Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Valid MF criticism or not?  (Read 59943 times)
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #320 on: September 13, 2007, 08:11:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I personally think that Wienke is a wanker.
Have you ever heard of a typo.  I am sure that being in the military you are familiar with mistakes.
Your language and attitude on these posts is very indicative of the top officers I met while I spent a month with the US Marines in Africa.  You act like you know everything and there is no other way.

Thank you for calling me a p-e-n-i-s.

Yes, I'm familiar with that sort of typo, it is usually made by Nikon owners (whose cameras have the letter first, and then the number (D1x, D200, D3, etc.) as opposed to Canon's naming convention of number first, then letter (1D, 10D, 20D, 300D). It's an atypical typo for a Canon owner to make.

As to my attitude, I consider myself a practical realist. I call spades spades, and BS BS. I've never disputed that under the right conditions, (mainly low ISO) a MFDB can outperform any DSLR. And I've never questioned the convenience of the larger viewfinder, or the usefulness of a body that can do tilts and shifts for additional focusing flexibility, or the value of the additional megapixels a MFDB has to offer over a DSLR. When MFDB owners have cited those advantages, I haven't questioned those statements, because I know those statements are true.

But when the MFDB evangelists feel the need to go beyond the obvious and easily demonstrated advantages of MFDB over DSLR and start talking about "dimensionality" and making claims that the difference between systems is obvious even in web JPEGS, I'm going to call the BS what it is, BS. And Feppe's little quiz proved that the claims made were significantly exaggerated.

You jumped into the quiz thread and ridiculed Feppe for the pointlessness of his quiz, when you didn't even understand what was going on, or why. If you're busy and don't want to read the voluminous back story behind the quiz, that's fine, but common sense should suggest that ridiculing something whose purpose is unclear to you is a bad idea, a good way to look silly, and usually rude as well. When I pointed out your lapse in judgment and suggested that you read the back story behind the quiz because it did have a constructive purpose, you continued in your rudeness. And you've continued it here.

I have no aversion to the vigorous debate of a topic, but there's no reason whatsoever to engage in childish ad hominem name calling. If you think I'm wrong, disprove my argument if you can instead of throwing verbal rotten tomatoes at me. If you don't have the emotional maturity to engage in a civilized discussion even when your pet paradigms are being questioned, then these fora are probably not the right place for you.
Logged

jpjespersen
Guest
« Reply #321 on: September 13, 2007, 11:52:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Jesus Christ.  I don't have time to read your pointless ramblings.  
Do you have a job or a life.  almost 4% of total forum posts!  Classic example of somebody who has everything to say, but nothing to show for it.  Why don't you stop typing and get out there to actually test some of what you say,  you might realize that you are wrong a lot of the time.
Have fun writing an essay response to this one.


Quote
Thank you for calling me a p-e-n-i-s.

Yes, I'm familiar with that sort of typo, it is usually made by Nikon owners (whose cameras have the letter first, and then the number (D1x, D200, D3, etc.) as opposed to Canon's naming convention of number first, then letter (1D, 10D, 20D, 300D). It's an atypical typo for a Canon owner to make.

As to my attitude, I consider myself a practical realist. I call spades spades, and BS BS. I've never disputed that under the right conditions, (mainly low ISO) a MFDB can outperform any DSLR. And I've never questioned the convenience of the larger viewfinder, or the usefulness of a body that can do tilts and shifts for additional focusing flexibility, or the value of the additional megapixels a MFDB has to offer over a DSLR. When MFDB owners have cited those advantages, I haven't questioned those statements, because I know those statements are true.

But when the MFDB evangelists feel the need to go beyond the obvious and easily demonstrated advantages of MFDB over DSLR and start talking about "dimensionality" and making claims that the difference between systems is obvious even in web JPEGS, I'm going to call the BS what it is, BS. And Feppe's little quiz proved that the claims made were significantly exaggerated.

You jumped into the quiz thread and ridiculed Feppe for the pointlessness of his quiz, when you didn't even understand what was going on, or why. If you're busy and don't want to read the voluminous back story behind the quiz, that's fine, but common sense should suggest that ridiculing something whose purpose is unclear to you is a bad idea, a good way to look silly, and usually rude as well. When I pointed out your lapse in judgment and suggested that you read the back story behind the quiz because it did have a constructive purpose, you continued in your rudeness. And you've continued it here.

I have no aversion to the vigorous debate of a topic, but there's no reason whatsoever to engage in childish ad hominem name calling. If you think I'm wrong, disprove my argument if you can instead of throwing verbal rotten tomatoes at me. If you don't have the emotional maturity to engage in a civilized discussion even when your pet paradigms are being questioned, then these fora are probably not the right place for you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139125\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Bruce MacNeil
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 61


« Reply #322 on: September 13, 2007, 12:42:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jesus Christ.  I don't have time to read your pointless ramblings.


