bernardl wrote:
I am not twisting things at all. I just debunked your arguments and you are apparently unwilling/unable to admit it. At least clearly not willing to engage in an honnest discussion.
Have I made this into a brand thing? I don’t think so. My view applies equally to Canon and Leica. If I did mention Sony it was as an example because we all know your unconditional love of anything they do. I just made it easier to relate to for you. And to make my view Cristal clear. I am not even reproaching these brands to provide this capability. It does make sense in some extreme dust situations. My point is that it’s a terrible idea to use this function in normal circumstances because the risk to reward balance is very poor. Should Nikon provide this option? I think they should.
The pre-DSLR discussion is self-explanatory. You claim that past data proofs the lack of risk of the practise. I demonstrated that the comparison isn’t valid. You now claim to have answered the objection by using my very explanation against yourself. Indeed your point is that Nikon would not be using the approach because their mount is shallower than Sony’s… admitting that mount depth impacts on the level of risk… but your didn’t go all the way and admit that the much deeper pre-DSLR mounts should therefore be even much less likely to result in damage (especially since the shutters were much more simple and robust back then). So you have indeed validated my point perfectly but refuse to admit it. It doesn’t look like I am the one twisting things here, does it?
I don’t remember accusing you of praising Sony. But my view remains that anything you perceive as a criticism of Sony technical decisions (shared by other brands or not, irrelevant) generates an uncontrolled defensive reaction from you that isn’t based on facts or logic. We’ve seen this time and again. I am a happy Sony customer, I love the brand as much as anybody else. Great company and great products.
It’s all the more amusing that you have admitted a second time in this very exchange that I was right when avoiding carefully to explain why Sony decided to move to a dedicated shield design in the a9III although, according to you, the shutter is/was absolutely not problematic and presents zero risks.
Sorry, I won’t comment on the personal attacks.
To bring this discussion back on healthier tracks, I have pré-ordered a Z6III. No idea when it will show up, I wasn’t able to do it until 2h after the opening. I am probably tens of thousands units down in the wait list.
Just to refresh your memory this was both the first personal attack, and the first brand reference in this previously nuetral and polite thread about a simple feature. It was made by you.
bernardl wrote:
I am afraid that your views are once again driven by the desire to defend Sony designs (prior to the a9III) more than by a genuine belief in the argument you are trying to defend in the face of logic.
Bernard
My response in this regard is that it is not a Sony design. Canon innovated the current implementation which many companies have now adopted. Seemingly all but Nikon. In my view this has never been a Sony vs Nikon subject. It is Nikon vs the resto of the industry. I feel that is a mistake is all.
You apparently now agree that Nikon should include the shutter as dust shield option in their camera's. This was my point from the beginning. In the beginning you said it was only "common sense" not to include this feature as it was too risky. . So progress has been made. Good enough for me. Let's hope NIkon eventually does include it.
coralnut wrote:
I'm with you, Robert. I don't like having to grip a camera with less than all of my fingers, and I really like a camera that's easy to grasp for a vertical composition.
While I understand some peoples' like for dainty/compact camera bodies, I just can't manage with them when using any large lens. To me large lenses handle best on a large frame camera and a battery grip makes all the difference in the world.
There are some handling conditions where a large, easy to grasp camera would be much safer to handle -- I'd hate to be in a kayak and lose hold of a small camera because I was trying to hold onto it with less than all of my fingers!
Good points coral nut. The Z9 is a "Rock"! 146mm square and I'd guess as compact as is possible. I am fairly certain I will be getting a Z9 one day. I guess I'd use it for work around here.
1bwana1 wrote:
Just to refresh your memory this was both the first personal attack, and the first brand reference in this previously nuetral and polite thread about a simple feature. It was made by you.
My response in this regard is that it is not a Sony design. Canon innovated the current implementation which many companies have now adopted. Seemingly all but Nikon. In my view this has never been a Sony vs Nikon subject. It is Nikon vs the resto of the industry. I feel that is a mistake is all.
You apparently now agree that Nikon should include the shutter as dust shield option in their camera's. This was my point from the beginning. In the beginning you said it was only "common sense" not to include this feature as it was too risky. . So progress has been made. Good enough for me. Let's hope NIkon eventually does include it.
