#631. Monday Post (14 August 2017) – Lovers Gonna Love, Haters Gonna Hate, I’m Just Gonna Shake

By Adam Bonn | Monday Post

Aug 14

Lovers Gonna Love, Haters Gonna Hate, I’m Just Gonna Shake, so sings (or close enough to the actual words) popular recording artist Taylor Swift in a song that I’m really quite familiar with due it being a daily soundtrack to our lives, as my 4 year old daughter now knows how to load the YouTube app on the smart TV and select Ms Swift’s bouncy, pop driven jingle about how people will say inflammatory things and how it’s best to Shake it off


Yeah ok Adam, so where are we going with this?


I think shaking it off might be the best advice you can give anyone, who’s had any experience with talking about camera brands online.


Screaming at the computer screen will soon have you feeling a little hoarse


It never fails to amaze me (and I don’t mean that in a positive way) the colossal amount of factoids and nonsense, and the blind parroting of other people’s factoids and nonsense that daring to mention any camera brand will solicit on the internet.


Let’s a take a case in point.


Recently on a popular photography site (the one run by the guy that talks to dead people), someone used the reader’s feature section write up and share some pictures they’d taken with their Leica M10 in Ethiopia.


The comments appeared a little like this (and I’ll paraphrase here):


Wow, great images – Leica always delivers

Ugh the usual terrible underexposed Leica images

Can I just ask how you felt taking a luxury brand camera to a poor country?

Do you take photographs or make them? Did you take from these people and make from them or did you give something back?


So that’s the de facto stance of the audience not being able to agree if the pictures are any good or not (so be it, de gustibus non est disputandum after all) combined with wealth politics and schoolboy communism.


And all because the photographer used a Leica. Can we assume that had the photographer not used a £5000+ Leica but instead used a £5000+ Nikon or Canon, then this would have been ok?


Even when the camera brand in question is rather more high street and less boutique, people quickly lose the ability to distinguish between actual cast iron fact, and opinion.


They’re cameras – not football teams.


I just feel it all comes down to a wonky logic argument.


The Sun can appear to be yellow (fact)

The Sun is hot (fact)

Therefore everything that appears to be yellow is hot (incorrect conclusion drawn from fact)


I think even a child can see that doesn’t hold water, mine can (but then she’s capable of getting a popular recording artist on my YouTube play list).


The camera equivalent of that wonky logic argument goes like this:


I bought this camera (fact)

I personally didn’t like it/I found it to be the best thing ever (fact)

Therefore there’s zero mileage in anyone else on the planet buying/not buying this camera and it’s now my divine duty to tell everyone how wrong they are if they don’t agree (incorrect conclusion drawn from fact)


Your grass isn’t necessarily greener, so how about a little Blue Sky thinking?


People’s vigor and commitment to saving the world from the camera they love to hate is exhausting to behold.


Of course, as I said – lovers gonna love but these people are possibly a bit more palatable (YMMV) – sure it’s hilarious when people try to sound convincing that a Leica M is the fastest focusing camera in the world, because setting F8 and a focus zone is a feat only possible on a Leica, or people claiming that the A7Rii is the last word in history on outright image quality, when in actual fact there are cameras out there that cost twice what a mid level BMW does, and they actually do a better job than the Sony on IQ. It’s amusing when people claim there’s zero IQ differences between big and small sensor cameras.


You don’t HAVE to fly the flag saying you’re proud you know. You can do it quietly. With your inside voice


I do feel happy for these people, because they’re happy. And when people are happy, they tend to do happy things, like say good morning to the postman, help old ladies cross the street, rescue homeless kittens – and take nicer photographs, because they own a camera they like, and their basic online demeanor amounts “come and join me in happiness”.


Sure it’s easy to label these people as Jim Jones Koolaid swigging Lemmings, but at least they’re happy – at least they’ve had the decency to bugger off somewhere secluded and form a self sufficient commune or internet forum.


But the haters, well if the lovers are like little Jim Jones’ then the haters can only be compared to little Charlie Mansons’ – apparently quite prepared to use aggression to enforce their dubiously decided new world order of cameras. They WILL come to your house (ie what you just posted on the internet) in the dead of night, and they won’t take no for an answer.


Not the most pleasant inter-web experience is it?


OK, let’s take a step back.


The camera industry has many brands, producing many different types of cameras.


How can this be, when every one knows the only true camera monarch is _____.


But because we all have different needs we all have different views, so we’re all prepared to put up with different annoyances and compromises when it comes to choosing a camera, and because of this – there’s many choices from many brands.


