I didn't visit this thread for a while. Lotsa activity.
In my field of work, to prevent these kinds of exchanges that tend to fragment care, we resort to randomized controlled trials. RTC's, must as a prerequisite, have an adequate sample size (computed statistically) in order to be significant.
The anology being, if you could do this in all of the disputed contentions in this thread, then I will skew my thoughts to the favorable opinion. Since these types of experiments are not deviced for photography because it is "art", which is a largely subjective field, then there is no final say on any matter, at least by a ANY single person.
The only gripe I have is the heavy handed insistence that such and such are better (AF, built quality etc..etc..) where the only evidence shown are experiments that are not randomized, controlled, not free of confounders, and no statistical inferences. Even the tests done by dpreview although standardized does not have a control group, which makes them quasi experiments. Therefore results should be taken with a grain of salt.
Forgive my respectful "insolence", but I take no ones experience with any camera as facts, they are all anecdotal. ALL. Same as the contention that having tested/owned all other cameras makes one's opinion "seem" authoritative.
All of the points that were said here should be taken with a healthy amount of skepticism. I know this goes BOTH ways with whatever, sony or nikon, canon and the rest. At best these are all opinions. None is better than the other (emphasis added).
We need to be scientific in assessing and also in providing the evidence to support our data. And let it stand there.
Indeed, let us just enjoy the beauty and flaws of every camera that we have. It was a good debate both sides. There were no bashing. Lets just remember to be scientific.
Actually, the more I think about this, it is a good subject to discuss further perhaps ... at least to better understand where people are coming from. Maybe it belongs in the Sunset Bar Forum ... but it's started here so ....
Most of us rely on anecdotal experiences from people who's opinions over time have proven of value in the past. Often, these other photographers have subjective tastes similar to our own, or have offered technical solutions that worked to accomplish some specific task.
Let's take out fearless leaders Jack and Guy for example. While my creative focus is quite different from either of these photographers, Guy often faces very similar real world demands ... so his anecdotal experiences are usually a good indicator that I would have similar experiences. Guy doesn't have to perform a controlled test monitored by MIT for his opinion to be of worth to me. So, it is specific to lining up your needs to others in similar conditions or demands.
Jack has provided some invaluable technical advice, on and off forum, that solved specific issues I had communicated. Yes, some subjectivity here also, but not so much when it solves the issue at hand for a specific person and their specific needs.
When people make some comment, heavy handed or not, I usually look at their work to determine what their tastes and creative focus may be. This tells me what criteria they are using to make their pronouncements ... often made with the authority of that very use and need. Anyone that takes anyone else's pronouncements as authoritarian should be intelligent enough to realize it is ALL subjective and fueled by the passion of their specific criteria.
The desire to make it all scientific is a futile task IMHO. There are to many variables, which is what makes it art. It would be quite easy to challenge every single anecdotal comment or experience (in favor of or against) with a simple 2 word sentence ... "prove it!" This is of course impossible.
People make this challenge all the time by referencing someone's work that aligns with their own tastes and creative prejudices. This is no more proof than citing the work of Raphael to challenge the work of Picasso ... then going on to cite the brushes and paints used by Raphael as superior to those used by Picasso ... and so on.
I have used most of the cameras under discussion in this thread. It does not make me an authority on any of them EXCEPT where it impacts my own criteria and creative objectives. It is there that I am the authority. If I say I don't like such and such and say why ... it doesn't mean it will be true for one single other person on the planet. It is my "current" truth not a universal one. If someone is after similar objective or faces similar conditions, then that opinion may be of further value. Otherwise there would be no point to any discussion nor a need for any forum.
I for one do not favor homogenization and have yet to find a single camera that accomplishes anything that pops into my head or covers all of the situations in which I must make photographs. What seems to have happened with digital is that most people have to make a single choice because it is so darned expensive to have more than one solution. So we make a choice that best fits our tastes and objectives ... then bristle about any comment that points out the short-comings ... asking for proof ... which again is the universal way to stop any experienced opinion dead in it's tracks.
Your thoughts?
-Marc
)
