Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Shiny Things' started by runpasthefence, Feb 13, 2013.
You just don't get it do you.
The question was for the OP.
I give up.
I don't get it? He responded to a post you made to me so it made more sense to address that one than your initial response. Would you rather I quoted the other one and said roughly the same thing?
You asked why would someone who isn't a pro need X camera ability. I gave the reasons are they true or not
But here to make you happy:
He asked specifically about the other options and the pros and cons, from the OP:
So yes saying the pros and cons does make sense. If one does X better than Y it is a reason to possibly get it especially if you plan to keep the camera for awhile. I have shot at one time an Olympus E-420, Fuji S5 Pro and Nikon D700, each are very different tools with pros and cons which change to a point the way you shoot. Between the FF bodies there are not the huge differences as there are across those SLR's and as the OP says there is no really wrong answer but I listed but there are differences which make some suited for certain types of photography more than others.
Saying your not a pro so it wont matter doesn't make sense, with that argument why not just tell him to go for an APS-C? Or a compact? What level of photography is specifically for "pros"? If the OP has a APS-C DSLR and wants to make the upgrade he likely knows why, and out of the things he listed other than the dogs the FF sensors will offer improvements. So why is it wrong to suggest which ones will do them the best and why are scientific results a bad way for determining this? Other than going to a store and taking test shots side by side they're the best thing people have to go on.
OP sorry bout this derailment.
It doesn't matter.
Buy one or the other.
Take lots of pictures.
Spend some time at Kirk Tuck's blog.
Read through his articles about photography.
Take lots of pictures.
Take lots of pictures.
I don't need much of anything. I happen to have the luxury of having enough disposable income to enjoy a hobby that I find peaceful and rewarding.
I can't make an accurate comparison between the 6D and the Mark II or many other cameras, for that matter, as I've never had the opportunity to own one. Hence, I've turned to a forum I frequent for discussion. After all, that tends to be the goal of a forum.
I also have failed to memorize any shortcomings the Mark II may have.
However, as the newest technology tends to be the most advanced, I feel pretty safe that I can assume the 6D's image sensor, autofocus system, size/weight, etc are marginally superior to a previous model. Forgive me, but I tend to lean toward modernity.
It should be noted that there is a bulleted list of reasons why the 6D appeals to me in my initial post in this thread.
The ability to convert light into image and video data. I'm pretty pumped when the shit that comes out of the square thingy with the gold prongs is pretty.
This has been covered. Simply, it doesn't. Details can be found on page 1.
I think you're trying to help, but all of your posts reek elitist condescension.
I can recognize it, but the question is, can you?
Departures are expected. I appreciate your input. You've been quite helpful.
Don't apologise, we are getting some where.
From the wilderness comes the voice of reason. Thank you.
Dear fence sprinter, its hard to put an old head on young shoulders, does this sound condescending to you? If not we are on the right track.
So if you have better high ISO performance it doesn't allow you to shoot in more situations?
If you have greater dynamic range it doesn't give you more room for error in your exposure?
How are those opinion
If you disagree I asked you already to explain, can you
Two monks were sitting in the temple garden darkness arguing about the meaning of a Sutra.
They heard footsteps pause behind them but didn't glance up and continued arguing.
Later Master Satori approached silently, hit brother Nikon and brother Canon in the head with his fan and slipped away.
Next morning the two monks approached the master, told him what happened and asked what it meant.
'Bodhidharma visited you to transmit his wisdom but you were busy.'
'I wonder what wisdom the Bodhidharma had for us?' asked the monks.
'The golden moon spilling Sutra blossoms' laughed the Master and hit them again.
Waaaiiit a minute. Can I at least get credit for making to the front page?
That seems to be the sentiment that I am at odds with here. I'm surprised by the number of replies I've received that argue for an inferior product. "Why buy a 6D when you could just buy an older X brand or a DX or APS-C, etc etc."
It seems to be rooted in the belief that someone who doesn't shoot for profit shouldn't own a camera with pro or near pro features. This is rooted in a lot of supposition about lack of skill and/or knowledge.
Let's assume I am a clueless amateur. Can one not learn? Must an amateur use a D3100 or a rebel series camera before moving on? Would he not be better served by making a larger initial investment rather than buying something he'll not be entirely happy with as his skills improve?
If this were Road Warriors and were a n00b rider looking for advice on my first bike: RC8R, 1199, S1000rr, etc - I'd expect a similar, yet warranted, response. However, my well being isn't likely threatened by this purchase.
So, why can't I have nice things? Huh? HUH?!
Not particularly. I'm just not so sure I want an old head. Though, I'm sure that's quite a typical response of the one with the young shoulders...
NsandVs gets it, honestly. We're at odds because "the OP has a APS-C (had a DX, but whatevs) DSLR and wants to make the upgrade he likely knows why." Most of your contribution has ignored the initial topic and has supposed that I have neither the knowledge (nor the ability to learn) or skill to take advantage of the features of a high-end body.
You love the spec sheet eh Nikons.
I re-submit my first post for your consideration.
You have been brain washed. The camera / system will not make you better images, especially based on what you typically shoot. But you knew that, right.?
Go take some pics, post em up here, tell us what you don't like and what you need to achieve. Then you will get some value, in comments.
Quoting IXO and other performance specifications is a complete waste of time imho.
1) Learn how to quote multiple parts of a post it isn't hard and makes responding a lot easier.
2) Damn you are doing anything you can to not admit that you're wrong:
I guess reading is hard as well, I said it expands the situations..that's a simple yes or no. It is not saying that in every possible one you can do more. A great red herring/non-answer.
Unless someone is taking multiple spot meters and working it out they wont be perfect (even then it still can be off) all the time. If you hit every exposure perfectly....well no one does so this is another great non-answer.
It's interesting that you can't admit the advantages to greater dynamic range and high ISO performance. Maybe you should be posting in CS&M.
Dynamic range is important for landscape work again it will let him have more room for error as well as make it easier to expose for the ground and sky, additionally if the sun is in the frame it will keep it from being as blown out.
That's all pretty basic, and no one is saying a camera magically makes someone a better photographer....nice red herring though.
And yes I am responding to a post you wrote to someone else, reason being is you are posting information that doesn't fit reality due to some bias against specs.
So far all you have put down is opinion with nothing to back it up.....when questioned about specifics you go off on tangents or post red herrings instead of addressing them.
why don't you stick it up where it don't shine! you are a low life scumbag to accuse some one of outright lying!!
I mistakenly thought you were talking about the R90S instrument pic, taken by Sony DSC..
I'm using cold monkey which blocks out all images except first one.
FYI ... beauty is in the eye of the beholder! I'm convinced no matter what shot is posted ... someone will find a way to bash it. so why bother...
that pic of Frank Lloyd Wright tower shot was completely set up. spent almost an hour there on a series of shots. the high quality images from that shoot are all in raw.
that building is well known .. free to look up other pic's to compare.
You spent an hour setting up that pic?
Sorry folks. I know it's a hanging curve ball, but I can't bring myself to swing the bat. Ya'll do it.
I prefer the dino Canon oil....how about you?