File :-(, x, )
Canon EF mount Anonymous
Hi /p/, novice photographer here.

I am a Canon user and I am wondering about Canon's EF/EF-S mount.

As I understand it, every EF/EF-S lens made since the begining has had a dedicated focusing motor in the lens. Nikon has focusing screws in their cameras and again, as I understand it, newer Nikkor lenses have built-in motors too.

Is this a better thing for future proofing for Canon? What are the advantages and disadvantages? What are other companies doing, Sony, Pentax, 4/3?
>> Anonymous
>Is this a better thing for future proofing for Canon?
On the negative size:
1) Making super-slim lenses becomes impossible, as there's no space for the motor.
2) Pricier lenses - you need to put a motor in every lens rather than every camera.
But on the positive size:
1) You can choose the motor depending on the size of the elements it moves - this is good for xbox huge lenses.
2) The system of gears and cams is much simpler, thus AF becomes faster and consumes less power.
3) You can put more complex motors in expensive lenses and simpler motors in cheaper ones.
4) Being inside the lens is a requirement for ring-type ultrasonic motors, as they lack cams and mechanical coupling between lens and body would be extremely difficult.

>What are other companies doing, Sony, Pentax, 4/3?
Only Canon and 4/3 mounts lack in-body AF motors from the very beginning. Sony, Pentax and Nikon mounts have them, but many of their newer lenses feature built-in motors too.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>121390
>Pricier lenses - you need to put a motor in every lens rather than every camera.
While I agree with this in theory, in practice, Canon's lenses tend to be pretty much on par with Nikon's. So if they really are more expensive, Canon's taking it out of their profit margin rather than our pockets.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>121390Making super-slim lenses becomes impossible, as there's no space for the motor.

Oh, wow this is really fucking impressive.

Are these pancake lenses more expensive, perform as well?
>> Anonymous
>>121401
I've yet to see a "bad" pancake lens, but their main appeal is cuteness, not image quality.

Although I don't understand pentaxfags loving their 40/2.8 so much. What's the point of having a cute small lens when you don't have a cute small body to put it on?
>> Anonymous
>>121390Only Canon and 4/3 mounts lack in-body AF motors from the very beginning.

Does this mean in general, Nikon, Sony, Pentax lenses are smaller and lighter?

Also, which performs better?

1) a Canon 50/1.8 on a 300D and then on the 1D III.

2) a NIkkor 50/1.8 on a D50 (lol D40 doesn't have AF lol) and then on the whichever Nikon model is the fastest at focusing.

Which situation is better?
>> Anonymous
>>121406
Agreed. And on a 1.53x crop sensor, the field of view of a 40mm lens is just awkward. Too long to be used as a normal by most people, too short to be used as a medium tele by most people.
>> Anonymous
>>121401
That lens doesn't have an internal motor.

>>121406but their main appeal is cuteness
I wouldn't necessarily say cuteness, rather compactness. Cutting the length of the lens can make a normally mid-sized SLR into a pocketable albiet somewhat bulky camera.
>> Anonymous
>>121411
Oh, but I don't agree about it just being "cuteness." Discretion is the main reason, like how up until recently (when the M8 made it impossible) Leica offered a 50mm and a 90mm that would collapse into the body for easy, discreet carrying. (They might still offer the 90, I'm not sure. I know they got rid of the 50mm.)
>> Anonymous
>>121407
Well, Pentax does have the 40/2.8 pancake shown in>>121401, which is probably as small and light as AF lenses get. Others just don't care.

Speaking of 50/1.8 lenses, both of those are super cheap and their AF performance is probably equally mediocre. But if we compare Nikon's body-driven 50/1.4 and Canon's 50/1.4 with an ultrasonic motor, the latter should be noticeably faster and quieter on the same-class camera.
>> Anonymous
>>121414Speaking of 50/1.8 lenses, both of those are super cheap and their AF performance is probably equally mediocre. But if we compare Nikon's body-driven 50/1.4 and Canon's 50/1.4 with an ultrasonic motor, the latter should be noticeably faster and quieter on the same-class camera.

My question was poorly worded.

