FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedMarket for A mount?

Page  123 10>
Author
Bob J View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Dyxum Administrator

Joined: 23 December 2005
Country: United Kingdom
Location: London
Status: Offline
Posts: 26003
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Market for A mount?
    Posted: 09 September 2020 at 14:52
Too much bile, not enough notice taken of Pieter's post back on the 6th, or of people's rights to different opinions.

I'm closing this thread. If anyone can come up with a case for how it helps community knowledge, I'm happy to listen...
 



Back to Top
macronut View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 October 2012
Country: United States
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 739
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 September 2020 at 14:50
Wow you are failing miserably. I do enjoy a good debate, but the only thing enjoyable about this debate is the fact that I am dominating it.

Your vision is skewed. KM’s review doesn’t support your opinion nearly as much as it opposes it.   Of course they aren’t the same lens. He points out where the Sony is better and where the Minolta is similar. But just to be compared to the Sony, that speaks volumes for this old lens. Sorry but you and your opinion have very little company.
Only from the mind of Macronut.
Back to Top
pegelli View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Dyxum Administrator

Joined: 02 June 2007
Country: Belgium
Location: Schilde
Status: Offline
Posts: 29604
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 September 2020 at 14:48
Originally posted by LAbernethy LAbernethy wrote:

It's not a question of agree or disagree with me...
Kurt Munger's review:
Kurt Munger's review is just another opinion, no more, no less. It might align with your own findings but so what, it doesn't make it any more or less valid than any other opinion on this lens.


Originally posted by LAbernethy LAbernethy wrote:


Definition of fanboy: a boy or man who is an extremely or overly enthusiastic fan of someone or something


I've not seen anybody in this thread meeting your definition of "fanboy". The limitations of the beercan are well recognised by the people talking about it.

But since you seem to like to lecture us on definitions maybe you can explain what you really mean by "fanboys with the zeal of a religious convert", a description which I find derogetory and not fitting in the spirit of this forum.

Mind the bandwidth of others, don't link pictures larger then 1024 wide or 960 pix high, see here
Back to Top
LAbernethy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 25 November 2015
Country: Canada
Location: Ajax, Ontario
Status: Offline
Posts: 1870
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 September 2020 at 14:39
Originally posted by macronut macronut wrote:

Originally posted by LAbernethy LAbernethy wrote:

Originally posted by macronut macronut wrote:

Since you seem to want to cherry pick his review for a few scattered negative remarks, I’ll post his overall positive conclusion, so the readers of this thread get the big picture...



Conclusion.

“For APS-C users; this is a good lens“

Notice his use of the phrase “good lens” which is in stark contrast to your use of the phrase “never been a good lens”. Yet here you are using his review to back your opinion. You do not excel at debating.


See, I can cherry pick his review also...


yes he did say the word "good" but that was for APS-C. Is the A7RIII's going to be in crop mode?


Yup. And on the full frame A900 he had this to say:

“ For full frame users; this lens performs much the same as the far more expensive Sony 70-200mm F/2.8 G. The only real difference other than the extra stop of light is the Minolta has more color fringing at full zoom, and axial color fringing at the centers, though this type disappears as you stop down. The Sony 70-200mm F/2.8 is sharper in the centers, but not by much, in fact you probably wouldn't notice it unless you examine your images at 100% on your computer screen.”


That pretty much said it. If there are exceptions and caveats they can't be the same. The Sony 70-200mm F/2.8 G is a Good lens, any thing less, is less than good.
Back to Top
macronut View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 October 2012
Country: United States
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 739
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 September 2020 at 14:17
Youre on the ropes and Drago isn’t letting up. Ever see Rocky IV? In a very emotional voice Apollo’s manager says to Rocky, “Throw the damn towel!”
Only from the mind of Macronut.
Back to Top
macronut View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 October 2012
Country: United States
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 739
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 September 2020 at 14:07
Because you insist on making the E-mount reference, because you insist people won’t use this lens on E-mount, because you insist this lens will not deliver on high MP mirrorless, I offer up this for the viewing pleasure of my fellow Dyxumers...

