Interesting debate with the angry photographer about mirrorless cameras

[mikewestern]

I had an interesting debate with the angry photographer, as he made an interesting video about lenses. Once I refuted some of the points, they were ignored and something else was brought into the discussion.

 

Do you find something similar happens when you discuss cameras with people?

 

I think this should remind people that discussions like this are a waste of time. Ultimately, defending your purchase or hating on someone elses purchase, is a waste of time. That said, I would be interested to see if Sony sue him at some point for damages. He's like the anti advertisement lol.

 

At the end of the discussion, he said that all mirrorless cameras are powerhogs. Interestingly, he typically singles Sony out for it.

 

https://imgur.com/a/Qzghx

 

I really hope these new lenses are good.

[leventebandi]

How can you waste time on an idiot like him ?

In such cases, after writing 3-4 sentences, I feel that it just don't worth it simply, to get in discussion with somebody like him in every kind of topics.

I'll leave these people with their opinions, as I won't have any advantage in life, if I change their opinion

[Golem]

But live view is exceedingly power hungry.

 

It's not just Sonys or Fujis but also when a

DSLR is operating via its rear LCD monitor

for live view. Acoarst DSLRs do have much

bigger batteries .... except for my tiny EOS

SL1 that uses the battery from Canon's "M"

series APSC live view cameras. Running

in live view it sucks sucks down batteries

just like a Sony ! Go figger :-(

[Guest Peter Kelly]

The first thing to do, in such cases, is decide whether you are arguing over the same point!

 

Frequently we see 'discussions' where people are using arguments to support a position that is nothing to do with the issue another photographer has and I think the 'mirrorless power consumption' here is just such a case.

 

The other party argues mirrorless use a lot of power compared to a DSLR. This is true. You argue that they don't use excessive power. This is also true!

You can measure and very easily compare power use and number of pictures possible on a charge. However, you can also demonstrate very easily how it causes little or no inconvenience in the most demanding cases.

 

So you see, you can often be right as regards these discussions being a waste, but we all keep trying in the hope that we enlighten some and gain some enlightenment ourselves in turn.

[Ben]

Had almost the same discussion on this video with him and he did not even hold back on insults. He is really irrational about Sony and desperately tries to find misinformation he can feed to his audience. Although I often thought that this discussion was a waste of time, I did not want to let this misinformation stand unchallenged and went through with it.

[Ben]

I guess I got banned from the youtube discussion by Ken Wheeler. Here is what I wrote under his 2nd video:

 

http://www.qpic.ws/images/screenshot20160208at102127.png

 

My last comment gets deleted over and over again. It seems as if he doesn't like a civil discussion.

[Snowfun]

I don't follow... why does this matter?

Possibly it does within the r&d department of cosina or leica or canon et al but in the real world?

Can you explain the significance of the "number of elements" please? How should it influence my decision as to what lens to use?

With apologies if this is indeed a highly significant and practical debate albeit one which is way over my head!

Tim

[Ben]

Hi Snowfun,

 

Ken Wheeler is a fan of low element count lenses. Lenses have very many characteristics that are not covered by tests of dxo and alike sites. For example they can have a tint, color saturation can differ, there are many more aberrations than chromatic, these aberrations can be visible within the dof or outside of it, and on and on. Wheelers practicly founded opinion is that most lenses with many elements tend to make a picture look unnatural and in parts I can agree to that. The point of these videos however are not to tell of the importance of such lenses but of the hypothetical design flaw of the sony e and fe-mount that would render it unable to take advantage of it's shorter flange distance. He is basically saying that the mount is flawed and cannot be properly used for designs of certain focal lengths,having low element count, being fast and making use of the shorter flange distance (that is having an exit pupil nearer to the sensor than a slr-mount would allow).

 

I hope this made sense.

[Guest all8]

You waste your life with this crap ........    

[Ben]

Good advice. I need to really let this go.

[K2Kevin]

Good advice. I need to really let this go.

 

 

Basically, if that Ken worked at Nasa, we would have never reached the Moon.

 

That Angry Photographer, is the only self proclaimed photographer that rarely takes a picture.  He is a gear hog and as he likes to call photographers that use Sony products, "A BUTTON SNIFFER."  Thats all he is, and true to form, a Nikon and Fuji fanboy.  

 

Not sure where his hatred of Sony comes from, he has never addressed that to my knowledge. I do remember a video he posted that he would NEVER own a mirrorless camera, and went on to say how they are a "joke" etc.  only months later... he owns at least 3 Fuji cameras.  LOL

 

I posted a comment about using aluminum foil for a Bokeh background, he then blocks my comments and only took him an hour to post a video about his Mylar blanket bokeh wall "That he has been using for years" as if he invented the idea.  

[K2Kevin]

I should add...  on the flip side, the Angry Photographer does offer some good DIY, although not all original as he would want us to believe, they are still good uses of materials we may otherwise not think of.