Trying building bridges, they last longer


Embrace the diversity people!


So let’s debunk a few commonly repeated factoids that are frequently found falling from the keyboards of warriors and loyalists shall we?


The Claim: My Camera is full of bugs, I feel like a beta tester

The solution: If your camera doesn’t work properly – namely do what it’s supposed to do, the best thing you can do is to take it back to the retailer where you bought it and either get a functional replacement or a refund.


The Claim: Buy this camera – and you won’t lose money

The truth: Modern digital cameras are disposable consumer goods. Even the expensive luxury brand ones. Sure, if your granddaddy bought a Leica in 1937 and you still have it, it’s probably worth a few quid, but that’s just highly unlikely to be true with any camera today. If you want a modern mass manufactured consumer product, that’s available in most major cities, that you won’t hemorrhage a stack of cash on when you tire of it, buy a SS Rolex. I’ll warn you though – you can’t take pictures with one.


One of these once cost less than your current camera. Today it’s worth more than your car


The Claim: I’ve been waiting over a year for tartan focus peaking in a FW update, where is it?

The truth: Sadly camera manufacturers may very well not share your sense of entitlement. Ensure the camera you’re buying has every feature you need to begin with and don’t buy one hoping that the OEM will freebie you stuff later.


The Claim: My Camera has a bug, feature XYZ is missing

The solution: No. That’s not a bug. That a Mercedes Smart car doesn’t feature a V8 engine is not a bug. It’s how they made it. Try doing some research before slapping down your hard earned. A well of info can be found on the website of your camera manufacturer  in order to access this great source of information using any internet browser, simply type www. followed by the name of the company that makes the camera you’re interested in buying, then .com and bingo – say hello to facts not factoids.


Strutting your stuff will only ruffle feathers.


The Claim: This camera is rubbish, because my favoured editing software doesn’t support it

The truth: Well actually it’s the editing software company’s job to fix this. Think of it like this. People design vacuum cleaners that work on hard floors, rugs and carpets. People don’t design hard floors, rugs and carpets that work with vacuum cleaners. Or put another way; your dog wags its tail, the tail doesn’t wag your dog.


Now reading this… I am slightly worried that possibly some people will get offended, perhaps you’ll think I’m deliberately calling YOU out for your online attitude. But please understand, the things I’ve brought up here run through the online camera community like a name in a stick of rock.


If you feel that being a Hater or a Lover is a cap that you wear – then sincerely good luck; go forth with your YouTube videos and click bait blog articles and sermon like forum posts. I hope it serves you well.


But please remember, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts.


Because that’s wrong.


And being wrong in front of thousands of people (on the internet) isn’t a good look is it?


I mean you wouldn’t walk into the middle of the pitch at a Super Bowl or FA Cup final, with a megaphone and start sprouting a load of over opinionated nonsense, riddled with factoids and obtuse, puerile statements.


Would you?


So what I want to say to all you people that outnumber those with a radical disposition by quite some margin is this. Now I am talking to you, you the good folk that read blogs and sites, that enjoy YouTube videos and forums – and my advice is this – when we’re online and find people acting like a camera negatively or positively changed their life, don’t get sucked in – try and be like Ms Swift, and Shake it off because it’s what you do with your camera that counts and that means creating photos not tirades.


In case it’s of interest: these pictures were shot with a combination of Nikon/Fujifilm/Panasonic/Leica and SmartPhone cameras utilising FF, APSC, M43, 2/3″and 1/3.2″ sensor sizes, also the expensive vintage Rolexes aren’t mine 🙂


About the author:
My personal preference of camera is Fujifilm’s X-Pro range and you can read my tutorials and musings about them on my website, http://adambonn.com or if you just want to see my pictures, try Flickr or Instagram


Email: subscribed: 4
  • jean pierre (pete) guaron says:

    ROTFLMHAO – and anyone who wants to know, can ask me what that means! Thank you SOOOOOOO much Adam – I haven’t read anything as funny as that for ages – just as well you’re on the other side of the planet, I felt like hugging you, when I read the article!

    “Opinions”? – write them down on a piece of paper, fold it over twice, and shove it . . . . As you so rightly suggest, everyone has them – everyone is entitled to them – but they have no intrinsic validity, they lack the ability to be “right” OR “wrong” (they can only converge or differ), and unless they are proffered solely to form a basis for a sensible discussion or conversation, it is more polite to keep them to oneself.