Minolta 70-210 f4
2 months ago

“What a great lens, sharp wide open and those beautiful Minolta colours. A great value lens. Using it on an A7R iv with a Sony LA-EA4 adapter. This lens deserves it's reputation.“

diverallenh2 · Reviewed on ebay.com

I especially like the fact that the reviewer is using the A7Riv rather than something older in E-mount, so you can’t go down that road.

Edited by macronut - 09 September 2020 at 14:28
Only from the mind of Macronut.
 



Back to Top
macronut View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 October 2012
Country: United States
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 739
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 September 2020 at 13:56
Originally posted by LAbernethy LAbernethy wrote:

Originally posted by macronut macronut wrote:

Since you seem to want to cherry pick his review for a few scattered negative remarks, I’ll post his overall positive conclusion, so the readers of this thread get the big picture...



Conclusion.

“For APS-C users; this is a good lens“

Notice his use of the phrase “good lens” which is in stark contrast to your use of the phrase “never been a good lens”. Yet here you are using his review to back your opinion. You do not excel at debating.


See, I can cherry pick his review also...


yes he did say the word "good" but that was for APS-C. Is the A7RIII's going to be in crop mode?


Yup. And on the full frame A900 he had this to say:

“ For full frame users; this lens performs much the same as the far more expensive Sony 70-200mm F/2.8 G. The only real difference other than the extra stop of light is the Minolta has more color fringing at full zoom, and axial color fringing at the centers, though this type disappears as you stop down. The Sony 70-200mm F/2.8 is sharper in the centers, but not by much, in fact you probably wouldn't notice it unless you examine your images at 100% on your computer screen.”

Now how are you going to attempt to discredit that? I suppose your only angle is to say the Sony 70-200 G “was never a good lens”.

I think you need to rush to the library and look for a good book on how to get out of a painted corner.
Only from the mind of Macronut.
Back to Top
macronut View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 October 2012
Country: United States
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 739
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 September 2020 at 13:48
Originally posted by LAbernethy LAbernethy wrote:

Originally posted by macronut macronut wrote:

Since you seem to want to cherry pick his review for a few scattered negative remarks, I’ll post his overall positive conclusion, so the readers of this thread get the big picture...



Conclusion.

“For APS-C users; this is a good lens“

Notice his use of the phrase “good lens” which is in stark contrast to your use of the phrase “never been a good lens”. Yet here you are using his review to back your opinion. You do not excel at debating.


See, I can cherry pick his review also...


yes he did say the word "good" but that was for APS-C. Is the A7RIII's going to be in crop mode?


AGAIN with the E-mount reference? You’re a dead horse. You should have the beercan on E-mount conversation with yourself. It’s never been something that interested me. I’m speaking to the fact that the beercan doesn’t fit your label of “never been good”. In no way am I including E-mount in this debate

Edited by macronut - 09 September 2020 at 13:51
Only from the mind of Macronut.
Back to Top
LAbernethy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 25 November 2015
Country: Canada
Location: Ajax, Ontario
Status: Offline
Posts: 1870
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 September 2020 at 13:40
Originally posted by macronut macronut wrote:

Since you seem to want to cherry pick his review for a few scattered negative remarks, I’ll post his overall positive conclusion, so the readers of this thread get the big picture...



Conclusion.

“For APS-C users; this is a good lens“

Notice his use of the phrase “good lens” which is in stark contrast to your use of the phrase “never been a good lens”. Yet here you are using his review to back your opinion. You do not excel at debating.


See, I can cherry pick his review also...


yes he did say the word "good" but that was for APS-C. Is the A7RIII's going to be in crop mode?
Back to Top
macronut View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 October 2012
Country: United States
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 739
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 September 2020 at 13:37
Originally posted by LAbernethy LAbernethy wrote:

Originally posted by macronut macronut wrote:

Originally posted by LAbernethy LAbernethy wrote:

I think Kurt's bottom line should be the bottom line.

"As I've said before, if you're a fair weather photographer, you probably don't need F/2.8 or F/4, and can live at F/5.6 where the lenses are less-expensive, smaller, lighter and just as good at that aperture.

For those of you with $900, get the much more useful Sony 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6 G SSM, or the way less expensive Tamron 70-300mm F/4-5.6 also reviewed here."


