[séamuis]

I don't see what is so difficult about this. Using a camera for one's own work, making images with it, can easily be a totally seperate thing from "handling" or "trying out" a camera (I gave my own example of trying out a 1D but not using one for any of my own work).

It's not a one-or-the-other situation. Both statements can be valid without contradicting each other.

I disagree. using the equipment directly requires handling the equipment. the two statements are contradicting, period.

[awo425]

sounds interesting. I would love the VF and the ISO.
Interesting that it can miss with some AF points. Guess there's always something wrong with a camera system none are perfect!

If they make AF perfect on this camera they would somewhat jeopardize sales of 1D series cameras.
I think the reason why center point is better, is because there's more advanced AF sensor behind it.

[er1kksen]

I disagree. using the equipment directly requires handling the equipment. the two statements are contradicting, period.

Yes, obviously, but handling the equipment does not require using that equipment, and that is the point that I was making. There are (count them) three ways for those two statements to interact: Using the equipment did occur, which would require handling to have occured; or handling the equipment did occur- which can occur independently with no actual "use" of the equipment involved, or it can occur accompanying actual use of the equipment (logically equivalent to the first interaction).

The second interaction (handling but no use) does not cause any contradiction in the OP's statements. I'm really not sure why you bothered to pick on it in the first place. Some kind of bone to pick?

[séamuis]

Yes, obviously, but handling the equipment does not require using that equipment, and that is the point that I was making. There are (count them) three ways for those two statements to interact: Using the equipment did occur, which would require handling to have occured; or handling the equipment did occur- which can occur independently with no actual "use" of the equipment involved, or it can occur accompanying actual use of the equipment (logically equivalent to the first interaction).

The second interaction (handling but no use) does not cause any contradiction in the OP's statements. I'm really not sure why you bothered to pick on it in the first place. Some kind of bone to pick?

no bone to pick. you assume that likely because of the whole drama surrounding him and the contest? I could care less about that. he didnt say "use" he said "I tried them out". which by your own statement is apparently pretty much the same as 'handle' Using a camera for one's own work, making images with it, can easily be a totally seperate thing from "handling" or "trying out" a camera his statement is pretty vague, and could mean 'handle' or 'use' as far as I read it. thus my first question. but since he has a record of posting some rather, shall we say B.S. posts even before the competition, I am skeptical at best.

[er1kksen]

no bone to pick. you assume that likely because of the whole drama surrounding him and the contest? I could care less about that. he didnt say "use" he said "I tried them out". which by your own statement is apparently pretty much the same as 'handle' Using a camera for one's own work, making images with it, can easily be a totally seperate thing from "handling" or "trying out" a camera his statement is pretty vague, and could mean 'handle' or 'use' as far as I read it. thus my first question. but since he has a record of posting some rather, shall we say B.S. posts even before the competition, I am skeptical at best.

Yes exactly, his own statement was pretty vague. Not solid enough to nitpick, in my opinion.

I am aware of the poster's history, but with something as unsolid as this I just don't see the need to add a tone of aggression to what (we hope and pray) is a generally friendly forum.

[séamuis]

Yes exactly, his own statement was pretty vague. Not solid enough to nitpick, in my opinion.

I am aware of the poster's history, but with something as unsolid as this I just don't see the need to add a tone of aggression to what (we hope and pray) is a generally friendly forum.

aggression? I merely asked him a question and provided my opinion. I dont see where there was aggression. I didnt even respond directly to his answer. I stand by my thoughts, and as a public forum I have every right, but I dont see the aggression that you apparently see. I think his statements are contradicting and so I inquired or as you call it (nitpicking). are you saying I havent a right to ask questions and share opinions? that I havent a right to question other peoples posts just because they dont fit to your standards of politeness and correctness? what good is his offered information to the thread, if its possibly untruthful?

[fractal]

Do you two need a room? This has gone completely south.