Well, said - I felt the same way for decades.
Logged

Bruce MacNeil PhD; M. Div.; M.Fol.
Mark_Tucker
Guest
« Reply #323 on: September 13, 2007, 01:44:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
(jpjespersen @ Sep 13 2007, 11:52 AM)
Jesus Christ.  I don't have time to read your pointless ramblings.

Well, said - I felt the same way for decades.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139189\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sooner or later, it always gets back to that main question, (that got us kicked out of Galbraith):

"Would He have used MediumFormat, or Canon?"

No matter the forum, it always gets distilled to that one question.
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #324 on: September 13, 2007, 02:06:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
"Would He have used MediumFormat, or Canon?"

What would Jesus shoot? ROTFL!
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3968



WWW
« Reply #325 on: September 13, 2007, 02:21:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sooner or later, it always gets back to that main question, (that got us kicked out of Galbraith):

"Would He have used MediumFormat, or Canon?"

No matter the forum, it always gets distilled to that one question.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139205\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Let's not go there again

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2363


« Reply #326 on: September 13, 2007, 02:27:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Pinhole ?
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #327 on: September 13, 2007, 02:33:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sooner or later, it always gets back to that main question, (that got us kicked out of Galbraith):

"Would He have used MediumFormat, or Canon?"

No matter the forum, it always gets distilled to that one question.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jee... I laughed.

Is that the photography equivalent to [a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law]Godwin's Law[/url]?
Logged

AndreNapier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #328 on: September 13, 2007, 03:31:40 PM »
ReplyReply

deleted
« Last Edit: September 13, 2007, 06:09:42 PM by AndreNapier » Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4802



« Reply #329 on: September 13, 2007, 05:42:59 PM »
ReplyReply

This has gotten out of hand.

Everybody chill and stop the rude repartee. This is not that type of forum and such behaviour will not be tolerated.

Michael
Logged
jpjespersen
Guest
« Reply #330 on: September 13, 2007, 05:54:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Michael,
Your like our father figure.  It all seems light hearted anyway.  We are just having fun with each other.
Quote
This has gotten out of hand.

Everybody chill and stop the rude repartee. This is not that type of forum and such behaviour will not be tolerated.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139270\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
mmurph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 507


WWW
« Reply #331 on: September 13, 2007, 07:58:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sooner or later, it always gets back to that main question, (that got us kicked out of Galbraith):

Mark,

Would you or someone else be willing to share a short history of what happened at the end at RG?  

Probably in a clean post rather than this one, assuming Michael does not mind. I think I was in Mexico or somewhere at the time, came back, the forum was down.  I heard rumors, but was never clear how it all *actually* went down.      

Too bad, really. If RG had kept it together, most would have been willing to give him $10 or so to keep that forum going. Then he could have gotten the funding in place, transitioned in the background, announced a "transfer" months or a year later, etc. (Geez, I hope Michael doesn't get any ideas.   Oh yeah, B&H. I will use the link!   )

He really lost all of his built up "goodwill" at the end there. And I mean that in business terms too - goodwill is what goes on the books as an asset to account for the value of a business that exceeds pure "bricks and mortar" assets.

Too bad. But, while I am at it - thanks Michael for this MF forum!!  And also for keeping it polite and under control.    

Best,
Michael
Logged
nicolaasdb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213


WWW
« Reply #332 on: September 13, 2007, 09:24:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I am glad someone else "gave it" to Wienke.....I did a little research on him and felt bad...so left it alone.....but he had it coming.

You got to be kidding when you attack someone (me in this case) about calling a 1Ds MarkII a DS1...I have been shooting with that "thing" since it first came out (what over 3 years ago) and love the camera.

I also shoot with a Leaf A65 (or is it 65A?....Wienke?) and like it too..it is slower and the focusing isn't that great(compared to the canon Ds1 I mean 1Ds ..I am confused..let me drive to my studio and check it out to please Wienke....okay I am back it says 1Ds...pfffff 30miles just to please Wienke).
But the A65 is not to blame for the focusing...Mamiya (in my case) or Hasselblad are the "everdo-ers" they don't want to put money into that area I guess.

There is a difference...but today I got a magazine with my fashion editorial in it...and the printer was possesed by the devil at the time of printing and felt that he had to up the contrast and add A LOT OF RED.....so shooting with a 20K back and another 25K in camera's lenses and light equipment, retouching the story for 4 days and proofing the images......doesn't matter when there is an IDIOT somewhere with his H up his A!

So in the end it is about the right tool for the right job!! And the 2 formats are close...and both at a very high level.....just different...not better not worse...DIFFERENT!
Logged
Misirlou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 619


WWW
« Reply #333 on: September 13, 2007, 10:08:38 PM »
ReplyReply

You know, this whole debate has proved something to me that I hadn't realized before. Right now, there is a monstrous penalty to be paid for making the wrong choice in equipment. Even just a few years ago, you could afford to experiment with all sorts of camera gear in different formats without incurring much cost.