    The “best camera”? I could suggest a couple of alternatives – in modern parlance, either “whatever pushes your buttons” or “whatever floats your boat”. However, as far as I’m concerned, the “best camera” is the one I’m holding right now – because there’s no time to swap, before I miss the foto opportunity. [??? – did I get that right? – I’ve only ever been to Portugal once, more’s the pity – lovely country, but so is France, and there’s not enough sand left in my hourglass to be straying too far].

    I did wonder whether your comment about “[walking] into the middle of the pitch at a Super Bowl or FA Cup final, with a megaphone and . . . sprouting a load of over opinionated nonsense, riddled with factoids and obtuse, puerile statements” was provoked by over-exposure to the ravings of POTUS Trumpff. I try to avoid reading about that man.

    I have had just as much fun with a second hand Kodak Box Brownie as I had with my Linhof field camera, or my Zeiss Contarex, or my Pentax, Nikons, or whatever. Very few “duds”.

    Bottom line for me is that trolls are simply nasty, critics have lost the plot, and life’s too short to bother with inferior people who carry on like that.

    • Adam Bonn says:

      Thanks Pete,

      I hadn’t thought of the POTUS angle… (I wouldn’t want to be that political tbh) I was more hoping to demonstrate that people might write things on the internet in the solitude of their private lives, but the net result is anything but private or solitary

      I firmly believe that people who are happy with their gear tend to focus more on their photography – I think many of us have at one time or another bought a camera that hasn’t been all we’d hoped and the best thing to do in that situation is to get shot of it and move on.

  • pascaljappy says:

    Adam, bad Adam !

    There are unspoken rules on this blog that maintain it’s integrity.

    We’ve compared photo gear to cars. It’s GAS inducing but bearable.
    We’ve compared photo gera to HiFi. That’s bordering on GAS torture.

    But … watches ? Nooohoohoooooooooo Don’t get me started on watches. Pleeeeze 😉

    OK, so the 5510 in the middle … probably the price of a GFX ?
    And the 16618 on the left, the price of an X1D ?
    As for the model on the right (last but 1 ???) … Otus territory ?

    Uh, I have to go clean myself up, now …

    • Adam Bonn says:


      Not so up on current prices and that shot is 3 years old

      IIRC the 5510 was up for about £20k (double that figure if you want the 6538 big crown, immortalised by Connery’s Bond)

      Vintage watch collecting is a very expensive business!!

    • jean pierre {pete} guaron says:

      Utterly wasted on me, Pascal – I have my grandfather’s pocket watch (not working – at least, maybe it does work, but I’ve never tried to wind it up and simply wouldn’t know if it works or not!) and a tradesman’s model cellphone that has a kind of digital clock on its face (an alarm clock – YIKES), but bugger all space for apps (and I don’t even know if it has any – LOL). But no other watches. If it matters, I have an ancient french carriage clock, and a “lighthouse clock”.

      But I really have no idea what a 5510 or a 16618 might be.

      • Adam Bonn says:

        Rolex like to give their watches catchy memorable names, like 5510 or 114060

        Just do your future generations a highly unlikely favour, and check the pocket watch doesn’t say patek philippe on the dial 🙂

  • Steve Mallett says:

    Adam, I just wish you’d get off the bloody fence and state your opinion;-)

  • Steve Mallett says:

    And the watches? Ugly or what?

    • Adam Bonn says:

      Watches are a like cameras, everyone thinks a beat up ‘wabi’ example is really cool, unless it’s their personal one, which they’d rather keep mint 🙂

  • Adrian says:

    Your opening comment about Leica on Steve Huff’s website is all too familiar, but I think that Leica is a special case because of the price and all the mythos around the M system. My honest opinion, having never owned a M camera, is that I don’t think that take photographs that you can’t take with any other camera – although they make you do it in a different way. The problem with the name “Leica” is that there is so much baggage that comes with the name, and as a result some owners seem to think it instantly turns them into Henri Cartier-Bresson (or choose any other famous M mount owner). Photographs I’ve seen on Steve’s website posted by some Leica owners clearly invalidate that theory, and as a result they produce average photographs that could have been taken with any other camera, but they gush about how wonderful they are because the jpegs came from a Leica, and that’s where the problems start. If someone made great photographs or great art, people probably wouldn’t comment on the value of the camera and all those other pithy comments. Conversely, perhaps others wouldn’t feel the need to immediately gush that the pictures are wonderful because they came from a Leica, regardless of photographic merit.

