ulrikft Posted November 3, 2009 Share #21 Posted November 3, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) The keyword being reasonable.... a number the changes being proposed would turn the M camera into a G10 or D700 clone. If that were the case, there would be no customers to buy it, I can assure you. If all that argued for changes wanted to turn the m9 into the G10 or the D700, would agree with you. The problem is that this is not how it is. Many changes are small, incremental or otherwise perfectly "normal" changes. But instead of arguing on a change-to-change basis, you and others choose to bunch all the threads about changes into one big heap and use the "YOU JUST WANT TO CHANGE IT INTO A G10!!!"-card. It is a very childish way of arguing, and it doesen't lead anywhere. And stunsworht, no, they are not. They are creating strawmen and arguing against these, it is a logical fallacy. I can say "You guys just want a M9 without a lcd-screen, highest iso at 400 and a cloth shutter with manual cocking" and argue against that strawman, it would be simple. But it is not a very mature nor a very rational way of doing things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 3, 2009 Posted November 3, 2009 Hi ulrikft, Take a look here M9 non-issues and areas which I would hate to see changed :-). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted November 3, 2009 Share #22 Posted November 3, 2009 Please point me to the thread in which I bunched all changes and argued against them. I have always expressed my arguments on a case-to-case basis. I have the impression that you don't care much for anybody who disagrees with you. I don't care for tricks like turning my words "a number of changes" into "all the treads" That is demagogue tactics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted November 3, 2009 Share #23 Posted November 3, 2009 Come on chaps, don't feed ulrikft. He's already nearly succeeded in derailing the thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted November 3, 2009 Share #24 Posted November 3, 2009 Please point me to the thread in which I bunched all changes and argued against them. I have always expressed my arguments on a case-to-case basis. I have the impression that you don't care much for anybody who disagrees with you. I don't care for tricks like turning my words "a number of changes" into "all the treads" That is demagogue tactics. This thread is more than good enough. Comments like this one: "Ummm.. Not really - Isn't it a bit like going onto a Canon forum and insisting Canon add a rangefinder viewfinder to their 1DsIII, don't you think?" This comment is a clear hyperbole, and it does not contribute to issues at hand at all. I don't worry about people disagreeing with me, I do however worry about people that disagree with me on an emotional basis, but try arguing that the facts are on their side. To me, that is borderline religious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted November 3, 2009 Share #25 Posted November 3, 2009 Come on chaps, don't feed ulrikft. He's already nearly succeeded in derailing the thread. Yes, accusing me of being a troll, beacause i dislike trollish tactics... great job! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 3, 2009 Share #26 Posted November 3, 2009 This thread is more than good enough. Comments like this one: "Ummm.. Not really - Isn't it a bit like going onto a Canon forum and insisting Canon add a rangefinder viewfinder to their 1DsIII, don't you think?" This comment is a clear hyperbole, and it does not contribute to issues at hand at all. I don't worry about people disagreeing with me, I do however worry about people that disagree with me on an emotional basis, but try arguing that the facts are on their side. To me, that is borderline religious. There you go again - that was not about camera changes but about you being insulting to Bill. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted November 3, 2009 Share #27 Posted November 3, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) There you go again - that was not about camera changes but about you being insulting to Bill. Insulting to bill? he is arrogant and condecending, and you accuse me of being insulting? Priceless. And your post (that i quoted) had no pointers to bill or me being insulting, so sorry about not reading your mind... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 3, 2009 Share #28 Posted November 3, 2009 Interesting - the quote of your own post escaped you as a pointer? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted November 3, 2009 Share #29 Posted November 3, 2009 Interesting - the quote of your own post escaped you as a pointer? I have no idea what you are talking about, you said: Please point me to the thread in which I bunched all changes and argued against them. I have always expressed my arguments on a case-to-case basis. I have the impression that you don't care much for anybody who disagrees with you. I don't care for tricks like turning my words "a number of changes" into "all the treads" That is demagogue tactics. No words about bill or insults here. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here... or if you dreamt up some post, and expect me to answer it here in the real world? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 3, 2009 Share #30 Posted November 3, 2009 The post you made and which I answered was: This thread is more than good enough. Comments like this one: "Ummm.. Not really - Isn't it a bit like going onto a Canon forum and insisting Canon add a rangefinder viewfinder to their 1DsIII, don't you think?" This comment is a clear hyperbole, and it does not contribute to issues at hand at all. I don't worry about people disagreeing with me, I do however worry about people that disagree with me on an emotional basis, but try arguing that the facts are on their side. To me, that is borderline religious. Remember? Anyway, you accuse me of opposing all changes to the M in general, which is false and I object to that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModernMan Posted November 3, 2009 Share #31 Posted November 3, 2009 Ummm.. Not really - Isn't it a bit like going onto a Canon forum and insisting Canon add a rangefinder viewfinder to their 1DsIII, don't you think? Nope. Note a bit like that. Particularly since nobody is insisting on anything. There are plenty of posts contemplating the merit and feasibility of adding certain features or technologies to future M's, but nobody is insisting it be done. And, there's good discussion on the Canon boards contemplating the merit of Canon removing the AA filter, such discussion referencing the merit of Leica's appraoch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted November 3, 2009 Share #32 Posted November 3, 2009 This one sure is hungry! Mate, if you don't like the thing don't buy it, or if you think you can design, make and sell a better one then go ahead. But here you sound like a street-corner evangilist. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLV Posted November 3, 2009 Share #33 Posted November 3, 2009 Could'nt agree more. A digital camera wich doesn't need a user booklet! I loved the M8 but the M9 is ...one of a kind. all the best, Jean-Luc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 3, 2009 Share #34 Posted November 3, 2009 I can say "You guys just want a M9 without a lcd-screen, highest iso at 400 and a cloth shutter with manual cocking" and argue against that strawman, I wouldn't mind my M9 being like that, especially if it was as thin as a film M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.