Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              5      
6
       end
  

Update on Steelsring EF-GFX adapter
  
 
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #1 · p.6 #1 · Update on Steelsring EF-GFX adapter


Steve Spencer wrote:
If you want me to quote from your article for each point I make, I am more than glad to do so.


I did not ask you do do that. My issue was that you attributed words to me that I did not use — and then argued with the position you invented as if it were mine.

(If I recall correctly, you may have an academic background. If so, I presume that you understand how serious this is and why.)

It does no harm to my article to make the following minor change to this paragraph that concerns you so much, and I have done so.

"So, in the case most favorable to miniMF, where the crop factor of miniMF is said to be 1.37x, it is worth noting that the difference is smaller than that between full frame and traditional cropped factor formats. In the case least favorable to miniMF, the crop factor is barely more than 1.2, an even smaller difference."

Dan


Edited on Jan 05, 2018 at 06:50 PM · View previous versions



Jan 05, 2018 at 06:35 PM
Steve Spencer
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #2 · p.6 #2 · Update on Steelsring EF-GFX adapter


gdanmitchell wrote:
I did not ask you do do that. I did point out that you attribute words to me that I did not use.

(If I recall correctly, you may have some sort of academic background, in which case you undoubtedly understand how serious that request is and why.)

It does no harm to my point to make the following minor change to this paragraph, and I have done so.

"So, in the case most favorable to miniMF, where the crop factor of miniMF is said to be 1.37x, it is worth noting that the difference is smaller than that between full frame
...Show more

No Dan, you didn't ask me to do quote from your article for each point. That in my view would have been the cordial way to proceed. Instead you accused me of putting words in your mouth and engaging in logical fallacies. My only response to that was to actually quote what you said. So, I did. For the record, I don't think the new wording fixes the misleading and inconsistent nature of what you are saying at all. It still reads like the difference between the two types of crops is much bigger than the difference between FF 35mm and 44X33, which is of course exactly the opposite of what the math tells us. The difference between the two types of crops for 4 X 3 or squarer is half the size as the difference between FF 35mm and 44X33 for 3 X 2 or a skinnier rectangle. If the first is notable, then the second is as well, and if the second is not notable then the first most certainly is not. This still reads like the first in notable and the second is not and that is of course misleading and inconsistent.



Jan 05, 2018 at 06:50 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #3 · p.6 #3 · Update on Steelsring EF-GFX adapter


Steve, we're going to have to agree to disagree since, as I suspected, nothing short of letting you become my editor will resolve all of your objections.

To be clear, a reader of the whole article (as opposed to one disembodied paragraph) will see that I am trying to help people understand the magnitude of the difference between FF and miniMF by using the more familiar difference between cropped-sensor format and full-frame as a reference point, and that this is only one small aspect of the article as a whole.

The object here is not to say that the difference between the two formats is is objectively significant or insignificant, but rather to illustrate that it is a bit smaller than the familiar difference between cropped and full-frame formats. That seems like useful information. My article is a clear, understandable, and accurate way help readers understand how miniMF compares to formats they already know about... and perhaps a few with which they are less familiar.

As I acknowledge at several points in the article, including in a separate section devoted to this at the end, there are different ways to interpret these facts. One could be, as I am, be attracted to the potential of miniMF but remain unconvinced that the pluses currently outweigh the minuses at this time. Or one could, as that concluding section illustrates, decide that these differences are significant enough to move to miniMF now. (That section essentially acknowledges your point of view!)

To your notion that even the words "worth noting" are too biased, I point out that the alternative is to argue that the difference is not worth noting. That leads to an unsolvable problem — at what objective point do we locate the boundary between "worth noting" and "not worth noting?" Is the difference between FF and crop also not "worth noting?" Is a difference between 42MP and 50MP "worth noting?" I think it is fair to suggest that readers "note" it, and I agree (as the article as a whole allows) that they may come to various conclusions.

