Yep, I've got over $40,000 invested in Canon bodies and lenses, over $35,000 invested in Nikon and Kodak lenses and bodies and about $5,000 invested in Sigma so I have a huge economic investment in Sigma.
I wrote, "You have some kind of psychological or economic stake in the Sigma camera ...". Do you know what the word "or" means, and how it is different from the word "and"?
The psychological part was the part I was leaning towards. A psychological investment does not necessarily parallel an economic one. A psychological one could simply be a need to identify with something perceived as the under-dog, non-mainstream, or something like an ego thing relating to the questioning of your perceptual faculty.
I use what works and I know what my images look like. You see "aliasing" everywhere you look. Fully half your posts on dPReview involve some discussion of aliasing and about 100% of your post concerning Sigma/Foveon concern your obsession with trying to convince people of the poor performance of the Sigma cameras. I'm not the one writing "ridiculous things" John, look in the mirror.
I am just trying to bring some honesty into the the threads where aliased photography is praised. I'd hate to see someone rush out and buy an aliasing camera and a cache of proprietary lenses because of fanatical claims, and then find out they don't like it. A person has a chance of listening to claims like yours, and my objections, and look closer to see if what I am saying is true or objectionable to them. Not everyone likes mortar that disappears and reappears in different parts of walls, or the edges of roof tiles that come and go due to luck of alignment, or natural textures that should have equal angles of opportunity being emphasized horizontally and vertically. They may not start noticing these things until after they have made an investment. And there are lots of folks who had Sigmas and could deal with the aliasing; if you don't remember those posts, then your memory is very selective.
IMO, people who see aliasing as image detail are living in a state of ignorant bliss. Are they lucky that they're not bothered? I don't know ... but I suspect that if they can't notice that points and edges are in the wrong places or inconsistently present at all, they can't be fully appreciating what I know of as Reality; they're just satisfying a need to feel like they have succeeded in focusing on the print or screen.
Nasty "aliasing" yep, that's your subjective opinion. It's not shared by the majority. In fact the "majority" of people listening to your constant obsessive/compulsive rhetoric about aliasing whom I've had conversations with think you are trolling the majority of the time.
And who do you converse with? Other fanatics.
I doubt that any more than a small minority of people who read my posts think I'm a troll, and I'm not a troll, because I say what I really think; not what I think will stir people up as an end in itself.
You're all talk and no show, John.
Show what? Did I ever say, "Lin, my pictures are better than yours"? It's just like you to shift contexts to create illusions. I've said times before, that a camera is capable of taking great photographs despite artifacts. AOTBE, however, I don't want aliased capture.
You talk the talk but you don't walk the walk.
What walk did I claim to be doing but am not? Again, you are trying to create illusions. You are coming across as a megalomaniac who thinks that he can bend reality through his mighty implications.
Were are your superior samples of CFA images with no aliasing. Where are your comparison shots of Foveon and CFA images? Were are "any" images you've taken??
None of your business, and that is irrelevant. Again, you are trying to create an illusion; the illusion that we are having a photo competition, when in fact, I was only talking about aliasing and resolution.
I'll give you this, you really do like to talk - LOL
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148661\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I do like to write - about things that I have taken a special interest in.