    There are certain brands that seem to bring out the religious zealot in some owners, so they gush endlessly in their uncritical blogs because it’s all about emotion and any fact or critical analysis doesn’t come into it. Conversely there are brands that seem to bring out seething hatred and are apparently incapable of making any camera that is decent or could ever be used to take a photo. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I tend to ignore all the negativity as there really isn’t any point in trying to have a reasoned debate with such polemic people, although unfortunately I do sometimes try to introduce some facts into the often unsubstantiated gushing, if only because some empirical data or analysis may help others make up their mind what’s right or best for them.

    As I commented the other week, I have been seduced by some cameras in the past because they pushed emotional buttons. Now I feel as if emotional bonds with inanimate tools such as cameras is a bit of an affectation, and what one really needs is a tool that you can trust to get the job done. I do hope to talk about this in the future, as I sometimes think that amateurs sometimes attach too much emotion and mythos to some brands and equipment which makes little difference to the end result – what I refer to as “chasing rainbows”.

    I’m not really familiar with Taylor Swift’s oeuvre, but it’s an alarming thought that the download choices of 4 year olds is setting the mainstream pop agenda!

    • Adam Bonn says:

      I’m not convinced tbh…

      If people want to buy into the myth of ‘that’ (or indeed any) camera brand, then good luck to them

      I mean you’re not wrong in fact – for sure, buying a Leica M makes you about as much of a photographer as Henri Cartier-Bresson, as buying a Rolex Submariner makes you swim like Jacques Cousteau.

      But if buying an M makes someone happy (and doesn’t mean their kids have to go barefoot and that the whole family have to live on noodles for 2 years etc etc) then let them have their happiness.

      I’m fairly sure that it’s an individual’s ability that determines their photo creating prowess and not much else, and even if being emotionally happy with the tool that they’re using ultimately means little to their end result*, it’s still a positive thing

      (*Although that said if you have chance, google some of the superstitious rituals than some athletes have, Valentino Rossi would be a good one, swears blind that these rituals help him!)

      People that are loved up about their gear choices are quite sweet in a sickly sort of way, but personally I still find those that dislike a particular camera or brand go out of their way to spread negatively.

      That’s why I used the Leica example, the only place I mentioned a specific occurrence of loving/hating in the whole piece – because no one has the right to carte blanche disregard or accept images from a camera brand without the massive caveat that it’s just their personal opinion

      And personal opinions are all fine and dandy (you may say I’m expressing one of my own now 🙂 ) but it’s obviously factually redundant to publicly state that all output from camera X is good/bad (as one would merely have to find an image that was good/bad to disprove the argument) and when you start factoring all the baggage that comes around a luxury brand, then it does just become wealth politics. I mean an M + a lens is a lot of money. But it’s a lot less than people spend on their car or getting their house re-decorated or an a dream holiday or on an engagement ring – but people seem free to drop that amount of coin on that sort of thing without online reprisal.

      No. I’m personally quite happy for anyone to have any camera they want, I couldn’t give a monkeys if someone doesn’t like the same cameras as me, and what camera an image was made with is not a great concern of mine.

      The only facts that can really be inserted into the gushing/hating are corrections – my camera has XYZ feature er no it doesn’t actually, this is camera is incapable of doing XYZ er it can actually, look here

      But often facts are seemingly interchangeable with personal usage. Take Fuji X cameras for example. There’s only full SS stops* on the dial. This might very well annoy some, but anyone using aperture priority mode won’t care – so it’s not a fact that this is a bad feature, just an opinion (*OK you can set the dial to ‘T’ and have all the shutter speeds on a click wheel, but I’m sure you see my point?)

      This is why cold hard facts are important. Because without factual intervention, the conversation just becomes a war of opinion and that should be avoided, it achieves nothing.

      And the ultimate fact is that most (if not all) modern cameras have everything that anyone needs to make a photograph. It’s just about finding the one that works best for “you”

      • Adrian says:

        I dont think we are disagreeing really Adam, so I’m unsure what you’re not convinced by?

        People can of course buy whatever camera they want, as most of us still live in a free world. However, the Leica example is an interesting one. It reminds me of Pascals article asking us about what story we are trying to tell. I people buy a Leica and it makes them happy that’s their business. If people buy a Leica and tell others it’s the best camera, for example, then clearly there is a fact based discussion to be had. If people show photos then we may question their “story” if they are so-so photos taken in a situation that may be morally questionable, because as you say their talent not the camera defines their story or artistry. I’m certainly not advocating facile arguments that you recount earlier, and I take your point that people are free to buy and use whatever camera they want – but if they write about it or show photos then others have the right to make polite comment. I’m happy when the tool produces a good result, or let’s me do want I want – and not happy when the opposite is true.

