>>3486669Backpedaling, check. Moving the goal posts, check. Here come the semantics, right on schedule. Sure, I'll argue with you if you want.
>So his shots are great? Where do you see problems then?Some of them are, yeah. And he knows which ones, because he curates them for sale. You're not going to goad me into posting critiques of his lesser ones. Go browse his Twitter and do it yourself:
https://twitter.com/wildmanrouse/mediaBut in this case, he was pressured by BigCorp.inc to produce something-anything-to showcase the latest product he's in charge of promoting. The result of being under the gun to produce something can mean a drop in quality. Also, the quality of the product is lacking. Just look at the photo. He and I both know that he would never adopt that kit as his main carry. You seem to be completely oblivious to reality.
Look through his shots... they are hit and miss. Lots of heavy cropping going on, and none of those shots for sale anywhere. Again, the result of being pressured to constantly keep up that social media presence. That's just how it is. Nothing I'm saying is anything he'd disagree with if he were to speak honestly. He's clearly passionate about his work, and it must kill him having to post filler material in between great shots. But that's his job. he has to network constantly.
>effectively 840mmHe's saying the effective (perceived) focal length is 840mm. This does not mean they are effective at 840mm. Even that big prime isn't great with a TC. I know from personal experience that neither Nikon' nor Canon's primes slower than f/2.8 do all that well with a TC. I have used a few 600 f/4 generations with 1.4x as well as 2x TCs on full frame and crop and sharpness drops off fast, and you get weird bokeh.
The point is, he has to push this gear to consumers. What better way than to sit it next to a 600f/4 with a 1.4xTC on a full frame body, and say some platitude? It's pure bullshit and he knows it, but that's his job.