I mean, a similar lens from Canon and Nikon, put it on the low end body and then on the high performance one. Situation is different on a case to case thing but does this mean the gap in focusing performance is smaller on Canon since the motor is on the lens and that Nikon has weaker motors in low end bodies?
>> Anonymous
>>121411
It's not as bad as you might think. The "kit" lens of Zenit cameras was 58mm f/2, and people used that for decades.

>>121413
We're talking SLRs here, and discretion isn't their strong point. Even if you put the 40/2.8 on the smallest Olympus, it will still be larger than any Leica (not to mention it won't AF).
>> Anonymous
>>121417
Yes, the focusing speed gap will probably be smaller on Canon, but not significantly, as a 50/1.8 lens is light and the speed will be most likely limited by the performance of the focusing sensors rather than motor. The difference you're talking about is most pronounced with heavy long telephotos.
>> Anonymous
>>121420

Is Nikon slowly making more lenses with built-in motor to make the full transition?

Also, is it safe to assume Nikon puts better focusing motors on high end bodies? D50<D80<D300<D3?
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>121421

nikon's already phased out servo motors in their lowest end bodies. in another decade, with the D6 or whatever the fuck, they'll probably completely phase out the body servo, much to the chagrin of advanced amateurs everywhere. Newbies won't care, since all the lenses they buy now are AF-S. Pros won't care because all the lenses they already have are AF-S. amateurs will be pissed because they're all using outdated lenses and can't afford new ones.

and it's not just the motor that counts. it's also how good the camera's phase detection works, which has a lot to do with hardware speed.
>> Anonymous
>>121432
I wonder if phase detection, too, will be phased out in the end along with the whole mirror box when they finally produce non-crappy EVFs and fast contrast-detection AF.
>> Anonymous
>>121432much to the chagrin of advanced amateurs everywhere

Is this because they have older Nikkor lenses with no focus motors and then when Nikon removes the motor in all their bodies, all their lenses won't AF anymore?
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>121439

right. although, i might rescind and say that nikon's toppermost slr will still probably have an af servo in the body, since a few grams is worth the cost of full compatibility. the rest of them will probably be af-s only, though.
>> Anonymous
>>121439
indeed.

They are already BAWWing because Nikon crippled AI lens support in everything below D200, I can only imagine the shitstorm if the AF servo gets removed in the D80 successor.
>> Anonymous
>>121444Nikon crippled AI lens support in everything below D200

Quick explanation about this?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>121447
With older lenses, the lower-end bodies won't meter at all. I could kind of understand it if they disabled the advanced matrix metering, but there's no technical reason I can see for them disabling even really simple "What do I need to do to make this 18% gray" metering.
>> Anonymous
>>121474
What's even more ironic, the cheapest Canon and Four Thirds cameras meter with Nikon AI glass, and the latter even provide IS with new firmware.
>> Anonymous
>>121474With older lenses, the lower-end bodies won't meter at all.

Does that mean you can't use shutter/aperture priority modes? In other words, exposure is fully manual?
>> Anonymous
>>121555
Yes, that is the case. Though bear in mind that it's not just "older" nikon lenses that won't work, it's pre-autofocus lenses that won't work. So if you're not planning on using manual focus lenses, it's a moot point. While I do think it's stupid thing for Nikon to do, I don't consider it a strike against the cameras. After all, you can't use Canon manual focus lenses on current Canon cameras either.

>>121488
True, but you have to use an adapter. That means you lose aperture coupling, which to some people is a pretty big deal. I've spent quite a lot of time shooting with cameras that have no aperture coupling as well as cameras with no meter, and I can say with certainty that I'd rather have no meter than have to stop down manually. Once again, I think it's bullshit that Nikon disabled metering with MF lenses, but given the alternative I'll take it.
>> Jeremo
>>121555

Yes that's exactly it, but those Nikons with autofocus motors with still autofocus, where as all the canonfags and 4/3 (lol) fags who wish to use great nikkors need to manually focus it up.

Personally, i'm happy to dial the exposure in since i mainly use manual anyway.

AI Nikkors will meter on the canons but will NOT autofocus.

To get full compatibility you pretty much need a D200 or up from there abouts.

It makes sense, those who possess old AI glass will most likely have a D200 or above to suit their needs. Though compatibility with say a D80 level would have been nice too. Though that is still potentially possible with the next D80 upgrade.
>> Jeremo
>>121556

I'll agree with that, i love how Canonfags here and otherwise make it out to be the end of the world and it really doesn't concern them.