I urge you and other readers to not miss the forest for the trees when reading the article. For people trying to understand the objective differences between miniMF and full frame, I think the article provides useful and accurate information, along with my perspectives on the meaning of the difference and acknowledgement of other points of view. Please also note that I'm actually favorably inclined toward the miniMF format, but simply not convinced that it yet provides sufficient advantages for me in my photography to move in that direction. One could read the article and decide to get miniMF or not based on what I write.

I know, and I'm sure you do, too, that no piece of writing is perfect from the perspectives of all possible readers. There will undoubtedly be people like you who think I should alter it in ways that favor the miniMF option more, and there are undoubtedly others who think that some of my "plus" arguments for miniMF are not convincing. That is the nature of writing, and I accept that I can't make you completely happy about this.

Take care,

Dan

(BTW: Your posts did inspire me to make a few other edits to the article. Thanks for that.)



Jan 05, 2018 at 07:05 PM
Steve Spencer
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #4 · p.6 #4 · Update on Steelsring EF-GFX adapter


gdanmitchell wrote:
Steve, we're going to have to agree to disagree since, as I suspected, nothing short of letting you become my editor will resolve all of your objections.

To be clear, a reader of the whole article (as opposed to one disembodied paragraph) will see that I am trying to help people understand the magnitude of the difference between FF and miniMF by using the more familiar difference between cropped-sensor format and full-frame as a reference point, and that this is only one small aspect of the article as a whole.

The object here is not to say that the difference between the
...Show more

Dan,

As I have said several times it is your blog and you can do what you like. I have no interest in being your editor. I do have a substantive criticism of what you have written. You can choose to address that substantive criticism or ignore it. It is up to you. The substantive criticism is that you make it sound like the difference between the two crop factors is bigger than the difference between FF 35mm and 44X33 sensors and the objective fact is that the difference between the crop factor is half the size as the difference between FF 35mm and 44X33 even when it is at its smallest. You could address that in many different ways, but it is a substantive criticism based on the math behind sensor size differences and not a difference of opinion or a subjective difference. So, ignore my point or address it. That is really up to you.

And I don't think you should alter the article to be more favorable toward 44X33 sensors, I just think you should alter the article so that it doesn't misrepresent the math behind the sensor difference and imply that a smaller difference is more meaningful than a larger difference. In short, I think you need to be accurate so that people can make up their own minds rather than misleading and inconsistent. But again what arguments you make are up to you.



Jan 05, 2018 at 07:59 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #5 · p.6 #5 · Update on Steelsring EF-GFX adapter


I disagree with your perspectives on this, Steve — on both objective and subjective matters — and I'll stand by what is there now. Nothing is being misrepresented, and despite quibbles about preferred ways to state and/or emphasize things, the article is accurate, useful, and relevant as is.

Take care,

Dan



Jan 05, 2018 at 09:33 PM
Steve Spencer
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #6 · p.6 #6 · Update on Steelsring EF-GFX adapter


gdanmitchell wrote:
I disagree with your perspectives on this, Steve — on both objective and subjective matters — and I'll stand by what is there now. Nothing is being misrepresented, and despite quibbles about preferred ways to state and/or emphasize things, the article is accurate, useful, and relevant as is.

Take care,

Dan


Dan,

You obviously think that is true and I obviously don't. You have obviously decided to ignore my criticism. No skin off my nose. As I said do as you like, but don't be surprised if you quote you blog post that I add my two cents about how I think it is misleading and inconsistent.



Jan 06, 2018 at 01:05 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 

        


gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #7 · p.6 #7 · Update on Steelsring EF-GFX adapter


Steve Spencer wrote:
... You have obviously decided to ignore my criticism. No skin off my nose. As I said do as you like, but don't be surprised if you quote you blog post that I add my two cents about how I think it is misleading and inconsistent.


Seriously, Steve?!

I did not "ignore" your criticism.

I listened, discussed, and even changed portions of my article as a result. I probably spent an hour editing today after considering your points. That is hardly "ignoring" you.

I've tried to be civil, but it appears that the only outcome that might end your claims that I'm "misleading" people with "inaccurate" information will be for me to use words that you insist are the correct ones and present them in the way you prefer.