[séamuis]

Do you two need a room? This has gone completely south.

south? its called discussion. we have a disagreement, we are discussing it. I get so tired of people interjecting because they dont like the tone. seriously, just ignore the discussion if you dont like it.

[jct us101]

Ok, everyone don't worry about it, no aggression taken, simple misunderstanding, whatever.

That is correct, however. I did not own either the 5D or the 5D Mark II and my statements were vague, so it does seem like I contradicted myself. I meant it in the first place that I never owned them. I have tried out a 5D Mark II that someone I know has, and I've tested the one out in Best Buy, along with the 5D classic. To me, the 5D classic felt stronger and better overall.

[séamuis]

Ok, everyone don't worry about it, no aggression taken, simple misunderstanding, whatever.

That is correct, however. I did not own either the 5D or the 5D Mark II and my statements were vague, so it does seem like I contradicted myself. I meant it in the first place that I never owned them. I have tried out a 5D Mark II that someone I know has, and I've tested the one out in Best Buy, along with the 5D classic. To me, the 5D classic felt stronger and better overall.

thanks for clearing it up mate.

[fractal]

south? its called discussion. we have a disagreement, we are discussing it. I get so tired of people interjecting because they dont like the tone. seriously, just ignore the discussion if you dont like it.

If you would like to direct your attention to the title of the thread you would realise that this is actually a discussion someone else created and from what I can see you have contributed nothing here besides a thread jacking. I have no problems with your tone in any way.

[séamuis]

If you would like to direct your attention to the title of the thread you would realise that this is actually a discussion someone else created and from what I can see you have contributed nothing here besides a thread jacking. I have no problems with your tone in any way.

how is asking a contributor to this thread to clarify his comment and give my opinion a thread hijack? this is just natural progression of discussion. I didnt break any rules. you dont like it just move on. you are by your own apparent definition, participating in what you are scolding.

[fractal]

this is just natural progression of discussion

Please tell me you mean deterioration as opposed to progression..

Mostly, the majority of people stop posting in any given thread when it is taken over by meaningless, immature debates & degeneration is apparent. I thought I would try to steer the thread back in the right direction, with the OP in mind, but have obviously failed.

Yes, i'm participating in what i'm scolding and I apologise to dugrant for that.

[er1kksen]

aggression? I merely asked him a question and provided my opinion. I dont see where there was aggression. I didnt even respond directly to his answer. I stand by my thoughts, and as a public forum I have every right, but I dont see the aggression that you apparently see. I think his statements are contradicting and so I inquired or as you call it (nitpicking). are you saying I havent a right to ask questions and share opinions? that I havent a right to question other peoples posts just because they dont fit to your standards of politeness and correctness? what good is his offered information to the thread, if its possibly untruthful?

I interpreted your original remark as sarcastic and a bit derisive. This specifically: "you seem to know a lot about something you know nothing about." That still sounds sarcastic and derisive to me, though I feel that our disagreement from there remained civil as well as valid, so not what I would call a "deterioration" of discussion. Meaningless or immature do not, as far as I can tell, apply to a thorough hashing-out of a contested idea so long as it does not descend to personal attacks and name-calling. I think we probably agree on that, Seamius.

You certainly have a right to ask questions and share opinions, and I've certainly had my own sarcastic moments. It's just that when I see an attack-style post I feel is unwarranted (like this one... it was a perfectly valid question without the "you seem to know a lot about something you know nothing about" part) I get a little riled up by them. And just as you're free to question a post's honesty, I am equally free to question your method, (and then you can continue to question my reasons for doing so, etc)? Disagreements are an essential part of community as well, and I'm glad (though it may sound funny) that we've been able to have one.

[wshi]

I got to play with a friend's 5D mark I and grip the other day with Canon's cheapo 50 f/1.8... gotta say, loved the feel of it all. It just felt like a different beast altogether than a pentax camera.

Subjective as hell, but meh