Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="J-see" data-source="post: 361955" data-attributes="member: 31330">I'm not complaining, I'm ignoring problems. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />Sure it works in some cases but in many it is irrelevant. We're worrying too much about numbers.The way I see it, the cam is but a part in a creative process. It's a piece of plastic, as is the lens these days; tools. What's ironic is that while they're but a part, it's about everything we talk about. All the time we're absorbed in focal length here, a millimeter there, diaphragm, IQ, pixels pixels and pixels. The most important part however is talked about least; the actual creative process. Mind you, I'm in it too.Would painters have done the same about the size and length of the hair on their brushes, the Sistine Chapel would have been plastered white.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="J-see, post: 361955, member: 31330"] I'm not complaining, I'm ignoring problems. ;) Sure it works in some cases but in many it is irrelevant. We're worrying too much about numbers. The way I see it, the cam is but a part in a creative process. It's a piece of plastic, as is the lens these days; tools. What's ironic is that while they're but a part, it's about everything we talk about. All the time we're absorbed in focal length here, a millimeter there, diaphragm, IQ, pixels pixels and pixels. The most important part however is talked about least; the actual creative process. Mind you, I'm in it too. Would painters have done the same about the size and length of the hair on their brushes, the Sistine Chapel would have been plastered white. [/QUOTE]

Verification