Nikon wasn't full compatibility with old Nikkors, it's not on EVERY camera BUT IT IS THERE.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>121556
>After all, you can't use Canon manual focus lenses on current Canon cameras either.
True. But the thing that bugs me with it is the fact that there's no *reason* that the cameras won't meter with older lenses. It's purely a marketing decision to screw the people who bought the lower-end cameras.
>> Jeremo
>>121562

Pffft. I'm sorry but that's just a facetious statement. The vast majority of people who buy the lower end of the Nikon product Do not have and Will most likely NEVER have pre AF lenses... the chances of them having AF lenses beyond the 50mm is just as unlikely.

You are right that it's probably a marketing move, but one that's obviously the better decision in terms of rational cost.

Who do you know have been screwed over by this?

Seriously dude. Stop it already. You don't need to confirm you bought into a good system. We all know Canon's are great.
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
>>121566
No, it screws over the kids that want to get into photography that have access to old lenses/want to buy old glass on the cheap to go with their low end nikon body.

People like me. And yes, it was part of my decision to go with Canon, since my mom used Nikon and told me she might still have her stuff somewhere in the attic.
>> Anonymous
>>121562
Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. I think it probably is mostly a marketing move, but as has been said people who are looking at these cameras are pretty unlikely to have any AI-S lenses in the first place. The people who are likely to have them are probably going to be more interested in cameras like the D200 and up, all of which are fully compatible with AI-S lenses.

One could also argue that Canon's decision to switch from the FD to EF mount, rather than update the mount to include AF as Nikon, did was simply a marketing plan to screw all those people who owned Canon FD lenses and cameras and force them to buy all new gear.

One has to face the fact that Nikon can't keep supporting thirty and forty year old lenses forever. Eventually there is a point at which it becomes too costly or impractical to keep 100% backwards compatibility for 50 years worth of lenses, especially when you have a system the size of Nikon's. I think it was good of Nikon to phase in new equipment gradually, giving users almost twenty years to change their systems over once lens at a time, rather than just dump all the manual focus stuff at once.
>> Jeremo
>>121568

Okay, let me get this right...

You wanted to have affordable gear, Old Nikkors don't meter on current Nikons so your move is to instinctly choose Canon, another manufacturer with whom you have to buy NEW GEAR COMPLETELY...

So you went from having old lenses that do mount, but you'd just have to manually meter and possible focus which would have saved you a bit of money which you wanted... to converting to a system where you would have had to start from the begining and buy completely new gear?

...

With logic like that, I simply can't argue with you.
>> Jeremo
>>121570

oh by current, i meant to entry level Nikon cameras.

And how the hell does it screw the 'young kids' who want to get into starter photography?

I can't think of a better way to start photography than to learn everything Manually. Manual Metering, Manual Focusing.

But than again, i honestly feel like i've been trolled here.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
     File :-(, x)
lol
I use Ai/Ai-s lenses on my D70 and F60.
I dont cry over spilt milk.

>>The vast majority of people who buy the lower end of the Nikon product Do not have and Will most likely NEVER have pre AF lenses... the chances of them having AF lenses beyond the 50mm is just as unlikely.

I agree with this statement full heatedly. If your planning to use ai lenses then you get a body that you KNOW will meter with them, not buy a body that you KNOW will not meter then bitch and moan about it.
And if you cant meter ai lenses then its not the end of the world! look at poor canon users, they cant even natively mount FD lenses!
So why is Nikon getting shit for being one of the few manufactures to keep a degree of compatibility of ALL their bodies and ALL their lenses?


This is the Ai indexing ring, this tell the camera what the fstop value is for metering. Its only a hand full of nikon bodies that actually dont have this. Most bodies from Ai era have this ring.
Do you expect mr joe average with his F60 planning to use Ai-s lenses on this body? I dont and i'm sure Nikon didn't either. Thus they have bodies that cater for the more advance amerture/professional, these include more features that are related to them. Why add more manufacturing cost (thus higher end price) to something that largely wont be used on low bodies?

