philip_pj wrote:
The thread, while rather strange by our usual standards, raises several significant points, they persist even to this last page.
... exaggerated and erroneous claims so commonly seen today that no one usually corrects them, so they float along unchallenged.
Uninformed people who are ignorant of the facts might be reading and actually believing this information is true. +1
theSuede wrote:
But as other have already mentioned, the title COULD have been read as a rather philosophical afterthought about what we need and what we use (not always the same thing...) - but the extended discussion implied something entirely different. +1
This thread kinda reminds me about the old school debate over whether or not to buy (more $$$) the best film (vs. good film) and how much film to pack. The philosophical approach to that answer for many regarding the cost for the best film available or the cost to pack that much film was to compare those costs against the cost of the shot your missed if you hadn\'t prepared yourself for a best opportunity with the best film available.
I think that part of the OP\'s post is to infer a similar aspect of the cost of the \"missed shot\" that would have occurred if he had taken his D800 and then subsequently failed to use his D800, unwilling to incur the cost of carrying it. If I put it in the context of film ... for vacation shots I could have packed Kodak Gold 200 instead of Fujichrome 50 and the pics for sharing with friends would have been just fine. Objectively, not the same quality ... but functionally could serve a similar purpose and thus saved me the cost of bringing the more costly film, or in this case it saves the OP the cost of bringing the more costly (heavier/bulkier) camera and still provides suitable \"fit for purpose\" functionality.
Some approach things from the perspective of being prepared with the best available, always. Others approach from \"fit for purpose\". For each of us ... your call at how you approach it.
I suppose a similar claim that Kodak Gold 200 outperforms Fujichrome 50 could have been suggested back in the day as well. They might have said it has more latitude (negative vs. slide) or handles lower light (higher ISO) or offers higher shutter speed and smaller apertures (at the expense of grain pattern) or has the convenience of being processed in vastly more convenient manner (1 Hour Photo) and so they prefer using it over slow slide film for a variety of reasons ... thus the suggestion that Kodak Gold 200 outperforms Fujichrome 50 or K25. But, if you ever put Kodak 200 side by side with Fujichrome 50 or K25 ... plenty of people could believe the compelling case presented for Kodak Gold 200.
Hey Jim,
You sound like me, back in the day ... I dressed out @ 27 lbs, and went every where with it always, including a 14 mile mountain climb down Philip\'s way ... although I have to admit, I was a bit overdressed and paid for that one.
philip_pj wrote:
The thread, while rather strange by our usual standards, raises several significant points, they persist even to this last page.
... exaggerated and erroneous claims so commonly seen today that no one usually corrects them, so they float along unchallenged.
Uninformed people who are ignorant of the facts might be reading and actually believing this information is true. +1
theSuede wrote:
But as other have already mentioned, the title COULD have been read as a rather philosophical afterthought about what we need and what we use (not always the same thing...) - but the extended discussion implied something entirely different. +1
This thread kinda reminds me about the old school debate over whether or not to buy (more $$$) the best film (vs. good film) and how much film to pack. The philosophical approach to that answer for many regarding the cost for the best film available or the cost to pack that much film was to compare those costs against the cost of the shot your missed if you hadn\'t prepared yourself for a best opportunity with the best film available.
I think that part of the OP\'s post is to infer a similar aspect of the cost of the \"missed shot\" that would have occurred if he had taken his D800 and then subsequently failed to use his D800, unwilling to incur the cost of carrying it. If I put it in the context of film ... for vacation shots I could have packed Kodak Gold 200 instead of Fujichrome 50 and the pics for sharing with friends would have been just fine. Objectively, not the same quality ... but functionally could serve a similar purpose and thus saved me the cost of bringing the more costly film, or in this case it saves the OP the cost of bringing the more costly (heavier/bulkier) camera and still provides suitable \"fit for purpose\" functionality.
Some approach things from the perspective of being prepared with the best available, always. Others approach from \"fit for purpose\". For each of us ... your call at how you approach it.
I suppose a similar claim that Kodak Gold 200 outperforms Fujichrome 50 could have been suggested back in the day as well. They might have said it has more latitude (negative vs. slide) or handles lower light (higher ISO) or offers higher shutter speed and smaller apertures (at the expense of grain pattern) or has the convenience of being processed in vastly more convenient manner (1 Hour Photo) and so they prefer using it over slow slide film for a variety of reasons ... thus the suggestion that Kodak Gold 200 outperforms Fujichrome 50.
Hey Jim,
You sound like me, back in the day ... I dressed out @ 27 lbs, and went every where with it always, including a 14 mile mountain climb down Philip\'s way ... although I have to admit, I was a bit overdressed and paid for that one.
Apr 22, 2013 at 07:44 AM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #11502155 « My Fuji XE-1 outperforms my D800...... »