It is fine for you to have a point of view that is different than mine, but your insistence that I adopt your language and point of view in my article is perplexing and vexing. Are you unable to accept a point of view other than your own?

I'll continue to share articles from my blog where doing so is a useful adjunct to what I share in posts here. If you do respond to those posts, rather than using pejoratives such as "misleading" and "inconsistent,"I hope you will focus on principled, respectful, and rational criticism of what I actually wrote... and perhaps also acknowledge that your way isn't the only way.

:-(



Jan 06, 2018 at 04:17 AM
Bubble
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #8 · p.6 #8 · Update on Steelsring EF-GFX adapter


Guys, can we give a rest on this? 2 more pages back and forth. Common man.


Jan 06, 2018 at 04:49 AM
Steve Spencer
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #9 · p.6 #9 · Update on Steelsring EF-GFX adapter


gdanmitchell wrote:
Seriously, Steve?!

I did not "ignore" your criticism.

I listened, discussed, and even changed portions of my article as a result. I probably spent an hour editing today after considering your points. That is hardly "ignoring" you.

I've tried to be civil, but it appears that the only outcome that might end your claims that I'm "misleading" people with "inaccurate" information will be for me to use words that you insist are the correct ones and present them in the way you prefer.

It is fine for you to have a point of view that is different than mine, but your insistence
...Show more

Dan,

Yes, I am serious, and I don't care what words you actually use. I haven't suggested wording and as I said I have no interest in editing your blog post. And although you changed some of the wording in your blog you still have not changed the substance of what you wrote in response to my substantive concerns. You continue to suggest that the move up from APS-C to FF 35mm is notably and considerably bigger than the move from FF 35mm to 44X33. Yet that move up from APS-C to FF 35mm is only a quarter of a stop larger than the move up from FF 35mm to 44X33. Then you go on to talk about how small the move up from FF 35mm to 44X33 is and you never say it is notable or considerable. When even at its smallest it is a half of stop and therefore twice as large as the difference you are calling notable and considerable

That based on simple math is inconsistent and misleading. It is this substantive issue that you have chosen to ignore, and I will continue to point out the flaw in your argument. I think there is tons of places we can can and should disagree when discussing photography. Different things have different value and meaning to different photographers. Differences in the underlying math, however, are not places where disagreement makes sense and when you use the underlying math inconsistently and in doing so present a misleading argument I am going to mention it because I don't think people should be misled. It is as simple as that.



Jan 06, 2018 at 04:53 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #10 · p.6 #10 · Update on Steelsring EF-GFX adapter


You continue to suggest that the move up from APS-C to FF 35mm is notably and considerably bigger than the move from FF 35mm to 44X33...

No, I don’t.

I do not “suggest,” much less write, that the move between formats in one case is “notably and considerably bigger” than the difference in another case. That is your inference from the facts I presented.

I point out that the difference is bigger (which it indisputably is) and that this is worth noting (also a true statement), and I offer the comparison as a frame of useful reference for understanding the relative size of formats (which it is). The actual sizes of the various differences are laid out in a chart and in the text. Readers are free to draw their other own conclusions about the significance of these facts in the context of their own photography, as I make explicitly clear in my article.

Your are still making things up that I did not write, you accuse me of bias (yet seem unable to recognize the possibility of your own), and you continue to argue with what you made up and look for hidden meanings where there are none.

I tried, Steve, but I can’t see how it is possible to continue to try to discuss this rationally with you.

I give up. :-)


Edited on Jan 06, 2018 at 07:26 PM · View previous versions



Jan 06, 2018 at 05:00 PM
chez
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #11 · p.6 #11 · Update on Steelsring EF-GFX adapter


gdanmitchell wrote:
I give up. :-)


Best post in this thread.

;-)



Jan 06, 2018 at 05:59 PM
molson
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #12 · p.6 #12 · Update on Steelsring EF-GFX adapter


chez wrote:
Best post in this thread.

;-)


Only if it's true...



Jan 07, 2018 at 02:19 PM
1       2       3              5      
6
       end






FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              5      
6
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password