        The issue of fact versus opinion is an interesting one and I will use your Fuji shutter speed dial as an example as it was something I have personal experience with. It’s factual to say te dial only has full stop shutter speeds, requires a second control to get intermediate values, which reset after every shot. Some people like a mechanical dial, their preference and I’m fine with that. Some say having marked dials means good handling or good ergonomics, which is at least a partial value judgement, and perhaps not a well informed one. “Good ergonomics” implies obvious function, working in a consistent way, being obvious what the current state is, and achieving the expected result. If someone doesn’t use a feature or work in a particular way, it doesn’t bother them, but that’s not the same as sometbing being “good”, “better than x” etc and as you say confuses opinion with fact.

        I agree whole heartedly that most cameras a pretty good, matter less than talent or story, and the important thing is to find something that does what you need. Too often people become strangely evangelical or defensive about their choices.

        • Adam Bonn says:

          I don’t think we’re disagreeing overall but you said

          but I think that Leica is a special case because of the price and all the mythos around the M system

          Whereas I personally don’t think that Leica get a pass in either direction (we can’t ‘let them off’ stuff because they’re Leica with their extra special mythos nor should we judge them harder because they’re Leica and they have to live up to their mythos)

          To do either would be the very antithesis of my point 🙂

          Ergonomics are complex things, mired in personal usage cases….

          I think that in simplistic terms we can say:

          – it’s good it has this feature
          – it’s good that this feature works as designed
          – I do/do not personally like the implementation of this feature

          I mean how often do we read things like

          The switch falls easily to hand

          So that’s everybody’s hand is it?

          No of course not.

          Ergonomics is a little the horse/water adage no? It can provide a watertight receptacle and place water there. But that’s about it.

          • Adrian says:

            I don’t want to sound supercilious Adam, but I studied some ergonomics at university level, mostly focusing on user interface and software design. Although it was a long long time ago. I don’t think it’s entirely fair to say it’s subjective or based on use cases.

            Dealing with physical size first, it’s interesting that I happened to have a discussion with someone on another forum recently, who though ergonomics was merely about a camera feeling nice in the hand and being the “correct” size and shape, which of course is a small part. For sizing, generally a manufacturer would take some measure of “average”, look at the distribution, and then pick something that meets the 95 percentile of population (you know, under the bell curve).

            As for controls, software etc, as I mentioned earlier at the highest level it’s about being obvious how to use something, working in a consistent way, fitting the users mental model, accurately reflecting it’s state, mirroring real world objects etc. Some expectations are derived from real things (so a dial in software would be expected to work the same way as a real world dial, for example), some of it is cultural, some is about generalised expectations based on tradition (the layout of car pedals in entirely arbitrary and gives no hint of their purpose, except for tradition, for example). It’s not really about having a feature and it working, it’s about the other things mentioned in the previous sentence too, which aren’t really about what someone “likes” but about an evaluation based on ergonomic principles. For example, if a physical control has marked values, but a device actually uses a different value, that’s essential “bad” because the presence of the control sets an expectation in the user, and appears to reflect a state of the device, but which actually isn’t true – so it’s not conforming to expectations based on mental model, behaving like other devices etc. You may argue that a user can change or apart, but in general for something that may be expected to behave in certain ways, that’s not really desirable, and certainly not “good”. That someone may happen to like it brings us back to personal opinion versus fact again, I’m afraid. This could easily become an article in it’s own right, although it’s not really related to photography per se, and I’m not trying to distract from your article.

            • Adam Bonn says:

              Yup, ergonomics are complex things alright.

              And IMO most cameras are tied to how people expect cameras to look (which stems from things like it had to beca certain size to fit film in, and had to have room for the SLR prism)

              If cameras were invented tomorrow, they might look completely different

          • Adrian says:

            I agree that a fair amount of camera design and physical ergonomics comes from tradition – so like cars, front and rear control wheels are understood, although they have no obvious function.

            Minolta once made a camera where the lens and sensor detached from the body via a cord, and so could be held in different positions – although a camera in 2 parts is an ergonomic disaster IMHO since it’s difficult to turn a zoom ring with one hand, for example., or press and turn buttons and dials with a one handed grip!

