interesting article on Sony FF mirrorless

http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sony...rrorless-fatal
mistake/

--
sid

In article , sid
wrote:

http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sony...rrorless-fatal
mistake/

the only fatal mistake is you got the url wrong.

here's the correct url:
http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sony...orless-fatal-m
istake/

as for the article, it's just another ignorant rant. he starts off by
refuting sony's size claim and then shows a picture of three cameras
where the sony camera is clearly the smallest.

On 7/10/2016 12:22 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , sid
wrote:

http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sony...rrorless-fatal
mistake/

the only fatal mistake is you got the url wrong.

here's the correct url:
http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sony...orless-fatal-m
istake/

as for the article, it's just another ignorant rant. he starts off by
refuting sony's size claim and then shows a picture of three cameras
where the sony camera is clearly the smallest.

Thanks for posting the correct link, and for once I completely agree
with your assessment of the article.

--
Best regards,

Neil

On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 12:22:18 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , sid
wrote:

http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sony...rrorless-fatal
mistake/

the only fatal mistake is you got the url wrong.

here's the correct url:
http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/

as for the article, it's just another ignorant rant. he starts off by
refuting sony's size claim and then shows a picture of three cameras
where the sony camera is clearly the smallest.

But not when fitted with a lens.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sony...ss-fatal-mista
ke/

as for the article, it's just another ignorant rant. he starts off by
refuting sony's size claim and then shows a picture of three cameras
where the sony camera is clearly the smallest.

But not when fitted with a lens.

yes when fitted with a lens.

the author of that article intentionally chose lenses that make the
sony look worse than it normally would.

On Sun, 10 Jul 2016 17:10:29 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sony...ss-fatal-mista
ke/

as for the article, it's just another ignorant rant. he starts off by
refuting sony's size claim and then shows a picture of three cameras
where the sony camera is clearly the smallest.

But not when fitted with a lens.

yes when fitted with a lens.

the author of that article intentionally chose lenses that make the
sony look worse than it normally would.

That may be true but nobody has stated that in this thread before you.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sony...rorless-fatal-
mista
ke/

as for the article, it's just another ignorant rant. he starts off by
refuting sony's size claim and then shows a picture of three cameras
where the sony camera is clearly the smallest.

But not when fitted with a lens.

yes when fitted with a lens.

the author of that article intentionally chose lenses that make the
sony look worse than it normally would.

That may be true but nobody has stated that in this thread before you.

so what?

nospam wrote:

In article , sid
wrote:

http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sony...rrorless-fatal
mistake/

the only fatal mistake is you got the url wrong.

here's the correct url:
http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sony...orless-fatal-m
istake/

Thanks for being so helpful, dunno what happened there, it was a copy and
paste.


as for the article, it's just another ignorant rant. he starts off by
refuting sony's size claim and then shows a picture of three cameras
where the sony camera is clearly the smallest.

Of course, your opinion is more valid than any other on the internet eh?

there is a link on the page I nearly linked to that has a differing opinion
also

http://petapixel.com/2016/04/05/defe...rless-cameras/

--
sid

In article , sid
wrote:

http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sony...rrorless-fatal
mistake/

the only fatal mistake is you got the url wrong.

here's the correct url:
http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sony...orless-fatal-m
istake/

Thanks for being so helpful, dunno what happened there, it was a copy and
paste.

linux, that's what.

as for the article, it's just another ignorant rant. he starts off by
refuting sony's size claim and then shows a picture of three cameras
where the sony camera is clearly the smallest.

Of course, your opinion is more valid than any other on the internet eh?

of course, you turn it into a personal attack.

there is a link on the page I nearly linked to that has a differing opinion
also

http://petapixel.com/2016/04/05/defe...rless-cameras/

looks like i'm not the only one with that opinion, eh?

nospam wrote:

In article , sid
wrote:

http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sony...rrorless-fatal
mistake/

the only fatal mistake is you got the url wrong.

here's the correct url:
http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sony...orless-fatal-m
istake/

Thanks for being so helpful, dunno what happened there, it was a copy and
paste.

linux, that's what.

The problem is much more likely sat in the chair!


as for the article, it's just another ignorant rant. he starts off by
refuting sony's size claim and then shows a picture of three cameras
where the sony camera is clearly the smallest.

Of course, your opinion is more valid than any other on the internet eh?

of course, you turn it into a personal attack.

If you think questioning if your opinion is more valid than another opinion
is a personal attack then you're clearly very sensitive.

there is a link on the page I nearly linked to that has a differing
opinion also

http://petapixel.com/2016/04/05/defe...rless-cameras/

looks like i'm not the only one with that opinion, eh?

Why should that be a surprise? I posted the link, knowing that at the end of
the article was a link to an opposite opinion. That was balanced, no opinion
offered by me either way.

--
sid