Jump to content

Leica M9-P ????


John.of.Gaunt

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 501
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Every week, someone else explained why it was "impossible", now you all fall over each other to buy M9's and lenses for it.

Ah, the Galileo gambit: “The Galileo gambit, or Galileo fallacy, is the idea that if you are widely vilified for your ideas, you must therefore be right. It refers to Galileo Galilei's famous persecution at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church for his defence of heliocentrism in the face of the orthodox Biblical literalism of the day. People will bring it up repeatedly in response to serious criticisms that - more often than not - they just don't understand.”

 

And the silly statement "get an X100". That seems to be the answer to anyone who imagines any alternate creative ideas.

It wasn’t me who suggested that but the X100 embodies quite an interesting idea, namely that of a hybrid viewfinder with electronically generated frame lines. That idea had been suggested here before as a potentially interesting concept for a future M, maybe even before Fuji’s engineers thought about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the Galileo gambit: “The Galileo gambit, or Galileo fallacy, is the idea that if you are widely vilified for your ideas, you must therefore be right. It refers to Galileo Galilei's famous persecution at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church for his defence of heliocentrism in the face of the orthodox Biblical literalism of the day. People will bring it up repeatedly in response to serious criticisms that - more often than not - they just don't understand.”

 

It was not my "gambit", I never suggested it was impossible. Anyone who read Leica forums years ago knew that a full frame digital Leica was "impossible" to produce.

 

And then some doofus was always quick to post in every thread about the subject "I already have a full-frame sensor, it's called Tri-X". That was always good for a big laugh and to feel superior.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was not my "gambit", I never suggested it was impossible.

You have misunderstood what the Galileo gambit is. The fallacious reasoning goes like this: “Experts did claim X was impossible but it turned out to be possible after all. Thus, when experts claim Y is impossible, it will turn out to be possible as well.” The thing is that when people knowing their stuff say some idea is wrong, impossible, hare-brained, or just not very practical, they are nearly always right. The rare exceptions to this rule don’t change that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and an additional button for LV

 

I hope you appreciate that there is far, far more to it than just adding a button.

 

Besides all the other new engineering and bulk to be added, LV would require new auto-diaphragm lenses in order to be perfectly useful. Then it is no longer an M. May as well be a FF Panasonic G-something (with proprietary non-M lenses.)

 

To appreciate just that, try using a Panasonic G1 with a manual lens, for example the excellent 25mm F/.95 or any Leica lens.

 

There are virtues to limitations. The M9 is quite fine now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You have misunderstood what the Galileo gambit is. The fallacious reasoning goes like this: “Experts did claim X was impossible but it turned out to be possible after all. Thus, when experts claim Y is impossible, it will turn out to be possible as well.” The thing is that when people knowing their stuff say some idea is wrong, impossible, hare-brained, or just not very practical, they are nearly always right. The rare exceptions to this rule don’t change that.

 

It is not fallacious reasoning when you believe that anything is possible. In any case, I don't believe that any camera designers or engineers have told me that the idea is impossible.

 

The only people who have said that are a bunch of self professed "experts" on a forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You all sound like forum posters 5 or 6 years ago kvetching about why it was "impossible" to make a full frame rangefinder Leica.

 

Every week, someone else explained why it was "impossible", now you all fall over each other to buy M9's and lenses for it.

 

 

Every shift in technology brings out the sourpusses.

 

A nice example of demagogy by omission. Nobody, least of all Leica, said that. The text was - impossible to our quality standard with present day technology. And that is just what happened. First came the RD1, with a 1.5x sensor which Leica considered too small to be up to their standard and too much vignetting, then shifted pixel technology made the M8 possible which was brought out as soon -or even too soon according to some!- as possible and then faster than anybody dreamt the M9.

 

Consider that Zeiss with Sony and Cosina in the background have been saying "not before full frame is possible" and then added "at a competing price" - and still deem it impossible within those parameters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not talking about what Leica said or did not say.

 

I was referring to "expert" forum posters who popped up daily to declare that a full-frame M Leica was impossible.

 

I'm quite aware of the history of digital M's. I had three R-D1's myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not fallacious reasoning when you believe that anything is possible.

 

Of course. Just ask the trolls under the bridge, or the fairies flickering about the engineers' benches. Or take a walk into the future and come back with an affirmation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And the silly statement "get an X100". That seems to be the answer to anyone who imagines any alternate creative ideas.

 

I posted

You could try the X100.

You have misquoted me, Freudian or otherwise. That was a +ve suggestion to help you and other innovators to visualise and also understand the limitations that Fuji imposed - Fuji are enormous company compared to Leica.

Solms should have an X100, to try...

 

As soon as an AF Leica comes out, you'll all pay any price for one.

 

Every shift in technology brings out the sourpusses.

 

Not a true statement in general as many Leica users are still using film, lots of M9 users are new to Leica, and in particular I've not got a M8 or M9, or M7. Most of my friends have sold their digital Leica, and stayed with film Ms.

 

If there is a market then Zeiss, Cosina, and the Ch will try and fill it.

 

You can use M lenses or R lenses on adapters for some of the compact cameras...

 

Leica introduced a 5cm f1.2 lens in '66 low volume, Canon had one in 56 high volume.

 

I dont uderstand why you are being so negative.

 

Noel

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course. Just ask the trolls under the bridge, or the fairies flickering about the engineers' benches. Or take a walk into the future and come back with an affirmation.

 

I'm not familiar with those entities. Could you tell me how you manage to communicate with them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not talking about what Leica said or did not say.

 

I was referring to "expert" forum posters who popped up daily to declare that a full-frame M Leica was impossible.

 

I'm quite aware of the history of digital M's. I had three R-D1's myself.

 

Did it take 3 cameras to find out it doesn't take filmrolls? :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not talking about what Leica said or did not say.

 

I was referring to "expert" forum posters who popped up daily to declare that a full-frame M Leica was impossible.

 

I'm quite aware of the history of digital M's. I had three R-D1's myself.

Again - argument by omission to twist and turn:

 

"Nobody - least of all Leica.."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can think of at least ten circumstances in which a VW Passat is better than a Porsche. Where it is unarguably, demonstrably, definitively better.

 

I think I'll go on a Porsche Forum and explain to them why they're all wrong.

 

And then I'm going to prove why potato is better than smoked salmon.

 

This discussion will be way more fun than the other 18 pages. Which Porsche?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not fallacious reasoning when you believe that anything is possible.

That’s not fallacious reasoning insofar as it isn’t reasoning at all, but just a mistaken belief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...