            Where I feel digital cameras that ape much simpler traditional film cameras (pre AF, full program exposure etc) go “wrong” is that they require greater control and functionality than those old traditional cameras, and therefore a very simple control regime becomes potentially confused – so you have the apparent simplicity of a physical control with hidden complexity to manage all the exceptions and over-rides.

            Given your comment, it is somewhat ironic that several manufacturers choose to ape the past to push emotional buttons in buyers – and Samsung who in some ways were probably the most forward thinking didn’t capture any market share.

            Speaking plainly, I think there are lots of (older) photographers who are confused or possibly scared by the perceived complexity of digital imaging and prefer to retreat to the safety of something that appears simpler because it reminds them of the past. – but that’s not really anything to do with ergonomics but styling etc.

            • Adam Bonn says:

              I guess the Leica TL is a camera that’s rolled out a different way of using it (not that it makes me want to buy one)

              I think a while back Ming Thein ran a piece about how a modern camera should work, iirc (and that’s a big if) it was something like a video camera, where it was basically a tube that you held to your eye, and the controls were under your fingertips (a bit like a trumpet)

              Ultimately people make things that sell, and sometimes what sells isn’t the best solution, just the most profitable

          • Adrian says:

            Your comment about Ming Thein’s views on camera design sounds somewhat similar to how video cameras actually are (to an extent), except that the larger format ones need to deal with larger format lenses and therefore need ergonomics to cope with the lens handling and weight. Anyway, it reminded me of a Minolta “compact” camera my friend used to own, that was styled somewhat like a pair of binoculars with the viewfinder at the back, and some kind of rocker switch on it’s top much like the focusing on binoculars. It was a truly unusual design, but my friend said it had a surprisingly good zoom lens and actually took good pictures. Unfortunately I don’t know the model, because it would be worth looking up just for curiosity and old times sake.

  • PaulB says:


    Thanks for the article and successfully getting the humor to shine through. One of the biggest challenges to printed communication is the reader will take what ever is said the most serious way possible; which is probably why the lovers and haters have such tall soapboxes.

    I also want to thank you for illustrating you point using Rolex watches. Since that is one affliction I have not caught yet. 😉 A similar item that continues to go up in value after the original purchase is Colt Revolvers. I had to go through a 12 step program to deal with my addiction, and my eye still twitches when I see one in the wild (a.k.a. The gun range).

    Though, there is one more song title you should reference, and introduce to your daughter, “Don’t Worry! Be Happy!” I’m sure it’s on YouTube.


    • Adam Bonn says:

      Thank you PaulB

      No matter what we’re writing, it’s always hard to “hear” the tone of voice that the reader will apply to the words

      I have zero knowledge of guns, but I guess that certain purchases (like watches) are nearly always emotional, so people can feel a little happier and content in their purchase….

      Saying that, maybe there’s auto and revolver fans that knock each others preference, and I suspect that (like cameras) guns are about as accurate as the person holding it is competent, but I wouldn’t truly know

      The kid’s music choices seem very much driven by movies, and she saw ‘Sing’ which is where her exposure to the Swift song came from. I have tried to get her to like Zeppelin though

      She’s a happy girl and I hope she stays that way for as long as possible

  • philberphoto says:

    Adam, you remind me of part of Groucho Marx’ memoirs. He commented that the movies he and his brothers acted in had always been lambasted by the film critics. A typical review, according to Groucho ran as follows: I was doubled up with laughter during the whole of this worthless movie.
    Your post had me doubled up with laughter, but all the while I was asking myself -and fuming!- doesn’t this guy get it? SONY RULES!!! And that is a FACT, you good-for-nothing monger of fake news!
    How do I prove it? Simple. So simple, I wonder how anyone can NOT GET IT. SONY sensors are the world’s best. You will say, yes, but Sony also sell their sensors to other manufacturers, like Nikon, or Fuji. Right, continue to try confusing the issue. But Sony know that, to get the very best quality, their sensors must be shaken -not stirred, shaken!- during production. Which is why they have located their sensor production site in Kumamoto (Kumamoto pref.), a place well known for its earthquakes. And they sort production. Those sensors produced during seismic quiet times get sold to “other manufacturers”, and, as can easily be understood even by you, those sensors produce dull, flat images. While those made during seismic-shock-wave periods get to be incorporated in SONY cameras where they deliver superb, glorious, rich images. And then they call this IBIS. Total TRIUMPH!!!! Get it now? Do you GET IT???

    • Adam Bonn says:


      Well if there’s one thing that the Sony story demonstrates is that while some brands are playing the heritage card, Sony just rock on up with a cheque book and acquire the businesses they need for success.

