gdanmitchell wrote: skibum5 wrote: gdanmitchell wrote:
For all but the tiniest handful of shooters this would, of course, be nonsense. And, in fact, the difference between, say, 5 and 7 fps is truly academic for the vast majority of shooters. Yesterday I spent the evening photographing migratory birds, many of them in flight. Most of the time I didn\'t even use burst mode, and when I did, a slower rate than either of these worked quite well.
I think you underestimate how many people shoot sports.
skibum5 wrote:
So no, the differences are not all tech specs pixel peeping nonsense made up by clueless people who never actually take photos.
Perfect example of the \"straw man argument\". (Hint: You made up that silly point of view, so that you could \"argue\" against it. Problem is, it isn\'t mine, and I didn\'t read anything close to it elsewhere in this thread.)
Dan
I see you conveniently chopped out this part out of the message of yours to which I was responding: \"Part of what is going on here is that simple Tech Lust (or perhaps \"Specs Lust\" might be the right term) tends to draw a certain kind of photography enthusiast into the fold of camera owners. To some extent, these people are less interested in photography than they are in things with really cool specs that can reasonably be described as being \"the best.\" (Some seem to be essentially completely uninterested in actual photographs, but again I digress.)\"
yes, yes, of course, I made up a straw man once again (and thanks for the wiki link and further aided my comprehension by offering a hint, because the term straw man is so exotic and above most of us ), yes, whatever....
Feb 05, 2012 at 10:23 PM
Previous versions of skibum5's message #10313821 « A bit of perspective »