His final conclusion paragraphs are The real takeaway from his reviews. Yet you try to discredit them with other comments he made. That’s absurd. Obviously his review was meant to leave an overall positive impression.


that was his final thought on it.


He usually makes purchase suggestions at the end. That is his template. It doesn’t take away from His conclusion about the lens he reviewed. The conclusion paragraphs are the lasting impression he wants to leave the reader with. Duh

When he starts to mention things like “buy the smaller and lighter Sony 75-300”, that’s pure opinion and pure suggestion, which for many people has no relevance.   No matter how many straws you reach for, you can’t take away from his conclusion paragraphs

Edited by macronut - 09 September 2020 at 13:45
Only from the mind of Macronut.
Back to Top
macronut View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 October 2012
Country: United States
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 739
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 September 2020 at 13:35
See where I said “there’s never been a better time to buy in (to A-mount)”? If you equate that to me saying E-mount owners want the beercan for their camera, I am left flabbergasted.
Only from the mind of Macronut.
Back to Top
LAbernethy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 25 November 2015
Country: Canada
Location: Ajax, Ontario
Status: Offline
Posts: 1870
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 September 2020 at 13:34
Originally posted by macronut macronut wrote:

Originally posted by LAbernethy LAbernethy wrote:

I think Kurt's bottom line should be the bottom line.

"As I've said before, if you're a fair weather photographer, you probably don't need F/2.8 or F/4, and can live at F/5.6 where the lenses are less-expensive, smaller, lighter and just as good at that aperture.

For those of you with $900, get the much more useful Sony 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6 G SSM, or the way less expensive Tamron 70-300mm F/4-5.6 also reviewed here."


His final conclusion paragraphs are The real takeaway from his reviews. Yet you try to discredit them with other comments he made. That’s absurd. Obviously his review was meant to leave an overall positive impression.


that was his final thought on it.
Back to Top
macronut View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 October 2012
Country: United States
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 739
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 September 2020 at 13:29
Originally posted by LAbernethy LAbernethy wrote:

I think Kurt's bottom line should be the bottom line.

"As I've said before, if you're a fair weather photographer, you probably don't need F/2.8 or F/4, and can live at F/5.6 where the lenses are less-expensive, smaller, lighter and just as good at that aperture.

For those of you with $900, get the much more useful Sony 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6 G SSM, or the way less expensive Tamron 70-300mm F/4-5.6 also reviewed here."


His final conclusion paragraphs are The real takeaway from his reviews. Yet you try to discredit them with other comments he made. That’s absurd. Obviously his review was meant to leave an overall positive impression.

Edited by macronut - 09 September 2020 at 13:32
Only from the mind of Macronut.
Back to Top
macronut View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 October 2012
Country: United States
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 739
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 September 2020 at 13:28
Originally posted by LAbernethy LAbernethy wrote:

Originally posted by macronut macronut wrote:

“ Now to my point; Is this the lens people are clamoring to adapt to their A7RIII? I doubt it. ”

You made that point out of thin air, as nobody Previously suggested otherwise. Furthermore, if what you bring to a thread is to post a definition for “fanboy” in my opinion you are sinking below the expectations of this forum, as I understand it.


no i didn't

Originally posted by LAbernethy LAbernethy wrote:

Originally posted by macronut macronut wrote:

I disagree that it was never good. The sheer number produced is evidence enough, not to mention the high praise. It was never a professional lens, would be more accurate.

And of course I’m not suggesting That. I think my point was explained pretty clearly.

I don't think so. I'm having a hard time picturing a a9, a7rIII or a7SII user saying "Oh Good, thank god! I can finally use a Minolta AF 70-210mm f/4 on my camera. Nothing in E-Mount comes close to it. I know it was not very sharp and prone to lens flare while being large and heavy on A-Mount cameras but with an adapter it will be fantastic on an E-mount body!"


YES YOU DID and you just provided the proof. See where my old post said “of course I’m not suggesting that”? you are the only person that drummed up this ‘beercan on E-mount’ conversation after I made an initial comment about low prices in A-mount being attractive. My comment wasn’t a reference to E-mount use, because I don’t give two craps about E-mount, OBVIOUSLY.
Only from the mind of Macronut.
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Camera Talk > A-mount full frame Page  123 10>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.