Common sense was always about not using this feature in 99.999% of situations. Apologies if that wasn't clear enough.
For my very varied usage, in the past 20+ years, over millions of images I would never have used this feature even if it were available on Nikon cameras. But I do gladly use my dedicated shields on Z8/Z9/a9III.
bernardl wrote:
Common sense was always about not using this feature in 99.999% of situations. Apologies if that wasn't clear enough.
For my very varied usage, in the past 20+ years, over millions of images I would never have used this feature even if it were available on Nikon cameras. But I do gladly use my dedicated shields on Z8/Z9/a9III.
Cheers,
Bernard
There is never a right or wrong when it comes to personal preferences. It is best to have options. As is often the case we end in understanding and possibly even agreement.
JasonMello wrote:
Yeah the a7iv never stood out for me. I love the a7rv though. Beautiful camera.
When I had my Z6 II, I decided to try the A7IV because I needed a well rounded hybird camera (video/stills). I kept hitting limits with the 8-bit 4:2:0 video in the Z6 II. While I was happy with 24mp, the video disappointed me. I didn't care much about the 33mp in the A7IV as it was a bit noiser in both stills and video but I liked the 10-bit of the A7IV. In my experience, my copy of the A7IV wasn't a good one because it froze numerous times, requiring the battery to be pulled out each time. Along with some other issues, I decided to just keep the Z6 II and waited for the Z6 III. Still, A7IV has received high praise from lots of reviewers and I liked the video out of it, but with the Z6 III, its a no brainer for me.
Is the point this guy is making about the PSAM button on the left side valid? I don't do either BIF or action, so this is a don't care for me. But the argument seems rational, despite the somewhat annoying attitude
GroovyGeek wrote:
Is the point this guy is making about the PSAM button on the left side valid? I don't do either BIF or action, so this is a don't care for me. But the argument seems rational, despite the somewhat annoying attitude
I got to play with Z6 iii a bit at a launch event over here. It will be availalbe June 28th here.
Basically it felt more like Z6/Z7 series with bigger grip rather than Z8.
I did not try any challenging subject but with 135/1.8S subject recognition is pretty much instantaneous
as long as the subject is not too blurry. This is under artificial light that was a bit on the dark side.
The experience is closer to Z8/Z9 rather than Zf but no chance to experiment with tracking though.
EVF is very bright. Panning feel like looking through OVF.
No plan to get Z6 iii myself but I am quite impressed.
His conclusion: Nikon really knocked it out of the park here. They finally got to the place where I've been saying the AF has needed to be since they went to the Z6 and Z6 II.
snapsy wrote:
His conclusion: Nikon really knocked it out of the park here. They finally got to the place where I've been saying the AF has needed to be since they went to the Z6 and Z6 II.
I suggest you wait for proper reviews. This fellow is the last person I would take advice from in these matters.
Alistair1 wrote:
I suggest you wait for proper reviews. This fellow is the last person I would take advice from in these matters.
I'm not a fan of him myself but he's one of the first people I would take advice from on matters related to AF - he's a professional photographer who used to make a living shooting sports.
Ricci and Perry have both reviewed it and say it delivers 99% of the Z8/Z9 AF performance.
Considering that the Z8/Z9 with the latest firmware focus a bit better than the a9III (itself absolutely outstanding) overall I believe that there is little doubt that the AF of the Z6III wil be excellent, as in suitable for the most demanding pro sports applications.
snapsy wrote:
I'm not a fan of him myself but he's one of the first people I would take advice from on matters related to AF - he's a professional photographer who used to make a living shooting sports.
Agreed, but now he makes his living generating clicks on YouTube.
snapsy wrote:
And for his AF tests he earns those clicks. For everything else I ignore because most of his content is low value.
The problem I have with Fro and his ilk is that his channel is a community of those invested in brands and seeking affirmation of their purchase decisions. Bashing competing brands plays very well to this audience and has made him a lot of money.
Indeed your point is that Nikon would not be using the approach because their mount is shallower than Sony’s… admitting that mount depth impacts on the level of risk… but your didn’t go all the way and admit that the much deeper pre-DSLR mounts should therefore be even much less likely to result in damage (especially since the shutters were much more simple and robust back then). So you have indeed validated my point perfectly but refuse to admit it. It doesn’t look like I am the one twisting things here, does it?