her personal material wealth!
What a farce and fraud!
Ayn Rand the great libertarian until she got sick and immediately applied for and took advantage of medicare because her free market ideas never materialized into her personal material wealth!
What a farce and fraud!
tomeveritt wrote:
Good Sunday Morning to lamiacea, and even dpullum.... (show quote)
Mar 22, 2015 10:49:51 #
Mar 22, 2015 11:08:11 #
My main reason for the post was to try to avoid some of the over the top emotional Canon vs. Nikon BS that is so common. Again not taking sides here (I know of reasons for choosing either), and of course neither. But it seems most of the responders to my post are people who are already more reasonable and seem to make their own rational decisions based on their own needs by doing their own research. Which is all I was actually meaning to say. Of course there are many factors in one's choice of a camera. Is it possible my intended audience is beyond advise or help? Since I got no replies from that segment of readers. I guess the horse needs a reprieve, so bye for now.
Mar 22, 2015 11:57:17 #
The main reasons that I decided to go digital was that it is harder to find a good lab to do film processing.
I chose to go Nikon since I knew quality of the Nikon products and their service record. Also being a trained photographer [4 yrs at university coming out with an houours degree] I know how to read a test strip for a lens. I went to at least 6 sites to compare the reviews of the types [length , zoom or fixed focal length] and brands. Every time Nikon lenses came up with what I considered the best results
--just my experience to share with you
it is not the camera body with all the different features that makes the photo--it is the glass in the lens that produces the quality of the lens
I chose to go Nikon since I knew quality of the Nikon products and their service record. Also being a trained photographer [4 yrs at university coming out with an houours degree] I know how to read a test strip for a lens. I went to at least 6 sites to compare the reviews of the types [length , zoom or fixed focal length] and brands. Every time Nikon lenses came up with what I considered the best results
--just my experience to share with you
it is not the camera body with all the different features that makes the photo--it is the glass in the lens that produces the quality of the lens
Mar 22, 2015 11:57:19 #
Bobbee wrote:
Wasn't the last half of the last sentence really from Steelers Wheel? "Here I am, stuck in the middle with you."
In reference to my comment: "and to badly paraphrase Alfred, Lord Tennyson, "Ours IS to reason why, Canons to the right of us, Nikons to the left us, ..."
Well, I do think Tennyson got there first with "The Charge of the Light Brigade", but if you wish to call Canon users jokers and Nikon users clowns then the Stealers Wheel reference could be used. Perhaps it does apply to those that regularly trash any other brand than their favorite one, especially when the cited reason is that "the internet told them so."
Mar 22, 2015 12:11:38 #
lamiaceae wrote:
Seems we all on the UHH like to argue for our favo... (show quote)
Why do we need to argue this at all? Each of us has a one or more reasons why we chose what we chose. It seems to me that those who feel the need to denigrate someone else's choice or look for a review or technical support to validate his/her decision are really looking for something beyond the photographic-- or perhaps they just "enjoy" getting attention?
Oh, and BTW, these comments are not directed at you just this on-going attempt at personal validation that is actually saying this: "I'm feeling inadequate and I suspect this: it really IS about the camera".
Mar 22, 2015 12:15:25 #
LoneRangeFinder wrote:
Why do we need to argue this at all? Each of us h... (show quote)
Agreed! One doesn't need any approval from anyone to choose his/her equipment.
Mar 22, 2015 12:25:45 #
George II
Loc: Fayetteville, Georgia
You got it but you do notice and realize that some people can't even decide to take a crap without a consensus. and someone to hold there hand. Just to damn lazy to look something up..Can you imagine using a encyclopedia or using the Dewy Decimal System in the Library?
I realize that te search function on this site could be more user friendly but hey it's a start.
just saying, the "G"
"Regulae Stultis Sunt"
I realize that te search function on this site could be more user friendly but hey it's a start.
just saying, the "G"
"Regulae Stultis Sunt"
Bobbee wrote:
actually, it would be wise to search out reviews by several different sources. You cannot rely on one because of natural bias in writing styles and thinking.
Mar 22, 2015 12:35:29 #
This is the first I have ever heard of DxO, so have I been buying cameras sans sound advice? In this modern day, one go online and read Tech Soecs on virtually camera from several sources. Of you can read it on the camera box in a store. Where does the advice come in? I would guess whether the on-the-box or online Tech Specs were over-blown or misleading. Other stuff like size, weight, button placement, digital features might be super for some but dreadful for others. Actual performance properties of sensors are important in that they are the most esoteric and kind of opaque if one is not a semiconductor engineer. Example, one replier in this thread cited 16 bit color - does that mean each pixel has 4 bit per color channel RGB for 32 shades each or does that mean 16 bits for each of RGB for 65536 shades each. What I find lacking is the specification of pixel physical size. It is the pixel (an array of transistors) that stores the zeros and ones, so its size is the equivalent of halide grain size in the film emulsion era. That size is what sets the floor on the 'circle of confusion' which is fundamental in the calculation of depth of field. Other factors play in the DOF discussion, but pixel size defines the floor.
Mar 22, 2015 12:45:33 #
I pay a great deal of attention to the camera reviews on DP Review.com.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.