"You probably don't realize you are on my "Ignore User" list; and it would be great if I were on yours too.
I could tell I was on this list by this big long response of yours to me, LOL. You probably don't realize how laughable it is to most that you just said this, and then offered a nearly 700-word response to me
"Nonetheless, since I posted a reply to someone else here I took a "peek" at your reply since it was obvious you were going to object.
Again, I find it laughable that a full-grown man puts another on an "Ignore" list, and then "peeks" to see what he says
Were you one of those sissies who peaked out of the drapes too, while the bigger boys were out playing
"Frankly, I embrace being accused of engaging in "anti-Fanboyism". No, I'm not going to read your post above, I don't think you have the expertise or even common sense to justify my wasting my time with your posts; although I will reply quickly to a couple of points raised in your reply to my last post.
Tony, I think you misunderstand what I meant by "anti-fanboy": you are an anti-fan of Canon, and you are indeed acting like a little boy (ignoring, "peeking," etc., LOL). You simply lack the self-awareness to realize this.
Same as you lack the awareness to realize the contradiction in saying you're not going to "waste your time" responding to me, and then proceed to write a nearly 700-word response to me.
I agree I do not have the photographic expertise you do, but we disagree as to which of us truly lacks some basic common sense. Again, the phrase "educated fool" comes to mind ...
As regards to this being "your last post," I will take any bets that this will prove to be a lie here also
"Read more carefully, I wrote that it is not likely. Besides that, whatever the advantages new technology offers to smaller photosites, it also offers to larger photosites -- so there is the "all other things being equal..." principle in play here.
Read more carefully yourself: I called what you wrote pure speculation, and that is all that it is.
"You don't know me, so kindly refrain from trying to claim you know what my opinions about the D3 were when it was announced. Despite a huge wave of overwhelmingly positive hands-on reviews, I waited to see back then just as I am waiting to see now; the main thing I was excited about back then was that Nikon had released a larger format than DX. My own evaluations of D3 files demonstrated to me that the D3 produces amazingly robust pixels, and the D300 gives me everything I want in a camera right now (except that I want more megapixels, but not at the expense of diffraction limitations that would make them meaningless for me).
LOL, more Nikon props from the fanboy.
Did you read the post regarding yet another stunning test about the 5DMkII? Are these lies also, or more "paid marketing hype?"
"Stop being so careless, even reckless, in how you characterize what I have written. My very first post in this thread was critical of anyone caring who has the "best" camera.
It is not necessarily "better" color filtration; it is different color filtration (from the 1DsMkIII) with a different objective. By your standards MFDBs have terrible RGB color filtration.
I am being no more reckless than you are. In fact, I would say both the trend, and the initial supporting reviews, show that my optimism is more well-founded than your negativism. And speaking of reckless, now you are throwing in opinions on MFDB cameras that I have never stated. Are you a pettifogger too?
"Do you? You are basing your enthusiasm on faith, faith in Canon -- that's pretty much the definition of "fanboyism". I reserve judgment on the 5DII at this time, so far I have not heard of anyone producing files from it that reflect the kind of resolution one expects from the 1DsMkIII; indeed, the early reviews have not been effusive on this point (unlike the responses of many to those early ISO 3200 shots from the D3).
You're lying to yourself Tony. You haven't "reserved" any judgments. You have plainly stated that you "don't think" this new camera will be able to offer the lowlight capability of the D3/D700. That is not "reserving judgment" that is making premature judgment to the contrary of what this new camera purports to be able to do. It is also contrary to what the fledgling reports are in fact confirming about the 5DMkII.
"I don't have any such childish hopes, and I defy anyone to show me where I wrote that I even care.
The man who "ignores" and "peeks" is going to speak to me about childishness?
And then you "defy" me to show you where you wrote of these things? Hell, just above on Post# 212, you wrote, "one might believe that the 5DII will deliver MFDB resolution and D3/D700 low light performance -- most likely it will do neither," That is "caring" Tony, and it's also passing premature judgment.
For whatever reason, you clearly "care very much" that the 5DMkII just might deliver both the best in image quality and the most capability to photograph in low light. Rather than being excited with seemingly wonderful new technology, you are very obviously feeling threatened by the possibility of it. And this is clearly coming from your "Nikon Fanboy" perspective, to anyone with eyes to see.
"I don't know if Canon made the most out of the 21 million effective photosites they will be using in the 5DII's sensor, I am convinced that Canon could have made a 12-16 MP DSLR with even better DR and high ISO noise characteristics, and I know that the files are going to be nearly twice as large as the files I currently get (and don't tell me I will be able to print twice as large, at best it would be linearly 30% larger). Personally, I would consider all of that tolerable for the greater resolution the 5DII offers, but there will be times when it makes more sense to use a D700 or a D300 because they have more fps, smaller files, and they are perfectly adequate for the vast majority of user's needs and wants.
Once again, your true worry is revealed. No one is suggesting that the D700 and D300 aren't still the good cameras that they are. The suggestion is being made that their prices will soon DROP when this new 5DMkII comes out, not that they still aren't capable of taking excellent photographs or that they don't have their uses. The main thing here, again, should be excitement for the dramatic potential of future cameras, not to worry about yesterday's (or the semi-recent) cemeras ...
"Lower megapixel DSLRs are not going to become obsolete in the near future; actually, all of these BFA DSLRs are going to become obsolete at the same time with new 3 color photosite technology arrives in the not-too-distant future, but it would be foolish to hold out for that and pass up whichever currently available DSLR meets your needs.
Not sure what this has to do with the discussion. No one said they would be "obsolete," but that their prices would go down. Why do you have such a worry for the existence of these cameras, and why do you keep missing the point here? Hell, awhile back I even indicated that the 5DMkII created a condition whereby a person could get these other cameras even cheaper now!
"This is going to be my last reply to you. I see no value in going around in circles in this thread or responding to the spurious remarks that you make directed towards me or anyone else -- and frankly, your earlier remarks about Thom Hogan in this thread were plainly stupid.
Yeah, sure Tony. Now run along, and go back to your "ignoring and peeking," LOL, but I am sure we'll soon see another response from you quite soon
Truthfully Tony, in all seriousness, what I find "stupid" is your whole way of looking at what should be a very positive benchmark for all camera enthusiasts ...