Jeff S Posted October 19, 2009 Share #1 Posted October 19, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Erwin without charts and graphs... M9, part 6 Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 19, 2009 Posted October 19, 2009 Hi Jeff S, Take a look here Erwin, part 6.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
chrism Posted October 19, 2009 Share #2 Posted October 19, 2009 When my mother told me to keep away from 'strange women' do you think she meant green ones like the lady Mr Puts photographs? Chris I've been looking for one ever since.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted October 19, 2009 Share #3 Posted October 19, 2009 It would have been a portrait of a beautiful woman. But he had to reduce it to a sectional, non-interpolated enlargement of a pupil... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebelfocus Posted October 19, 2009 Share #4 Posted October 19, 2009 He did a fine job at describing the photographic aesthetic and his image of a camera having similarities to a musical instrument with a certain range of expression is very interesting. I like this "As a photographic instrument the M has its limitations, as does every instrument, but what it does, it does with elegance and purity" and also this "The M9 is a masterpiece by keeping all the classical CRF virtues and adding the ease of use of the digital workflow while not intruding into the mental workings of the photographer’s eye. Current dSLRs of Canon and Nikon calibre are closer to a Moogh synthesizer than to a classical instrument (to stay within the music analogy). Here starts the mystery of the M-series" Quite a lyrical intermezzo from Mr. Putts... :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted October 20, 2009 Share #5 Posted October 20, 2009 Quite a lyrical intermezzo from Mr. Putts... :-) ...which comes in complete contrast from his previous exhausting analysis... what's all this about music gotta do with graphs from imatest? It seems that for some of us, we still need to stand and defend core values like simplicity and ease of use and size and all that. For me, trying to defend this is like saying that the earth is round Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 20, 2009 Share #6 Posted October 20, 2009 Pleasant intermezzo... very apt to the sweetiness of the model... ... Puts is surely a man like any other and probably got inspiration from her... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuckley Posted October 20, 2009 Share #7 Posted October 20, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) An important conclusion from Mr. Puts: "The Leica M9 (and to be inclusive the M8 too), is the only camera for the digital workflow that is fully linked to the classical way of taking pictures." JB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted October 20, 2009 Share #8 Posted October 20, 2009 But what does it mean, to be fully linked to the classical way of taking pictures? Is it manual focus? is it not having a spot meter? Is it the size? Is it being an actual rangefinder, disqualifying all slrs? What is the "classical way of taking pictures"...? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted October 20, 2009 Share #9 Posted October 20, 2009 I do agree with the comment about "the current obsession for clean images....". I recently had a weekend away - where I visited there were several photographic galleries, all with beautiful landscape prints, some framed some not. All were technically excellent, effectively composed and usually lit by evening or morning light (although not every image). BUT, and IMHO opinion its a big but, you could have shuffled the images around, mixed them up, swopped them from gallery to gallery as much as you wanted because they all were of very similar style - very competent, crisp, clean images. And after a time I felt tired of them (I would say bored but that would not be quite accurate) and none appealed enough for me to actually buy one. I suppose my point is that technical perfection seems to some extent to be resulting in convergent 'creativity'. Actually, I suspect that I find idiosyncratic cameras more fun to use and an aid to more (?) creative thinking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuckley Posted October 20, 2009 Share #10 Posted October 20, 2009 But what does it mean, to be fully linked to the classical way of taking pictures? Is it manual focus? is it not having a spot meter? Is it the size? Is it being an actual rangefinder, disqualifying all slrs? What is the "classical way of taking pictures"...? In another thread, you told a photographer with a lovely M9 image that it was nothing you couldn't reproduce with your d700. So perhaps the Leica M rangefinder aesthetic isn't for you. The first answer to your question could be, "If you have to ask..." But perhaps Mr. Puts has the better answer: "The M9 is a masterpiece by keeping all the classical CRF virtues and adding the ease of use of the digital workflow while not intruding into the mental workings of the photographer’s eye. Current dSLRs of Canon and Nikon calibre are closer to a Moogh synthesizer than to a classical instrument (to stay within the music analogy). Here starts the mystery of the M-series. Basically the CRF concept has to be considered obsolete technology since about 1970 when the SLR screens matured and the concept was dealt a final blow with the coming of age of the AF technology around 1995. The concept and the Leica embodiment of it has proven so strong that it still today has its band of followers who create pictures that forcefully connect to the core emotions of artistic vision." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted October 20, 2009 Share #11 Posted October 20, 2009 Mr Puts writes: "The M9 is a masterpiece by keeping all the classical CRF virtues and adding the ease of use of the digital workflow while not intruding into the mental workings of the photographer’s eye. Current dSLRs of Canon and Nikon calibre are closer to a Moogh synthesizer than to a classical instrument (to stay within the music analogy)." I like his approach but of course vibration is not limited to light and sound. However, I do not agree with the above quoted text. In my view, using his analogy a film M would be a classical or acoustic instrument requiring just knowledge of music, the M8/M9 would be a Moog (I guess he means from the valve Mini Moog era) requiring both knowledge of music and electronics to get decent sound and modern Nikon/Canon would be the latest FM synths which have no soul, require no technical knowledge (and in some cases, no music knowledge) to imitate whatever you want. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jager Posted October 20, 2009 Share #12 Posted October 20, 2009 But what does it mean, to be fully linked to the classical way of taking pictures? Is it manual focus? is it not having a spot meter? Is it the size? Is it being an actual rangefinder, disqualifying all slrs? What is the "classical way of taking pictures"...? I think what it means is for the camera to simple enough and spartan enough in its operation that it becomes transparent to the user intimate with it - and at the point which that occurs, it becomes simply an unconscious extension of the photographer. My D3 is a lovely, extraordinary camera. It is transformative in its ability to render low-light, high-iso images. But it is without a doubt a complex computer with some optics attached. I don't look for it to ever lend that intuitive, connected-to-the-photographer feel that the Leica M graces us with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted October 20, 2009 Share #13 Posted October 20, 2009 But what does it mean, to be fully linked to the classical way of taking pictures? Is it manual focus? is it not having a spot meter? Is it the size? Is it being an actual rangefinder, disqualifying all slrs? What is the "classical way of taking pictures"...? Reading Puts, the answer might be: this "classical way" of taking pictures is just hearsay and has nothing to do with the technique involved - like his comparison between LP and CD where he says that on LPs the high frequencies are reduced.... Perhaps it's simpler and he wants to say: looking, focussing for a selected f-stop and shutter-time, framing and taking the picture. May be, those steps make a difference, if you take them each without electronic help. I remain sceptical, but I don't know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted October 20, 2009 Share #14 Posted October 20, 2009 In my daily use, I manual focus, sett shutter on a dial, aperture on the lens and snap away with my d700. Most of my lenses are manual ones. I just don't get how what I'm doing is less.. classic? than what puts is doing, but I might be biased, using a supercomputer daily Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted October 20, 2009 Share #15 Posted October 20, 2009 What's the point doing all that on a d700? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrice Posted October 20, 2009 Share #16 Posted October 20, 2009 What's the point doing all that on a d700? I find it odd that you don't understand the point of doing all that... Control. If you learnt with a manual camera, investing in manual lenses and using the camera in a way that facilitates that manual control and your preferred shooting methods makes perfect sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted October 20, 2009 Share #17 Posted October 20, 2009 But what does it mean, to be fully linked to the classical way of taking pictures? Is it manual focus? is it not having a spot meter? Is it the size? Is it being an actual rangefinder, disqualifying all slrs? What is the "classical way of taking pictures"...? I would suggest that someone who had last used an M3 in the 1950s would be able to pick up an M9 and use it in exactly the same way as the M9 with little difficulty. The same cannot be said for most dSLRs - I still have to hunt through menus for various functions on mine - hardly a 'classical' way of taking photos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted October 20, 2009 Share #18 Posted October 20, 2009 What's the point doing all that on a d700? Why should I _not_ do it? It is _the_ best sensor for my use, it is weather sealed, it has a superb meter, having the posibility to put on a 70-200 2.8, battery grip and do sports perfectly with 8fps and snappy AF, does not force me to use AF and 8fps all the time.. I don't understand how this can be a very hard concept to grasp? The d700 is a wonderfull picture making machine, combined with my 24/2, 35/1.4, 58/1.2 and 105/2.5 manual glass, I can do pretty much exactly what Erwin Puts indicates makes a "classical" picure taking machine. I guess some people have problems with the fact that I also can do so much more. I'll be the first to admit that I would gladly sacrifice the possibility for 8fps and parts of the af-speed, if I could get it down to a nikon FE-sized body, but I'm not willing to sacrifice weather sealing, superb iso3200 etc.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted October 20, 2009 Share #19 Posted October 20, 2009 I would suggest that someone who had last used an M3 in the 1950s would be able to pick up an M9 and use it in exactly the same way as the M9 with little difficulty. The same cannot be said for most dSLRs - I still have to hunt through menus for various functions on mine - hardly a 'classical' way of taking photos. Hmm, I use my d700 pretty much the exact same way i use my FG, after an initial 20 minute setup phase. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted October 20, 2009 Share #20 Posted October 20, 2009 Why should I _not_ do it? It is _the_ best sensor for my use, it is weather sealed, it has a superb meter, having the posibility to put on a 70-200 2.8, battery grip and do sports perfectly with 8fps and snappy AF, does not force me to use AF and 8fps all the time.. I don't understand how this can be a very hard concept to grasp? The d700 is a wonderfull picture making machine, combined with my 24/2, 35/1.4, 58/1.2 and 105/2.5 manual glass, I can do pretty much exactly what Erwin Puts indicates makes a "classical" picure taking machine. I guess some people have problems with the fact that I also can do so much more. I'll be the first to admit that I would gladly sacrifice the possibility for 8fps and parts of the af-speed, if I could get it down to a nikon FE-sized body, but I'm not willing to sacrifice weather sealing, superb iso3200 etc.. Well you can do whatever you want ofcourse, just that the d700 is designed to be used for its auto features. It is also because of these features that it is big and clumsy and heavy. You can do the same and better with a small and less intrusive camera, like the M8/9 and with a lot greater precision, so why bother with the d700? And Puts says exactly this, which is light years away distant from dSLRs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.