would you ever buy a Sony?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... After all, the "name" I chose for you was "ankle-biter," which IMO very accurately depicts your propensity to follow me around yappin that mouth...

Coming from a gentleman who surely knows a thing or two about yapping, I'll take it as a compliment. And to stay with canine metaphors, what would that make you: a mad dog? 

... The truth is my original post was a non-inflammatory response which was not directed to you; it was a sincere response to this thread topic and was directed to another gentleman. I never even addressed you.

In point of fact, on page 3 (Feb 04, 2011 @ 11:21am), it was you who once again came to me running your yapping mouth ...

So, let me get this straight: if you do not address me directly, I am not allowed to comment on your threads? I thought this is a public forum, and that is what members do all the time: comment on each other's threads. Or that commenting on your general statements with a general statement of my own constitutes "coming to you yapping"?

Oh, wait. You actually do not understand the meaning of the phrase "emperor has no clothes", do you? It was not directed at you personally... I did not call you "emperor" (God forbid)... I did not mean you have no clothes (eeew!).

So, here is the meaning: it applies to all situations in which someone claims certain things (i.e., emperor's new cloths) have certain qualities that are invisible to those stupid and incompetent. You see the trap? If you see and say that 'the emperor has no clothes", you automatically label yourself as stupid and incompetent, as per the fairy tale plot.

What is then the connection with Zeiss (or Leica, or whatever else some people claim to have "mythical" qualities)? Well, some people claim that certain Zeiss lenses have that "3D look", or "something special", "certain aura", "mystique", blah, blah... Like you did in the statement I addressed. Those people also do not bother to demonstrate the difference visually, claiming that if you do not see it, it must be because you are "stupid and incompetent". And that is the parallel with the "emperor has no clothes" tale.

And every time someone claims something similar, I will stand up against it. Why? Because I strongly believe statement like those are detrimental to becoming a better photographer. As long as someone believes that acquiring a lens with "mythical" qualities will give his own photography the same "mythical" status, they will not be stimulated to look for the real ways to improve their photography: learning to see,  learning to feel, studying composition, classics, etc. Why all that hard work when they can simply buy a "mythical" lens?

And just in case you missed it in my earlier post: this comes from a guy who has more Zeiss lenses than you can dream of. I am also a Canon user for several decades, but I find your Canon fanboy-ism simply over the top.

[pegelli]

Btw, forgot my "technical" rebuttal", so here it is

1. Good point sir.

2. Yes, but even points 1 and 2 are dwarfed by the myriad other benefits, advantages, and multiple lens choices of the Canon system.

3. Again, the 2 lens alternatives you mention are dwarfed by the myriad superior lenses Canon offers (from macro, super-macro, T/S, to super telephoto). There is no point in even re-listing all the superior lens choices available to Canon users, there are that many of them. So your point here is sqashed.

4. Yawn. But the quality of the 70-400mm is going to be dwarfed by the Canon zooms. If a person buys the new-generation Canon 70-200 IS-II, and the new-generation Canon 200-400 IS-II, yes it will be expensive ... but the quality and flexibility will be unsurpassed by any system, from 70m to 400 mm. You can get the "cheaper" lens, if you'd like, but even I refused to buy the Canon 100-400 because I personally don't want to buy a second-class telephoto. I have been waiting for an upgrade to this lens, and was counting on Canon to come through soon, and with the newly-announced 200-400 f/4.0 IS-II, Canon has come through ... and I am sure this lens will more than exceed my expectations ... and so (once again) Canon offers a product of the kind and quality for which Sony has no answer.

1) Thanks
2) Not true: an advantage doesn't get dwarfed by a completely different advantage you find in another system
3) Not true: an advantage doesn't get squashed by a completely different advantage you find in another system
4) Yawn, Have you even bothered to check the quality of the 70-400?. At 5x the weight and 10x the cost your suggested combo is not a practical alternative for most people, and I don't think the quality is comparable to the Canon 100-400

So bottom line, Canon has some advantages for you, but these are irrelevant for me and exeeded by several advantages in the Sony system that make Canon unattractive for me.

So throwing more superlatives at us in bold or capitals really isn't helping your case. If you're in a hole stop digging  

[K.C.]

Wow, this pissing match is still going on. What a shame.

[JohnKoerner]

Damn... for a moment I thought you mean it!

1. I was talking to Pegelli, not you.
2. I was referring to the matter of Sony vs. Canon, not your own unending and perpetual yapping/taunting posts towards me genius.

Is there anything you can understand correctly?