I got interested in 4X5 and MF in 1996. So I bought about four different kinds of 4X5 cameras, which I won't go into here. I started MF with a Rolleicord, then a Rolleiflex, then a Mamiya Press, then two different RB67s, two different Hasselblads, and finally another Rolleifllex. All of that stuff was used, and any of it that I sold, I sold for as much or more than I paid originally (except for the second RB67, which I traded for a new Canon DSLR).

Now if I go out and pay $25k for a new MF digital back, and spend a year learning that it's not really working for me, what will happen? I'll lose about $10k getting rid of it. New DSLRs aren't quite that bad, but the depreciation curve on digital equipment is orders of magnitude worse than it is for old Hasselblads, eh?

So I suppose a "vigorous" debate is pretty worthwhile for me. I don't relish any $10k mistakes. I'd rather let everyone else do the experimenting, and learn from their experience.

Anyone have a cheap used digital back for a Hasselblad V? (Ha!)
Logged
mcfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


WWW
« Reply #334 on: September 13, 2007, 10:45:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi
I have seen the new Live View on the Canon 1D MKIII & with 14 bit , the new 1DsMKIII looks pretty impressive. When I get one I will be comparing this camera to the ZD. Canon is really going after the MFD with this camera.
Logged

Denis Montalbetti
Montalbetti+Campbell
www.montalbetticampbell.com
David WM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 241


WWW
« Reply #335 on: September 14, 2007, 01:37:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Do you really think Canon is worried about a few of us buying MFDB's? Their own market for a high end fast 35mm system is probably very lucrative. If they really thought the MF market was really worth going after they could probably target it with a more tailored system, but they're probably doing well enough anyways. The 35mm offering will continue to improve, and hopefully so will MF.
David
Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2363


« Reply #336 on: September 14, 2007, 02:15:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Indeed why would they want to go after a market that is so tiny it isn't even a drop on a glowing plate for them from a turn-over perspective?

Maybe, MFDB manufacturers might get a bit worried but I don't think even that much.

Currently around 22MP on 24x36 seems to be the limit due to several factors (including glass). I don't see Canon redesigning all of their glass as well just to get more out of the 24x36 surface. They are already at a level of quality unheard of for that imaging surface.

On the other hand if 22MP is about the limit for 24x36 so would around 40MP be the limit for 48x36. Where MF still has room to get a little bigger sensors (645 that is) but not all that much.

The only ones that might be worried are photographers. The ones that own MFDB might be worried that they could be working with equipment costing a lot less keeping their costs lower and remaining competitively priced. The others worried whether they should have bought MFDB instead of Canon.

The bright ones just have both so they can opt for whichever systems suits their purposes best. (sofar I seem not too bright hanging on to my Nikons      )
« Last Edit: September 14, 2007, 04:47:06 AM by Dustbak » Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #337 on: September 14, 2007, 04:45:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What would Jesus shoot? ROTFL!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139213\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Contact sheets!
The Turin Shroud  was one of his later works  


Quote
Thank you for calling me a p-e-n-i-s.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139125\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's not what the word means. It's more about what you do with it!!  
It's sometimes used in American magazines with much unintentional amusement factor for the Brits.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #338 on: September 14, 2007, 09:35:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That's not what the word means. It's more about what you do with it!!  
It's sometimes used in American magazines with much unintentional amusement factor for the Brits.

Interesting, you learn something every day...
Logged

uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 989


WWW
« Reply #339 on: September 14, 2007, 12:01:42 PM »
ReplyReply

OK, let's get poised again and back to the original theme in this thread (Michael said so)

I am waiting and waiting for dbacks to drop in price to become affordable (to me). Noy yet.
In the meantime Canon and Nikon keep releasing these fantastic new cameras

In this thread some photographers convinced to keep waiting for my back (mainly Andre and Frank). I wanted to believe in what Mark Tucker said about - why bother with dmf?

I've decided to wait and bother. But just now, I ran into these pictures by photog M. Alexandru working with a 400D. Unbelievable quality and 3D.

This picture shows 3D like many in those well executed dmf takes.
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6224797
A sensor just 1/4 in size in those in dmf and just 12bit.

Which takes me back to a question storming my mind for long:
Is the quality truly superior (from dmf) to dslr, or is it just high skills from the photographer?

Same logic applies for when I look at Canon L glass samples:
Is the quality superior to non L glass, or is it just the high skills of the shooter?

If one (Alexandru) can extract some much detail and 3D from the lesser of Canon cameras, why bother with the complexity of dmf? Is it worth it?

Or it could be: Imagine what alexandru can achieve with FF dsrkr or DMF!

Back to the drawing board

Eduardo
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad