NZDavid Posted May 13, 2012 Share #101 Posted May 13, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) What do these survey results prove so far? (and I think percentages will probably stay steady.) Only a handful -- 13.51 per cent, or 65 out of 481 -- actually plan to buy this camera. (But I wonder if they actually will.) A whopping 86.47 per cent, or 416 out of 481, won't be getting it. They consider that the MM is too expensive; they find it an interesting concept but it's not for them, they are not interested, or they consider it's plain weird. I wonder how those numbers would have looked had Leica announced a more mainstream camera, even if it cost the same amount? But surely must have expected such a result. This survey merely underscores the fact that the MM is very much a sub-niche camera that has very limited appeal and that only a very few will actually use. An interesting question is, what next? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 13, 2012 Posted May 13, 2012 Hi NZDavid, Take a look here Survey: Your opinion about the new LEICA M MONOCHROM. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
iforum Posted May 13, 2012 Share #102 Posted May 13, 2012 An interesting question is, what next? The nokia 808:cool::cool: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
anupmc Posted May 13, 2012 Share #103 Posted May 13, 2012 Like many here, I have no intension of buying the MM, so, it'll be interesting to see if this turns out to be a commercial success (though I suspect we'll never really know). That said, the introduction of the MM really says something about Leica, that they're not afraid to think outside the box. Perhaps one could argue they've always done that, hence their appeal, but with the MM, I'm quite hopeful that the M10, when it eventually arrives, could be quite special indeed, even if it spots more mainstream features. ps: Love the look of the MM's leatherette much better than the M9/M9-P's! Where can I get that?! (from pictures anyway ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpleica Posted May 13, 2012 Share #104 Posted May 13, 2012 The day the MM was announced I ordered one. Having now read the 6 pages of posts on the subject of this camera's possible worthiness or worthlessness, I can only say, we'll see. I think JAAP is probably the closest in nailing what this camera is about; it will give us a whole new way to approach what we do. Let me qualify that last statement. In my way of thinking, and why I ordered the camera, the MM will present me with a seamless digital B&W experience, much like the way I used to shoot the world when I used Tri-X to record what I framed. Straight B&W DNG files from the start. No color filtration that has to be removed in post. Light hitting a sensor's pixels without the Bayer array in the way yielding a purer image, less artifacts. I shoot an M9 now, and a lot. And I use it for B&W 99.9% of the time with the preview set to JPG B&W. Since I "think" in terms of B&W when I'm out photographing the world (which is a strange thing to say but those of you who have been shooting B&W for 40 years like I have know what I mean), seeing the color DNGs in Lightroom come up is almost a disheartening experience. They're not what I saw. The MM will fix that, and hopefully some other things as well. We will see. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted May 13, 2012 Share #105 Posted May 13, 2012 ... I "think" in terms of B&W when I'm out photographing the world (which is a strange thing to say ... No, it isn't. It's a perfectly natural thing to say. It may appear strange only to those who never were serious about b/w shooting. And no, occasionally converting a couple of your colour shots to black-and-white does not qualify as b/w shooting. ... but those of you who have been shooting B&W for 40 years like I have know what I mean) ... I've been shooting b/w exclusively for just a few years ... but I know exactly what you mean. And I wholeheartedly agree. The M Monochrom is an important camera, not just because it can give technically better results than an M9 set to b/w, but because it simply is the right tool for serious digital b/w shooting. Using the M9 (or any digital camera) and converting the colour images to black-and-white is kinda like using an axe where a saw is required. To a degree, an axe can replace a saw, as both can cut through wood, but to a man with an axe the wood will always feel different than to someone with a saw. Not better, not worse. Different. And that's the point. If you need a saw, better don't use an axe (and vice versa, of course). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted May 13, 2012 Share #106 Posted May 13, 2012 Unless the M10 axe proves to be better than the MM saw of course. What is sure is the M10 will work with the coloured filters of Silver Efex contrary to the MM. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted May 13, 2012 Share #107 Posted May 13, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I see it exactly the other way around. The closer photography gets to the real world, the more effectively artificial (deceptive) it becomes. Black & White is not a layer of artifice, but a layer of abstraction. By taking a step farther away from my native perception (with my eyes, in color), B&W is less literal and more poetic. It embraces artificial illusion of the world a little less, and the truth of the image a little more. very well said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delcredere Posted May 13, 2012 Share #108 Posted May 13, 2012 An interesting question is, what next? Monochrome X2:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted May 13, 2012 Share #109 Posted May 13, 2012 Unless the M10 axe proves to be better than the MM saw of course. What is an M10 and what does it do? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted May 13, 2012 Share #110 Posted May 13, 2012 Alpha or beta testings i guess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted May 13, 2012 Share #111 Posted May 13, 2012 Unless the M10 axe proves to be better than the MM saw of course. You can always replace an axe with a better axe. But you cannot replace a saw with a better axe when a saw is what you need. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iforum Posted May 13, 2012 Share #112 Posted May 13, 2012 Simple get a M10 chainsaw solves the dilemma Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianv Posted May 13, 2012 Share #113 Posted May 13, 2012 I love the idea too. Leica can't claim it, however. Kodak/Nikon offered a monochrome/digital many years ago. Leica states that the M9m is the first full-frame (35mm frame format) monochrome camera. That is a true statement, the Kodak monochrome cameras had 1.6x crop factor on the KAF-1300 (DCS100), 2.5x crop for the factor for the KAF-1600 (DCS200 and DCS420), and 1.3x crop factor for the KAF 6300 (460, 660, and 760). My 20-year old DCS200ir still works, monochrome-Infrared. I know the "Kodak Spin-Off" engineers are very happy about the M9 monochrome. I paid for the M9 be selling gear. I see an M9m in my future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted May 13, 2012 Share #114 Posted May 13, 2012 You can always replace an axe with a better axe. But you cannot replace a saw with a better axe when a saw is what you need. Just words. Leica have found the way to make something new out of something old. So much the better for them but i won't pay the least euro cent for this MM before i can compare it to the M10. YMMV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted May 13, 2012 Share #115 Posted May 13, 2012 I see it exactly the other way around. The closer photography gets to the real world, the more effectively artificial (deceptive) it becomes. Black & White is not a layer of artifice, but a layer of abstraction. By taking a step farther away from my native perception (with my eyes, in color), B&W is less literal and more poetic. It embraces artificial illusion of the world a little less, and the truth of the image a little more. I think you are mistaken. Or at least, we see things quite differently. If there is less artifice in B&W because "it embraces artificial illusion of the world a little less", than colour, that suggests that any move away from the appearance of reality is a step away from artifice, which is patently not the case. I understand why you mean about abstraction and poetry. I applaud it. But B&W is only one of an infinity of ways of getting there, and it seems to me that it is a method that has come into existence for technological rather than creative or aesthetic or imaginative or even expressive reasons, though we now persuade ourselves differently.. We embrace b&w because of its tradition and familiarity. But I can't accept, interesting though the notion is, that it would be the means of abstraction we would most wish for if it hadn't come about in labs and darkrooms of the pioneers of photography. I strobgly suspect that had colour photography been perfected straight off, then B&W would be just one of a infinity of effects photographers occasionally turn to, rather than being a mainstay of traditional photographers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
percepts Posted May 14, 2012 Share #116 Posted May 14, 2012 What is an M10 and what does it do? It's a carrot and it leads you by the nose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dewsweeper Posted May 14, 2012 Share #117 Posted May 14, 2012 We embrace b&w because of its tradition and familiarity. But I can't accept, interesting though the notion is, that it would be the means of abstraction we would most wish for if it hadn't come about in labs and darkrooms of the pioneers of photography. I strobgly suspect that had colour photography been perfected straight off, then B&W would be just one of a infinity of effects photographers occasionally turn to, rather than being a mainstay of traditional photographers. I embrace B&W for the same reason I embrace pen & ink, tone studies, and monochrome watercolor washes. My intent is to capture form, texture, and light. When I am interested in color, it is as a layer on top of these elements. Abstraction is totally my point! If I wanted reality, I'd put the camera down and live it. Can't say whether I'll buy the MM or not, until I see whether it works for me, and well-enough to make a discernible difference in my bottom line. But if it helps me do my job, it will be part of my tool box. (I wish this option were in the survey.) The possibility of a pure, luminance-recording device is alluring. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidbaddley Posted May 14, 2012 Share #118 Posted May 14, 2012 If there is less artifice in B&W because "it embraces artificial illusion of the world a little less", than colour, that suggests that any move away from the appearance of reality is a step away from artifice, which is patently not the case. Not exactly. B&W doesn't step farther from reality, it just trades one reality for another. Color is a little closer to the illusory representation of the subject depicted, B&W a little closer to the reality of the image itself. Because (in the case of a photograph) the image is the photograph, B&W is a little less artificial to me. I love both, however, and don't mean to suggest that artificiality is wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidbaddley Posted May 14, 2012 Share #119 Posted May 14, 2012 I think you are mistaken. Or at least, we see things quite differently. I don't think either of us is mistaken, and it's just fine to see things differently. When you look at a photograph of a tree, do you see a tree or a photograph? If you see a tree, this experience is based on illusion and artifice. If you see a photograph, this experience is more literal and actual. Of course a tree is depicted in the photograph... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iforum Posted May 14, 2012 Share #120 Posted May 14, 2012 If you see a tree, this experience is based on illusion and artifice. If you see a photograph, this experience is more literal and actual. Of course a tree is depicted in the photograph... sounds like nonsense to me how is it more literal? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.