Jack


.

[JohnKoerner]

I wish there was an applause emoticon, because you got my point. In your previous posts you stated the "ZERO advantages" as an absolute, universally true for everybody. I have no problem seeing them as your personal advantages as everybody is entitled to their own likes and dislikes. The world would be pretty boring without them  . For me my advantage #1 is even the reason that without Sony I'd probably look at Pentax or Oly before considering Canon or Nikon. On the other hand I can see why you see more advantages in Canon, but they either are not important for me, or are too expensive for me to even consider.  

.

[JohnKoerner]

Coming from a gentleman who surely knows a thing or two about yapping, I'll take it as a compliment. And to stay with canine metaphors, what would that make you: a mad dog? 

As previously mentioned, "you almost never sincerely try to stick to the actual topic, but instead you invariably take-up the stance of a yapping, sarcastic prick and just ramble-on about nothing."

All you do is repeatedly prove my point.

So, let me get this straight: if you do not address me directly, I am not allowed to comment on your threads? I thought this is a public forum, and that is what members do all the time: comment on each other's threads. Or that commenting on your general statements with a general statement of my own constitutes "coming to you yapping"?

There is nothing you "get straight" ... on the first try ... but, yes, you're now beginning to see and come to terms with the fact that (once again) you originally addressed me in this thread, and with a yet another sarcastic comment.

Oh, wait. You actually do not understand the meaning of the phrase "emperor has no clothes", do you? It was not directed at you personally... I did not call you "emperor" (God forbid)... I did not mean you have no clothes (eeew!).
So, here is the meaning: it applies to all situations in which someone claims certain things (i.e., emperor's new cloths) have certain qualities that are invisible to those stupid and incompetent. You see the trap? If you see and say that 'the emperor has no clothes", you automatically label yourself as stupid and incompetent, as per the fairy tale plot.

No genius, once again you invent things (and beliefs for other people) that never actually existed.

What is then the connection with Zeiss (or Leica, or whatever else some people claim to have "mythical" qualities)? Well, some people claim that certain Zeiss lenses have that "3D look", or "something special", "certain aura", "mystique", blah, blah... Like you did in the statement I addressed. Those people also do not bother to demonstrate the difference visually, claiming that if you do not see it, it must be because you are "stupid and incompetent". And that is the parallel with the "emperor has no clothes" tale.

Jesus H. Keeriiist ... you really do have a severe disorder where that really does cause you to ramble on about nothing.

Shake your head and clear-out your idiotic daydreams. For a moment.

I merely made a statement about the Zeiss lens.

I never claimed is was either mythical or magical.

I never digressed to any of the things you invented in your head just now.

All I claimed (with quite a bit of support) was that the Zeiss lens had superior qualities in certain respects, producing images than have what many people as having a "3D" look.

Please put the pipe down and stop with your rambling-on about nothing that was actually said.

And every time someone claims something similar, I will stand up against it. Why? Because I strongly believe statement like those are detrimental to becoming a better photographer. As long as someone believes that acquiring a lens with "mythical" qualities will give his own photography the same "mythical" status, they will not be stimulated to look for the real ways to improve their photography: learning to see,  learning to feel, studying composition, classics, etc. Why all that hard work when they can simply buy a "mythical" lens?

And just in case you missed it in my earlier post: this comes from a guy who has more Zeiss lenses than you can dream of. I am also a Canon user for several decades, but I find your Canon fanboy-ism simply over the top.

I do not "dream" about Zeiss lenses. There are precisely 2 that I plan on getting in the future.

I care nothing for "you," what lenses you have, nor for your misguided tangents to which you repeatedly digress.

The only thing "over the top" are your perpetual and bizarre digressions into the world of fantasy, where simple statements about a lens' superiority somehow get transposed into "Emperors with no clothes" ... or "detriments to improving one's photography" ... while at the same time YOU YOURSELF hilariously bought the very same lens precisely because you too thought it was better

Now then, do you have the strength not to respond to me anymore?

Jack




.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Now then, do you have the strength not to respond to me anymore?...

YES!

Ooops! I did it... again... Damn!

[NigelC]

EDIT: In all fairness, Zeiss does have, to this day, at least one remaining legendary lens, the unmatched 21mm Distagon.
[/quote]

With the emphasis on "at least"

[michael]

Jack,

Your name calling, rudeness and just plain bad manners have reached a limit.

You've now been banned and this thread is closed.

Lesson to all. We don't tolerate such behavour here. Not when it is repeated without remorse.

Michael