      Even if you don’t buy a Sony, they still seem to be getting paid along the way some where (Canon excepted I think..)

      There’s a rumour that Fuji are too CFAs what Sony are to sensor supply (ie many people buy their CFAs from Fuji)

      • Adrian says:

        The 16mp sensor that Fuji used was definitely a custom fabricated version made by Sony with a different colour filter array. Similar comments about the newer 24mp unit.

        Some people report some cameras using Toshiba sensors, not Sony, but don’t realise that they have a joint venture to increase manufacturing capacity of larger sensors (e.g. APSC sized) where Toshiba make Sony sensors under license.

        Sony semiconductor is a very successful part of their business, and wasn’t acquired to my knowledge – in fact Sony (like Fuji) have disposed of a number of parts of their business that weren’t profitable (TVs, Laptops etc).

        Their purchase of Minolta camera crested some organisational issues as it wasn’t integrated with their existing Cybershot business for several years leading to “self competition” (the RX1 was effectively a Cybershot product that used Alpha firmware, for example), although my understanding is that digital stills is a single business unit (along with pro video etc).

        It’s interesting to note that Fuji makes most of its money from things other than cameras – their film division is profitable because the chemicals and polymers used in film manufacture are used in other industrial processes and products, such as skin care! They did well to restructure when they did to minimise their exposure to the down turn of the film and camera business.

        • Adam Bonn says:

          It’s well known that Fuji use Sony sensors (see also Nikon and the Leica X and V cameras and no doubt many more)

          Sony bought Toshiba’s sensor business in 2015

          Supplier purchase and subsequent alignment is always a challenge for businesses.

          Some of Leica is for sale, perhaps Sony will buy that 🙂 (I doubt it though) but if they did it wouldn’t give them 100 years eyes wide open bragging rights, because they just turned up yesterday with a cheque book.

          That said, there’s many people in the world that have had the same job for decades, sitting at the same desk in the same office. However their employer has changed hands many times, but to them it’s just the company logo on the pay slip that’s different.

          In other news:

          I’m informed that you’re also a SilkyPix Pro user? I never though I’d ever meet the other person that liked it besides me !! 🙂 🙂 🙂

          • Adrian says:

            Following some discussions here in the past about Adobe and issues with Apple based editors, Pascal discussed that DS was going to write some reviews of various raw development / editing tools. I don’t think they ever came to pass, but in the mean time I wrote a quite lengthy overview / review of SP Pro v8, with some comparisons to Capture 1, which should be published soon. At the time I owned my X Pro 1 (2012-14) it was one of the few mainstream tools for Windows that produced half decent results with Fuji’s X Trans raw files. Even after I no longer used Fuji cameras I continued to use it alongside other software, and it became my primary editor about 2 years ago when local adjustments and some other refinements were added. Hopefully it should be published soon.

            Apologies on my previous reply, I misread your post about Fuji and CFAs whilst on the bus!

            Sony buying a share in Leica has some sense. Leica subcontracted some M and especially R system work to Minolta in the 1970s-80s as reportedly they were impressed with how well Minolta had understood and copied some of the characteristics of Leicas lenses in their own designs (micro contrast, liquidity etc). Since the Alpha product line is descended from Minoltas heritage (it can still be seen in the design, functionality and other aspects of the cameras and some lenses which Minolta are believed to manufacture), there would be a certain completing of that circle. It’s unfair to say Sony don’t have heritage – that Minolta DNA and innovation is still evident – and Sony and Minolta made some of the earliest commercially available digital cameras, before some other brands.

            • Adam Bonn says:

              Short reply, forgive me (or the opposite 🙂 )

              I didn’t mean to imply that Sony had no heritage (and I realise that it might of sounded like I did), just that they’ve grown their footprint in the camera industry via acquisition

              I look forward to your SP Pro piece, I quite like the software myself and I like to use things that are a bit different and whereas SP is quite under featured in some areas, it seems to be fully fledged in others

              I can’t see Sony buying a stake in Leica… just making the point that things with cachet get bought and sold

          • Adrian says:

            Any likelihood of Sony buying the share of Leica that is for sale could be influenced if they are aware of those old relationships, and / or if Sony wants to capitalise on it – though given their relationship with Zeiss now, it probably doesn’t make a lot of sense.

            If Panasonic were not rumoured to be getting our of m43rds, I would otherwise suggest they could be a more likely sleeping partner.