I just feels is a bonus that i can still mount MF lenses on my consumer camera ^_^
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>121566
>The vast majority of people who buy the lower end of the Nikon product Do not have and Will most likely NEVER have pre AF lenses
The vast majority of people who buy the lower end of the Nikon (or Canon) product line will never buy a lens at all, other than the kit lens.

There is also, however, a large class of people who buy the cheap Nikons because they don't have a lot of money, and for those people, it would be delightful to be able to use cheap old manual-focus lenses. Which, granted, they can. But they have to use them the hard way, and there's no good reason for that.

There were good technical reasons for Canon's switch from FD to EF--as evidence, there's the fact that the closest thing to an incompatible mount change they've had to do in the past 20 years is the addition of EF-S. There are also good technical reasons for the switch to in-lens AF and the removal of aperture rings. My problem is with their decision to cripple the low end cameras. I would be mildly surprised if it didn't take them *extra* work to make sure that the older lenses don't meter.
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
>>121570
Wow, rage over someone choosing a camera system different from yours much?

It wasn't the only reason I went with Canon, but having the ability to meter/focus with lenses that I already had erased a major incentive for me to go with Nikon. Excuse me for not being as elite as you and desiring lenses that were guaranteed to meter and focus automatically. The RebelXT was lower priced than the D40 and D50 at the time of my purchase and that's what I went with.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
itt the familyman makes a concise, good humored post to /thread. as always. i want to elect you president of photography.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
sonyminolta posting that the dynax mount (which works 100% on all dynax bodies iirc) has been out for more time than the EF mount. With the switching from nikon I think makes it the longest continious line of lenses that all work from oldest to newest.
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
>>121572

The thing is, I can do things manually on the Rebel XT too. The difference is I can use auto if I want to.

It's like the people who argue that new photographers should learn on manual primes. You could do the same with a modern zoom lens. Just leave it on one focal length and turn off the AF switch. And you get the bonus of being able to use the new stuff when you want it/need it. Other than image quality you lose by getting zoom vs prime(but then again, is the beginner buying cheap equipment really expecting top notch IQ?), you have the best of both worlds.
>> Jeremo
>>121581

You've missed the point of that post completely. If you can't see the flaw in your logic, then like i said, I-CAN'T-ARGUE-WITH-YOU.

Read Familyman's post. He's articulated what i wanted to say much better and without the sardonic tone I'm famous for.

>>121580

See that's why i think you're just trolling whenever these posts come up. You can see the logical reasoning in Canon's transition but not in Nikon's, even though we've suggested otherwise.

But no worries mate, i'll make sure /p/ gets both sides.
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
>>121596
No, quite frankly you're coming off an elitist prick about the entire thing. I understand what you meant. The fact of the matter is I spent less than $700 for a body and two lenses AND I got autofocus/metering. If I had gone for a D40 I would have spent about the same amount without guaranteed autofocus/metering, and I would have to spend more to get it. Why this seems to upset you is beyond me.
>> Anonymous
>>121596

You're not famous for anything but being a huge faggot.
>> Anonymous
>>121603
thats why you skip the D40 and get a D50 instead.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>121596
>You can see the logical reasoning in Canon's transition but not in Nikon's, even though we've suggested otherwise.
Sorry, I typed my last post poorly.

Nikon's transition from using the little bunny ears to figure out aperture to not using the little bunny ears to figure out aperture, I can understand. Going from manual focus to in-body AF, I can understand. Even going from in-body AF to in-lens AF and leaving the AF motor out of newer bodies, I can understand. Getting rid of the vestigial aperture ring on the G lenses, I can understand.

The thing that bugs me is their decision to *turn off* the light meter with old lenses. Changing the lens mount over time and maintaining a certain level of backwards compatibility is a perfectly rational alternative to radically altering the lens mount all at once like Canon did. But the light meter thing isn't a "transition", it's just a "we'll turn this functionality off."

Turning off the light meter with old lenses on the low-end cameras doesn't save them any money or work. It's not a transition, it's a crippling.
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
>>121610

IIRC, D50 was more expensive than the 350D and/or wasn't being carried anymore. And I didn't want to buy a used camera. But yeah, if my camera changed to a D50 and my lenses changed mounts, I wouldn't cry over it.

And honestly, I'm starting think someone is trolling under Jeremo's namefag. I don't remember him being this much of a dick before.
>> Anonymous
>>121619And honestly, I'm starting think someone is trolling under Jeremo's namefag. I don't remember him being this much of a dick before.