 

He does seem to be a good guy at heart, but his message is often clouded by his continued regurgitation of petty attacks and hypocritical views.

[Steve C]

Did he used to post here as Max the Dog ?

Actually, I take that back, his views may be strong as is the profanity but there is some basic common sense there. There is too much technical fretting going on with all this talk of drmosaicing,moire etc.

It still boile down to aperture,shutter,film. The rest is down to the author of the story.

Just MHO.

[molan]

I had an interesting debate with the angry photographer, as he made an interesting video about lenses. Once I refuted some of the points, they were ignored and something else was brought into the discussion.

 

Do you find something similar happens when you discuss cameras with people?

 

I think this should remind people that discussions like this are a waste of time. Ultimately, defending your purchase or hating on someone elses purchase, is a waste of time. That said, I would be interested to see if Sony sue him at some point for damages. He's like the anti advertisement lol.

 

At the end of the discussion, he said that all mirrorless cameras are powerhogs. Interestingly, he typically singles Sony out for it.

 

https://imgur.com/a/Qzghx

 

I really hope these new lenses are good.

 

I have seen a video on youtube from this guy,  I don't like his attitude so I won't engage, he seem rather unpleasant and very subjective - and a self-proclaimed know it all.

[Austerror]

There are lots of crazy people out there...

 

I have read that the Nikon mount is a bit on the small side and that makes it difficult to design and make F/1.2 lenses for that mount...no one is perfect.

 

It is also interesting that people assume one thing is true when sometimes the 'truth' has nothing to do with it.  For example the GM series of lenses appear to have lots of elements.  Perhaps Sony is doing their best to make these lenses as good as they can be. Perhaps it has nothing to do with the distance to the sensor...

 

Anyway, as they say, don't feed the trolls.

[Zé De Boni]

Ben,

Just to add to your debate about lens elements count:

The new Sony GM 85mm 1.4 has internal focus (as the Zeiss 55mm 1.8). Internal focus allows faster focusing and needs less power as the motor drives just few elements. It is also very practical as the lens size doesn't change. I wellcome this concept and now find strange when I see the lens tube expanding for closer focus. It sounds like obsolete technology.

Internal focus lens design can be compared to that of zooms. More elements are needed. Another advantage of this concept is to account for floating elements (no need to tell their advantage) that do not need extra gears, as they are direct driven.

The fact is that lens design is more demmanding today as sensor resolution getting so high.

As for the nodal point, I once bought a 20mm 2.8 for my first full frame camera. At 21 Mp it was unusable, due to the chromatic aberration at its edges. At that time, I did not know about correction in post (it was about 11 years ago). That lens was considered great for film, but rendered poor for digital. My guess was that the problem was caused by the short nodal point distance. A retrofocus design should perform better. When later I bought the Sony 16-35mm 2.8 I was not disapointed. The wideangle zoom is naturally a retrofocus and then a I could correct it in DXO or later in Camera Raw.

Technology is fast moving. One shoud not be stuck on fixed concepts.

[The Happy Snapper]

Hello Forum folk, this is my first visit and post.

Until recently, after many years as a Nikon SLR and DSLR user, I switched to mirrorless. I still have a Nikon F401, F801, D90 and D7100 and use them regularly (as well as another 46 cameras including vintage, TLR, Box, half-frame, left-handed, instant picture). But I now use my new mirrorless as my 'go-everywhere' camera. I think that all formats, makes, styles, uses etc. are valid reasons to feel that anyone can be termed a legitimate photographer. All makes have their great successes, and all have less successful models for one reason or another. I watch a lot of YouTube videos and follow a lot of photographers like Ted Vieira, Jason Lanier, Matt Widgery, BigHeadTaco, DRTV, Bokeh, Matt Granger, The Camera Store, The Fuji Guys, Tony and Chelsea Northrup etc.

But none of this gives Ken Wheeler, 'The Angry Photographer', the right to be so rude, abusive and offensive to anyone who does not blindly follow his personal mantra or philosophy.

I do watch his videos, although I am never quite sure why as he annoys the heck out of me, but just occasionally he does have an interesting idea or comment, even if it is not really his.

However the things about him that irritate me the most are the continual repetition of pet phrases such as 'a crop is a crop, is a crop, is a crop' etc. His use of crudity, 'as happy as a pervert in a sex shop' and so on. I hate his constant sniping at other photographers like Tony and Chelsea Northrup, Jason Lanier, Matt Granger and many others. His unfounded hatred of Sony. His forced, and false loud laughter as if he has just heard, or just made, the most outrageously funny thing the world has ever known. His statement that he would never, EVER, own a mirrorless camera but now has a Fujifilm X-T1, an X-Pro2 and is going to get an X-T2. And more than one of each. He gives reviews on lenses and makes statements such as 'this is indisputable' yet has never offered ANY of his test procedures, methods, equipment or results. Yet he knocks others like DXO Mark and claims they do not know what they are talking about. In the same way he knocks ALL manufacturers.