            Or perhaps the Louis Vuitton group will invest in them, as they own almost every other “luxury” brand in Europe? 😉

            I generally find SP Pro v8 has almost all the features I want – the spotting / cloning tool is rather weak, but the other newer features such as local adjustments do all I need. One of the things that the article talks about is that it’s different from mainstream tools such as Lightroom or Capture One, but that you can achieve the same (or better) results, but you have to understand how to use it in a slightly different way since it lacks some of the simplicity of some sliders to do things and instead needs a little thought and understanding to how to achieve what you want. I actually think it some areas it is stronger than other tools I’ve used. I’m not sure when it will be published as Pascal was talking about creating a new sidebar or something as a place to permanently have links to some reference articles, and I know he’s been very busy recently.

            • Adam Bonn says:

              When people ask me about SP I usually say that in most software you need to know what the sliders do, but in SP you also need to know why they do what they so

          • Adrian says:

            It’s what I call “wiggling the sliders around”.

            I think many people who use popular software such as Lightroom “learn” how to use it by watching online videos etc, which only teach them the effect of the slider, but not necessarily why to use it, how it works, or what it’s really doing. Highlight and Shadow sliders are a good example – they perform tone mapping at the “ends” of the histogram, but give no control over what they do other than an arbitrary amount on a 0-100 scale. People could adjust overall exposure, adjust levels and curves, paint in local adjustments, perform “dodging” etc and they don’t correlate the sliders with HDR tone mapping. In comparison, the SP highlights controller gives a great deal of control over handling brightness, saturation, hue and DR recovery measure in EV, and therefore needs an understanding of what you want to achieve and therefore how to use all the options, rather than just wiggling the “highlights” slider around until you think you like the result.

  • Per Kylberg says:

    I am a bit hesitant to delve into blogs starting: x-land with y-camera. They often hold images that do not reflect real insight in x-land and a lot about bragging over y-camera.
    It is possible to make excellent photography with any current camera. (Especially if image content and message is no 1.) If my images are not excellent it is my fault, not the gear.
    There is no perfect camera for any usage. Do not change system. Learn how to optimize your gear toward your needs. Stop complaining.
    The best thing with DearSusan is it often deals with this: Go make images, enjoy the process/journey, enjoy results.

  • Staale says:

    As the saying goes: “You can’t add days to your life, but you can add life to your days”. Thank you all for a tremendously enjoyable site!

  • Staale says:

    Posted a comment, which was very neutral, but was deleted straight away – not good enough???

    • pascaljappy says:

      So sorry, my mistake !! Your comment was lost in a sea of spam and was the victim of my hasty removal process. All back to normal. Have a great day. Pascal.

  • Steffen says:

    Fanboyism and flame wars are not limited to photo gear – not even by a long shot. Everywhere were people need to decide between brands that actually do the same, emotion gets involved. Brand need that emotion. Without emotion, they don’t sell – simple as that. Furthermore, people need reassurance that they bought the right thing. And if they spend so much money with the uncertainty that it actually doesn’t solve their problem, they need to argument their point of view for themself over and over again. That’s why my decision is always better then yours – it has to! Otherwise it would mean I made the wrong decision. That can’t be!

    Sometimes it’s funny to read these kinds of wars. But it gets boring quite quickly. One should stay away from actually taking part in these discussions as they lead to nothing but wasted time – over and over again. The best achievement you get is that the opponent quits the conversation when your arguments are too strong. But that doesn’t mean he understood our learned anything. He will show up in the next thread with the same bullshit. Just leave it early.

    Fortunately it’s not the majority of users. If you read sonyalpharumors and see a thread of 300 comments writing nonsense, it may look like a lot. However, this site has 100k’s of daily visitors and the majority just don’t take part in any conversation our reaction. Also see this article: 900+ views but “only” 38 comments (and that’s pretty much a lot).

    • Adam Bonn says:

      Very true Steffen, and “staying away from participating” is sage advice.

      I decided to focus on the photography aspect of flame and fan due to the content of DS, but I know it applies to wrist watches, and I could guess it applies to games consoles and no doubt sports cars and well, as you say – many things

      I think you’re also correct that it’s a minority rather than a majority, just a minority that (if you wonder over to their side of the “”bar””) is usually quite loud

      The thing I notice most is what I call the fictitious police. They tend to say things like “users of camera brand ABC claim that XYZ, but that’s so wrong and I’m going to tell you why” when if you actually read what users of camera brand ABC are saying, it’s not that thing at all

  • >