He always is when someone disagrees with him. Try saying shit to him and watch him get all defensive.
>> Jeremo
>>121603

First off, let me apologise, i was egging you on a bit and boy did you fall for it. :D

I'm not saying you made the wrong decision with Canon, i just said your logic behind your reasoning was flawed. It still is, it could very well be how you wrote it. But it stands.

I don't think i'm being elitist when you're essentially arguing with your Canon you could meter with Nikkors and inferring that Nikon users are dopes for buying a camera that doesn't meter with the entry level cameras.

>>121626

Hey little bitch, still crying over the fact that you can't argue for shit and still living in your parents basement? STFU and DIE already.
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
>>121669

Oooh yeah.

amirite?
>> Jeremo
>>121616

Okay, I do clearly see where you're coming from AC. You've certainly got a point.

But I guess Familyman and i agree that there's another side to that, like you've said, with marketing.

Nikon have obviously worked out that entry level buyers will not possess nor have the desire to posses pre AF lenses, if they would want to use them that much they wouldn't be buying entry level cameras in the first place.

To put that feature in EVERY camera would add up significantly, and the benefits are probably not nearly worth it.

Let's even say 1 out of 1000 entry level Nikon buyers (which i think is a gross over estimate)...to put in 1000 parts for that user with a few lenses would be a gross misjudgment.

So i really don't think i can agree with you when you're stating it's crippling, because that suggests a collapse of some sort for the Nikon user base... and yet i don't believe i've ever read anything from them regarding this issue.
>> Jeremo
>>121671

hahhaha.. i forgot that... i know you're laughing at me... but i'll pretend you're laughing with me anyway.
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
>>121669

I wasn't inferring anything about Nikon users. If you took my reasons for choosing Canon over Nikon as a personal attack, you need to reconsider the amount of emotional investment you're placing in your camera equipment.

You wanted to know who gets screwed over by it, and I presented myself as evidence, and I don't think I'm unique in this situation. Being able to use non AF, non metering lenses on a D40 lying around didn't appeal t me when I could buy a body and lenses for the same price as the D40 AND have auto. Why that is difficult to understand, I can't figure out.

Apology accepted.
>> Anonymous
Jeremo just seems to get into a huge faggot whenever you don't agree with him or call Nikon out for crippling low end bodies.
>> Jeremo
>>121694

LOL... emotional investment? You're trying to justify your move to Canon... I really couldn't a give shit one way or another. I don't have any AI lenses. Only AF and AF-S.

>>Being able to use non AF, non metering lenses on a D40 lying around didn't appeal t me when I could buy a body and lenses for the same price as the D40 AND have auto. Why that is difficult to understand, I can't figure out.

Because i don't think you fully understand. You get metering. That's it. With the help of an adapter, which you lose aperture coupling... and Autofocus.

So no, you don't get FULL AUTO. You do get metering.

My question to you now. Do you use ANY Nikkors on your Canon Rebel now? Because that's really the point isn't it? If you don't... well...


>>121696

Seriously... that's the best you can do? You disappoint me little bitch.
>> Anonymous
>>121694
Do you use those lenses your mom had on your Canon now? Why are you presentin yourself as evidence if you dont even use old nikon lenses? STFU already Canonfag.
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
>>121698

Ummm... yeah? I just said it was part of my justification for buying a Canon body over Nikon. Again, how you are taking offense to this and somehow think I'm inferring that Nikon users are stupid puzzles me and leads me to believe you care a little more about system choice than you're admitting.

So now, explain to me why I should have bought a Nikon body in order to use glass I already have when for the same price I could buy a Canon body and EOS lenses with features that I wouldn't have with the Nikon body and old lenses.
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
>>121699

What you guys are saying is I should have just bought a Nikon body and sucked it up and used manual, or buy a Nikon body and buy AF-S lenses, which would defeat the purpose of trying to save money by staying with Nikon... And you guys are saying my reason is flawed?

Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit. I'm not using the nikkors on my RebelXT, I have no idea where you're getting this idea from. As I said, they're somewhere still in the attic as I have no use for them until I feel the desire to use film. I'm presenting myself as evidence because one of the reasons I chose Canon was because I wasn't going to be able to use the full function of the lens I had anyway, so I might as well buy a body and lenses that would have all features instead of a crippled body. The reason I'm not using those lenses right now is the reason why there's this argument in the first place- cheap Nikon bodies don't let you use their full functionality.

gb2/school/ & lrn2read
>> Jeremo
>>121713

Pics or it didn't happen. etc etc.

>>care a little more about system choice than you're admitting

I'm dropping it, but you keep bringing it up. Stop projecting already.

But seriously, i'd like to see some pics on the setup, Canikons facinate me.
>> Anonymous
>>121581desiring lenses that were guaranteed to meter and focus automatically.

I think the main source of misunderstanding here is that you're comparing apples to oranges. Yeah, you're not guaranteed that a thirty year old Nikkor will work on a brand new low-end Nikon body. The key point that you seem to keep missing is that a thirty year old Canon lens won't work on a brand new Canon body either. If you buy current production Nikon lenses they will work just fine.
>> Jeremo
>>121717

wait... so you don't use Nikkors on the Canon?... sorry i thought your umm yeah response was to that... i guess it was to the metering eh?

...right, enough energy wasted on this endeavour
>> Anonymous
>>121717

You are an idiot tripfag. You are presenting yourself as proof that someone got fucked over and you dont even use the nikon lenses on the Rebel. How the fuck have you proved anything?

In other words it made no real difference one way or another. Because you still could have a very similar setup with Nikon as you do with Canon. Jeremo is right you are trying real hard to justify your idiotic logic with your moaning.
GTFO already.
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
>>121723

Wow, I'm done here. If you're going to be so passionate about a camera system that it affects your ability to read and understand information that might cast it in a negative light... well, at least you went with a decent system and not with Sony/KM.

You've completely lost sight of what this argument is about (I still have no idea where you got the idea that I ever had the intention of mounting the nikkors on my Canon body). When weighing the two systems against each other, I wanted Nikon at first, but when I learned of this incompatibility situation with the D40, the advantage disappeared. I know I could have very well have bought an equivalent Nikon setup with new lenses, but it would have cost more than buying the Rebel XT with lenses at the time, which would have made no sense when the reason I wanted to use the old lenses in the first place was to save money by not having to buy new lenses.

And it's funny how your post comes right after Jeremo admitting he misunderstood what I was saying.

fail more anonyfag
>> Anonymous
>>121733

You have failed at life. Go listen to some emo tripfag.

Oh for the record. I use a XTi dipshit.
>> Anonymous
Macheath: 1
/p/: 0
>> Jeremo
>>121733

Yes i did indeed misread what you wrote... but i do agree that you are not proof or evidence or whatever of someone being screwed over. Because you could have gotten into the Nikon system and still had those extra lenses...and not that with Canon you haven't used them even though you've said that the ability meter matters to you.

In other words, you haven't proven to me at all that you are one of the supposed people put off by this suppose crippling effect. I understand now that you've articulated yourself properly what your reasons were and it makes sense to me. I just don't think it sets an good enough example. That's all.

I don't mean to offend, rarely do but i come across like it sometimes.

In the end, i couldn't really give a shit. I'm becoming the reason why /p/ is shit these days. Too much bullshit and not enough photography.

Oooh yeah.
>> Anonymous
>>121743
Hi Macheath

>>Teen emo faggot : 1
>>/P/ : Doesn't give a fuck.

fix'd
>> Anonymous
>>121744Oooh yeah.™
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
AAAH SHIT WHY DID I READ THIS WHOLE THREAD

if you guys are going to argue about something, don't be stubborn and try and be more open minded (hinthint*cough*macheath*cough*hinthint)
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>121733
Yeah lets make a jab at a superior mount because im BAWWWWWWWWWW

<3
/p/ 3
emo fagot 0
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
>>121776

beethy, I don't think you know what closed minded means.

For the majority of the thread, everyone was arguing against a red herring instead of my real argument. Not until the end of the thread did they actually realize it. Even after Jeremo acknowledged that he was wrong to attack me on something that I wasn't even talking about, tools like you keep going at it...

This is why I lurk most of the time.

>>121877

Even when I joke around :(

ITT everyone gangrapes Macheath :( I'm gonna cut my ear off now

sage for shitty thread