Article:To whom it may concern.
- Thread starter raytoei@gmail.com
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 18
- Views 3K
stompyq
Well-known
Brilliant article. Thanks for posting this
PatrickONeill
Well-known
ultrasomething = ultraawesome
Gary Sandhu
Well-known
Um, it would be better without the exasperated, condescending tone....
jsrockit
Moderator
When people ask about my cameras on the street... I just tell them that it is a digital camera based on a 1950's design... that's usually enough to make them stop asking questions.
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
It goes on way too long.
oftheherd
Veteran
Yep, I got bored long before I could finish reading it.
ebino
Well-known
I agree the tone is off putting and the writing pretty lame.
PKR
Veteran
I think it's easier to come up with a MP value for whatever film camera I might be using. I'll try to keep the number low enough as not to enter into the MP competition with the questionnaire's camera or the object of his buying survey. I work with cameras for a living.. these people make me crazy. The first question is usually: "is that a XXX brand/model camera?". If I say yes or no, I open a conversation. My usual reply is, I'm trying to work, if you want to hang around until I'm finished, I'll try to answer your question. If I'm using a film camera, and it's recognized, I'm generally dismissed as a goof ball and they leave laughing. I find that is the best I can ask for.. as they are not hanging around..
I wonder if it might be good to dress my digital gear as film gear? I live/work in a tourists town.. lots of questions when working outdoors. p.
I wonder if it might be good to dress my digital gear as film gear? I live/work in a tourists town.. lots of questions when working outdoors. p.
Last edited:
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Agree.
Also agree.
Actually the writing is not bad at all.
The pictures are good, I think.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
I read just enough...
I've never thought of fibbing...just tell them it's an older version of the newest version and make up a number...I think I'll try that next time...it will save me having to explain that you can still buy film and they won't think I'm ghetto for still using it...(film, that is)
I've never thought of fibbing...just tell them it's an older version of the newest version and make up a number...I think I'll try that next time...it will save me having to explain that you can still buy film and they won't think I'm ghetto for still using it...(film, that is)
PKR
Veteran
I don't care what they think... This is all driven by marketing people. It's BS. I'm just a guy with a camera..trying to take a picture. These people are more interested in cameras than they are about pictures. If they cared about the picture I was taking they would ask.. they ask about the camera..not the picture
egor
Member
Just checking in here, since I wrote the article currently under, umm, "scrutiny." 🙂
I do regret that some readers mistake my tongue-in-cheek approach to discussing rangefinder advantages as "condescension." 'Twas absolutely not the intent, but in today's hyper-polarized world, I can understand how faux-exasperation can be confused with actual exasperation. If I didn't know me, and didn't read carefully, I might draw a similar conclusion.
In reality, I simply used my actual on-street discussions to "frame" the crux of the article -- rangefinders. Specifically, the article addresses a trend I've noticed recently -- that many people (including the press) are beginning to hang the name "rangefinder" on mirrorless, live-view cameras. My hope is that we can nip this trend in the bud -- I am not putting down "evil" cameras (I quite like them, and once owned a G1 and am considering a GH2). The article simply attempts to explain why these cameras are NOT rangefinders (or even rangefinder replacements), and what specific advantages an actual rangefinder has (for certain types of shooters).
Is the article too long? For many, probably. But my regular readers tend to appreciate the length and depth of my articles. Personally, I think they make a nice alternative to the "aggregator" type articles that abound. In this particular case, my elaborate "framing" of the article seems to have somewhat obscured its actual intent. It's as if I put an overly-ornate Edwardian frame around a simple black & white photo -- the frame becomes the topic of discussion, not the photo.
I do regret that some readers mistake my tongue-in-cheek approach to discussing rangefinder advantages as "condescension." 'Twas absolutely not the intent, but in today's hyper-polarized world, I can understand how faux-exasperation can be confused with actual exasperation. If I didn't know me, and didn't read carefully, I might draw a similar conclusion.
In reality, I simply used my actual on-street discussions to "frame" the crux of the article -- rangefinders. Specifically, the article addresses a trend I've noticed recently -- that many people (including the press) are beginning to hang the name "rangefinder" on mirrorless, live-view cameras. My hope is that we can nip this trend in the bud -- I am not putting down "evil" cameras (I quite like them, and once owned a G1 and am considering a GH2). The article simply attempts to explain why these cameras are NOT rangefinders (or even rangefinder replacements), and what specific advantages an actual rangefinder has (for certain types of shooters).
Is the article too long? For many, probably. But my regular readers tend to appreciate the length and depth of my articles. Personally, I think they make a nice alternative to the "aggregator" type articles that abound. In this particular case, my elaborate "framing" of the article seems to have somewhat obscured its actual intent. It's as if I put an overly-ornate Edwardian frame around a simple black & white photo -- the frame becomes the topic of discussion, not the photo.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Well, I enjoyed it and appreciated what I found to be a humorous tone.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I got a kick out of your article, and found a new blog to follow!
ederek
Well-known
egor - thanks for your comments. I also had the same impression as others regarding the condescending tone, but understand that wasn't your intent. All the best with your blog!
JayGannon
Well-known
Yeah when peopl ask me I just say 40mp because thats theoretically what I can get from a perfect neg on a drum scanner. Shuts them up too =)
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
About half the time I'm asked if it's digital is while I'm sitting in a restaurant and my Nikon F2a w/MD-2 is sitting on the table...I wasn't taking a picture so they were interested in the camera...
When actually shooting with the F4e or F5 I get the same question...they never really look at the camera...they just assume it's digital since they sorta, kinda, if you squint real hard look like one...
I don't really care what they think... 😀
Last edited by a moderator:
PKR
Veteran
You know, i speak a little Franch, Spanish and I could get some help with the Russian i had 1000 years ago. Maybe I'll just try to answer in a language that i figure they wouldn't understand.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