He claims to have been the Number 1 Apple help line tech, the only man to understand Light and Magnetism EVER in the world. The inventor of the 'knuckle' lens support (has to be seen to be believed). He taught in photography school, Does wedding photo shoots, landscapes, portraits, night scenes, gives workshops and so it goes on. All without the slightest evidence and no display of photographs he has taken apart from a few very poor ones on Flickr. There seems no end to the man's arrogance and if he detects the slightest criticism on his YouTube channel, he simply deletes the posts.

He is a gear whore of the worst kind and I cannot understand why he has the apparent sycophantic fan base he does.

You can probably tell that this has been building up inside me for a while now and I sincerely apologize to you all for my rant.

 

[Golem]

He shot weddings ? OK, thaz who he is.

    

   

A person can be community leader, philanthropist, astronaut,

what ever ... but if they are also a sex criminal, then that last

item is Who They Are ... and all the other stuff doesn't matter. 

   

  

He is a wedding photographer. Nothing else he ever did in

photography matters.  

   

 

Hey ! Do I sound just like him ? I hafta ask, cuz I've never

heard him and have no reason to waste my time changing

that. Anywho .... he's a wedding photographer. Period   

  

  

` 

[Guest all8]

this is my first visit and post.

 

 

Oh, really .... well dilligaff to you.

[Ben]

@Golem : Being a wedding photographer is not the closest thing to being a human failure. Please think about the implications of your analogy.

@timde : This is a community driven forum. If you cannot be bothered to read through one short sentence of off-topic communication you should ask yourself why you bother to participate in it by adding another off-topic post yourself.

[K2Kevin]

Hello Forum folk, this is my first visit and post.

Until recently, after many years as a Nikon SLR and DSLR user, I switched to mirrorless. I still have a Nikon F401, F801, D90 and D7100 and use them regularly (as well as another 46 cameras including vintage, TLR, Box, half-frame, left-handed, instant picture). But I now use my new mirrorless as my 'go-everywhere' camera. I think that all formats, makes, styles, uses etc. are valid reasons to feel that anyone can be termed a legitimate photographer. All makes have their great successes, and all have less successful models for one reason or another. I watch a lot of YouTube videos and follow a lot of photographers like Ted Vieira, Jason Lanier, Matt Widgery, BigHeadTaco, DRTV, Bokeh, Matt Granger, The Camera Store, The Fuji Guys, Tony and Chelsea Northrup etc.

But none of this gives Ken Wheeler, 'The Angry Photographer', the right to be so rude, abusive and offensive to anyone who does not blindly follow his personal mantra or philosophy.

I do watch his videos, although I am never quite sure why as he annoys the heck out of me, but just occasionally he does have an interesting idea or comment, even if it is not really his.

However the things about him that irritate me the most are the continual repetition of pet phrases such as 'a crop is a crop, is a crop, is a crop' etc. His use of crudity, 'as happy as a pervert in a sex shop' and so on. I hate his constant sniping at other photographers like Tony and Chelsea Northrup, Jason Lanier, Matt Granger and many others. His unfounded hatred of Sony. His forced, and false loud laughter as if he has just heard, or just made, the most outrageously funny thing the world has ever known. His statement that he would never, EVER, own a mirrorless camera but now has a Fujifilm X-T1, an X-Pro2 and is going to get an X-T2. And more than one of each. He gives reviews on lenses and makes statements such as 'this is indisputable' yet has never offered ANY of his test procedures, methods, equipment or results. Yet he knocks others like DXO Mark and claims they do not know what they are talking about. In the same way he knocks ALL manufacturers.

He claims to have been the Number 1 Apple help line tech, the only man to understand Light and Magnetism EVER in the world. The inventor of the 'knuckle' lens support (has to be seen to be believed). He taught in photography school, Does wedding photo shoots, landscapes, portraits, night scenes, gives workshops and so it goes on. All without the slightest evidence and no display of photographs he has taken apart from a few very poor ones on Flickr. There seems no end to the man's arrogance and if he detects the slightest criticism on his YouTube channel, he simply deletes the posts.

He is a gear whore of the worst kind and I cannot understand why he has the apparent sycophantic fan base he does.

You can probably tell that this has been building up inside me for a while now and I sincerely apologize to you all for my rant.

 

I totally agree with every statement and you are so right on!

[K2Kevin]

Someone is posting links in his youtube comments now showing he uses fake names to create blogs that support him.  LOL

 

Kendra Wheelwright   being one of his alias'.  LOL  He is truly a funny guy!

 

 

http://nikonresource.tumblr.com/about-me

[Username]

PDNFTT