You made totally uncalled for personal insults to me when I gave a simple reply to a question of yours as follows:
...
My repy then was "The R7 came out after the R5 and has several features that are on the R3 and haven't been implemented on the R5. It is claimed on one video from a Canon person that the R5 has an earlier version of the Digic X and it has been proposed that it doesn't have necessary features on it. However, I am sceptical about that without explicit details from Canon."
(Quoting here is a bitch...)
So why did I make the comment I did? Because you're willing to have faith in one unverifiable statement over another unverifiable statement. If you're going to be sceptical then you need to apply the scpeticism equally. You may as well have said "My god said X, so I know that's true, but someone else who also knows my god made comment supported by what my god said to me but what they said isn't true." (I don't know if that's offensive to reglious people, but it could be to some.) I won't ever be able to say that your god didn't say X, but neither would you be able to prove it, it requires an application of faith. To me the two comments, toghether, make sense and I see no reason to be sceptical about one and not the other. Not only that, the two statements (about OVF & DIGIC X) fit perfectly well together, and with reality, so I see no need to be sceptical of either.
When we can't verify a statement and have to take it on face value, we're justified in being sceptical - as you are. But we shouldn't choose who we're sceptical about just because it suits us. To choose what one person says over an other, seems a bit silly (at least to me), when neither statement is verifiable.
At least to me, choosing not to be sceptical of Canon but being sceptical of someone else (when scepticism is warranted in both cases) puts you into the Canon fanboy club. That then gave rise to further ideas about silliness (which I included in the text you pasted) and from there to what I said is a big downhill that I let go too far, apologies for that.
If on the other hand Canon does come out with an OVF mode for the R5 that works like the R3/R7, then I've been wrong and your selective scepticism was warranted. It still feels wrong to me.
It was your rudeness that instigated @neuroanatomist. So, don't complain when you are on the receiving end of insults when you started them and don't pose as a victim.
I think you're wrong about that. There are ways of dealing with things, as you have done, that are mature and befitting of an adult. Let me leave it at that.
Furthermore, you are showing scepticism about the Digic X processors.
Personally, I don't know what to believe about their capbilities because we don't know what they are capable of - and we probably won't, ever.
Maybe the best thing to do is stop worrying about what the DIGIC X chips can do, accept that Canon does what they can to get the best out of each of their cameras, and move on.
Upvote
0