pico Posted August 9, 2013 Share #21 Posted August 9, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think most respondents here are sort of missing the point.[...] This story is a triumph for Leica. We should be happy for the brand and not be snarky about any of its deficiencies. You are welcome to fan Leica, since such an effort seems to align with your career mission. Some of us remain aloof and critical when it is appropriate. We are not into your game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 9, 2013 Posted August 9, 2013 Hi pico, Take a look here NY Times Article About Leica Ms. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sanyasi Posted August 9, 2013 Share #22 Posted August 9, 2013 Nick Bilton responds: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/09/the-camera-community-defends-their-cameras/?hpw. There is a wise old adage: Never get into a fight with a guy who buys his ink by the barrel. Another balanced assessment from Mr. Bilton. Jack Siegel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 9, 2013 Share #23 Posted August 9, 2013 There is a wise old adage: Never get into a fight with a guy who buys his ink by the barrell Ink is being superseded by bits and bandwidth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iforum Posted August 9, 2013 Share #24 Posted August 9, 2013 I would give up my iPhone before I’d part with my Leica meaningless twaddle as he probably buys a new iphone when a new model comes out:p He wouldn't cope without a phone for a day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macjonny1 Posted August 9, 2013 Share #25 Posted August 9, 2013 The guy wrote a fun article, and many here are quite without class... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris101-MM Posted August 9, 2013 Share #26 Posted August 9, 2013 Nick Bilton responds: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/09/the-camera-community-defends-their-cameras/?hpw. There is a wise old adage: Never get into a fight with a guy who buys his ink by the barrel. Another balanced assessment from Mr. Bilton. Jack Siegel Hahaha, nice one there Jack. Well as I do agree that criticism should be kept in a professional manner, so should also a journalist treat his sources. Why in the world would a serious photographer and seemingly good journalist ever quote a man who makes his living on lying, storytelling and promotions for different manufacturers?? Kudos to Mr Rockwell for being honest about most of his "comments" being just his own and that he makes a living off klick-redirects on his site, BUT the problem is that most novices Do NOT read those texts where he explains that he's full of BS in parts in his reviews, and what happens when a "known-good" reporter writes something in a major newspaper... Novices are gonna google "Ken Rockwell" find his site, believe what he says... And what then. The wheels keep on turning. It's the exact same mechanism as to why "unserious newspapers" dictate what is new. If 6 idiot reporters write for idiot newspapers about a f*ing bullshit story enough times the serious newspapers have to write about that same "story" as well since the public dictate what's new or not after the scoop is published. I don't give a damn about his take on Leica or anything connected to them. What I do care about is that people without a clue gets hussled in to a made up reality that emediately becomes ther reality. If this reporter would have done his job the right way, he would have asked some "real world professional photographers" that use an array of manufacturers cameras to do their job. A real pro will not care if a Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Sony, Leica or what ever is best suited for the job, she/he will use what ever to complete it, and even more important, it does not serve their own wallet. 1000 more klicks is a very very good thing if your name is Ken Rockwell... The PRO... PS: Just for the sake of the matter, I thought it was a good article even tho some aspects where wrong, except for the references. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuckley Posted August 9, 2013 Share #27 Posted August 9, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) You are welcome to fan Leica, since such an effort seems to align with your career mission. Some of us remain aloof and critical when it is appropriate. We are not into your game. Oh good Lord, what a pompous statement! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 9, 2013 Share #28 Posted August 9, 2013 Oh good Lord, what a pompous statement! Pompous is a standard reply to a post of good sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
platypus Posted August 10, 2013 Share #29 Posted August 10, 2013 The guy wrote a fun article, and many here are quite without class... Yes, I think that was part of the problem, the article was supposed to be "fun". Read that as superficial. However that's to be expected, we live in a world of superficiality and most attention spans are very short. Having read it a second time I still find the emphasis on cost unnecessary, presented as it is to shock and awe the reader, the majority of whom will be uninitiated regarding Leica cameras and lenses. Of course the article will be good for Leica, there is no such thing as bad publicity etc. Just wonder what "class", or lack thereof, has to do with it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted August 10, 2013 Share #30 Posted August 10, 2013 Why in the world would a serious photographer and seemingly good journalist ever quote a man who makes his living on lying, storytelling and promotions for different manufacturers??.... PS: Just for the sake of the matter, I thought it was a good article even tho some aspects where wrong, except for the references. Agreed, it is a very positive article for Leica ... even if some bits are very superficial or wrong. In the accompanying slideshow, he writes: "Digital images, conversely, often look manufactured, or overly saturated and pixelated, as if they have been put through some sort of digital washing machine. But there is a digital camera that sets itself apart -- the Leica. It lacks much in the way of bells and whistles; some of its photography technology dates back to the mid-1950s. But it allows me to take pictures that are truly timeless." The implication is that one needs a digital Leica to make truly timeless and not overly-saturated or pixelated digital images, or that other camera makers are somehow to blame for those non-timeless, overly saturated or pixelated images in the world. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 10, 2013 Share #31 Posted August 10, 2013 Yes, I think that was part of the problem, the article was supposed to be "fun". Read that as superficial.However that's to be expected, we live in a world of superficiality and most attention spans are very short. So, are we to lower our expectations because much of journalism has become incompetent and mere tingly entertainment? They author wrote a puff-piece to boost Leica and himself. It is unacceptable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macjonny1 Posted August 10, 2013 Share #32 Posted August 10, 2013 Yes' date=' I think that was part of the problem, the article was supposed to be "fun". Read that as superficial. However that's to be expected, we live in a world of superficiality and most attention spans are very short. Having read it a second time I still find the emphasis on cost unnecessary, presented as it is to shock and awe the reader, the majority of whom will be uninitiated regarding Leica cameras and lenses. Of course the article will be good for Leica, there is no such thing as bad publicity etc. Just wonder what "class", or lack thereof, has to do with it?[/quote'] Good point about cost...of course can buy many fine CV, Zeiss, or classic lenses at much reduced cost which for me is one of the great things about this system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted August 10, 2013 Share #33 Posted August 10, 2013 So, from Ken Rockwell to Steve Huff. I for one will pass on the group hug, the singing of kum ba ya, the ghost hunt and the morality/ethics lesson that is to be found at his website. Steve Huff can delete all the negative comments he wants but it still doesn't change the fact he's a pay for play blogger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tanks Posted August 10, 2013 Share #34 Posted August 10, 2013 Well, in this crowd if he was alive and starting his first gallery, HCB himself would be raked over the coals. Obviously one can't please everyone. To paraphrase an old saying: "Those who can, do; those who can't, criticize". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted August 10, 2013 Share #35 Posted August 10, 2013 I actually enjoyed the article, even though it was a bit of a fluff piece and should have had more substance coming from someone who is not new to the world of Leica. Anyway that doesn't change the poor decision to use Steve Huff as a source for lessons in internet morality and good manners. If you pay Steve or give him free stuff he will say whatever you want and sing your praises from the rafters, simple as that. If you criticize him or his business practices you are obviously a "negative" person. He and Rockwell are very good at gathering a crowd...but then again so was P.T. Barnum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted August 10, 2013 Share #36 Posted August 10, 2013 The headline sums Leica best. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted August 10, 2013 Share #37 Posted August 10, 2013 So, are we to lower our expectations because much of journalism has become incompetent and mere tingly entertainment? They author wrote a puff-piece to boost Leica and himself. It is unacceptable. Pico, I agree, but what would you expect from the online NYT? Google Nick Bilton and you quickly find that he is just another performance artist, not a journalist. In the NYT's own bio of Nick he is credited with such puffery as, "Prior to joining The Times, he worked in the film and advertising industries and helped design the first Britney Spears doll." No kidding. Is this the best they could come up with for the credentials of the bio of one of their technology writers? So, we need to cut the guy some slack. To quote Joan Osbourne (hey why not, it appears Nick will quote anyone), He's "Just a slob like one of us, Just a stranger on the bus, Trying to make his way home." Nick Bilton - The New York Times Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 10, 2013 Share #38 Posted August 10, 2013 Pico, I agree, but what would you expect from the online NYT? Google Nick Bilton and [...] Bilton wasted some more space whining here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iforum Posted August 10, 2013 Share #39 Posted August 10, 2013 .......... If you pay Steve or give him free stuff he will say whatever you want and sing your praises from the rafters, simple as that. Steve is very consistent in his use and praise for the V1 system and that is by no means a top of the line nikon nor a money bags sales camera...... I guess he just likes it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 10, 2013 Share #40 Posted August 10, 2013 Originally Posted by StephenPatterson.......... If you pay Steve or give him free stuff he will say whatever you want and sing your praises from the rafters, simple as that. Can you prove that? Aren't you mildly concerned with libel? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.