CheshireCat Posted July 15, 2013 Share #141 Posted July 15, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I see your bold emphasis on the word innovate; to make changes in something established, make something new. Have we all agreed that something new is better and that we always want something new? Put on an old shirt and go out and take some pictures. If we don't strive for innovation, we are never going to have something better. But everyone is different, and you are free to carve your pictures in stone. P.S. I wear old shirts, and take lots of pictures. I'll keep doing this, but so far my M has not received any firmware update Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 15, 2013 Posted July 15, 2013 Hi CheshireCat, Take a look here The Sony A7 thread [Merged]. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
macjonny1 Posted July 15, 2013 Share #142 Posted July 15, 2013 FYI, Sony produces the best FF sensor you can find on the market (and it is not the one in the RX1). About electronics, Leica is using 6 years old Fujitsu technology. The firmware is a joke. About EVF, Leica is stuck with obsolete Olympus parts. Back LCD has finally reached P&S quality. What's left ? Oh, the optical rangefinder... yes, Leica is the leader in that technology. Too bad just a few people are interested in this technology (for many good reasons), that will be totally obsolete in a couple of years. So what shall Sony or Fuji do to equal the "master" ? The answer is: lenses. Great lenses. But as discussed, this is a niche, and Zeiss is taking care of it. LOL the rangefinder was "obsolete" decades ago but many enjoy shooting with that technology. I'm guessing you bought a Leica because you thought it had some magic IQ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted July 15, 2013 Share #143 Posted July 15, 2013 Have we all agreed that something new is better and that we always want something new? I'm gonna pile on here Rick just because you are one of the few who do understand my position on this forum. And we're partners! It seems you, me and all the others who have ordered an M240 have agreed that we want something new to me. Doesn't it? Otherwise why have we upgraded from the M9? And that's the rub. I fully welcome the improved M9 innovation, the LED frame lines, better shutter, better RF mechanism and rear LCD - these are long over due iterative improvements on the existing design. But in other areas of innovation is concerned Leica chose to implement old versions of the current technology, badly in some cases. I understand why - mostly to appease the R lens owners - but the net result to me (when looking at the camera as a bloated M10, as opposed to a M240 - if you see what I mean) is a clumsy, low tech poorly implemented feature poor body - with QC issues for a shed load of cash! LOL the rangefinder was "obsolete" decades ago but many enjoy shooting with that technology. I'm guessing you bought a Leica because you thought it had some magic IQ? There was some good natured discussion going on here on both sides. Way to make a derogatory personal attack and derail that. I actually did buy my 2 M9's and 4 lenses because I though it had magic IQ - as it does, when compared to other bodies of similar physical size. I appreciate your patronising tone though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 15, 2013 Share #144 Posted July 15, 2013 This is becoming ridiculous. Would you go on the Morgan forum to explain that Morgan cars are obsolete? Not sure if you would see "good natured discussion" then... Nobody's forced to buy Leica bodies, fortunately for people on waiting lists i would say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 15, 2013 Share #145 Posted July 15, 2013 It seems you, me and all the others who have ordered an M240 have agreed that we want something new to me. Doesn't it? Otherwise why have we upgraded from the M9? And that's the rub. I fully welcome the improved M9 innovation, the LED frame lines, better shutter, better RF mechanism and rear LCD - these are long over due iterative improvements on the existing design. But in other areas of innovation is concerned Leica chose to implement old versions of the current technology, badly in some cases. OK: Old versions of current technology - time to put facts where your mouth is. List them. And consider the relevance. Some people forget what this camera is: A digital rangefinder still camera with some added features to make it more universally usable. It is not a DSLR, it is not an EVIL, it is not a High-end point-and-shoot, it is not a Video camera. So the design compromises - which every camera has- lie differently from non-DRF cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted July 15, 2013 Share #146 Posted July 15, 2013 Sony and others may not care about accommodating Leica lenses but they do have an interest in sensors that can accept light from sharper angles. Why would they? It is simpler to design the lenses so there are no sharper angles. Very compact cameras can be built that way, with extremely short flange distances. That’s the current trend in the industry, and for good reasons. Having said that, it is true that sensor manufacturers are also working on sensors with a more robust response to varying incident angles. But sensors are manufactured for all kinds of applications – surveillance, industrial applications etc.. Not everything developed in this field is destined to be used in photography as we know it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 15, 2013 Share #147 Posted July 15, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) But everyone is different, and you are free to carve your pictures in stone. So you are arguing sculpture is obsolete and defunct technology? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted July 15, 2013 Share #148 Posted July 15, 2013 OK: Old versions of current technology - time to put facts where your mouth is. List them. And consider the relevance. Some people forget what this camera is: A digital rangefinder still camera with some added features to make it more universally usable. It is not a DSLR, it is not an EVIL, it is not a High-end point-and-shoot, it is not a Video camera. So the design compromises - which every camera has- lie differently from non-DRF cameras. Oooh I love it when you get all aggressive in tone Jaapv. Makes me bristle with excitement! Actually, my point is almost exactly your point. If you read my post impartially. It is almost two cameras. An M10 - which I think from all I've read it is brilliant at being (though I would have welcomed some reduction in overall body size by this time in the M8-M9-M10 cycle) AND an EVF Liveview R type thing sorta maybe camera. It appears to be superb at being an M10, and lacking compared to the competition when you consider features, implementation etc as a LiveView type camera. I've ordered it for the M10 aspect, as My M9 drives me mad with it's lack of speed and wheeezing shutter re-cock. But others who want it to do the LiveView camera as well as other manufacturers are looking disappointed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 15, 2013 Share #149 Posted July 15, 2013 Why on earth should you consider it as a liveview camera? That is not what it is - there are far better choices out there if that is your primary concern. The fact that is has liveview is a practical enhancement and I look forward to doing wildlife with it when using a beanbag or tripod, and it is more than perfect for that purpose. The only gripe I have is that the EVF focus enlargement is unusable when you use a pistol grip and shoulderstock. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted July 15, 2013 Share #150 Posted July 15, 2013 Why on earth should you consider it as a liveview camera? That is not what it is - there are far better choices out there if that is your primary concern. *I* don't. But it does have LiveView - does it not? So it will be compared in that regard to other cameras which have LiveView. Once you slap a 70-200 on there and use the EVF2 you can imagine people comparing it Sony's or whatever - and concluding that their money is best spent elsewhere. Personally I would have preferred it either completely without, or completely with (a la X Pro 1 etc). My feeling is that it's "kinda sorta" implemented it. Which is drawing criticism. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 15, 2013 Share #151 Posted July 15, 2013 You would not consider using a sailing dinghy as a speedboat because both have an engine installed. As I said if your primary wish is and EVIL or DSLR, the M is the wrong choice. Just as much a wrong choice as the Fujis are if your primary concern is a DRF camera - Or a NEX if you want an optical viewfinder. The choices the designers make are slanted towards the concept of a camera and a Swiss Army Knife will not excel in any application. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 15, 2013 Share #152 Posted July 15, 2013 ...I've ordered it for the M10 aspect, as My M9 drives me mad with it's lack of speed and wheeezing shutter re-cock. But others who want it to do the LiveView camera as well as other manufacturers are looking disappointed. How could they be disappointed? They know all the truth since the Sean Reid's review in September 2012 and hundreds posts on the LUF and elsewhere since then. Repeating the same rants ad nauseam won't add anything usefull to data we all know by heart. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted July 15, 2013 Share #153 Posted July 15, 2013 *I* don't. But it does have LiveView - does it not? So it will be compared in that regard to other cameras which have LiveView. There are cameras of the EVIL kind that are live view cameras and nothing else, and there are cameras with optical viewfinders offering live view as an option – all the current DSLRs are of the latter kind, as is the M. Live view is just an option to supplement the main viewfinder, which is optical. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted July 15, 2013 Share #154 Posted July 15, 2013 You would not consider using a sailing dinghy as a speedboat because both have an engine installed. As I said if your primary wish is and EVIL or DSLR, the M is the wrong choice. Just as much a wrong choice as the Fujis are if your primary concern is a DRF camera - Or a NEX if you want an optical viewfinder. The choices the designers make are slanted towards the concept of a camera and a Swiss Army Knife will not excel in any application. No, *I* would not. How could they be disappointed? They know all the truth since the Sean Reid's review in September 2012 and hundreds posts on the LUF and elsewhere since then. Repeating the same rants ad nauseam won't add anything usefull to data we all know by heart. There's joy in repetition. There's joy in repetition. I see them more as individual opinions, formed remotely, and pooled here at LUF. Taken individually it's not repetition, seen as a body it is. And as Zlatkob very eloquently puts it in a different thread it is very useful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted July 15, 2013 Share #155 Posted July 15, 2013 There are cameras of the EVIL kind that are live view cameras and nothing else, and there are cameras with optical viewfinders offering live view as an option – all the current DSLRs are of the latter kind, as is the M. Live view is just an option to supplement the main viewfinder, which is optical. I fully agree Michael. Yet some may proffer that the LiveView implementation on the 5DIII, despite being a secondary option to the OVF, is much better implemented than on the M240. Even if only for the moveable zoom area. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 15, 2013 Share #156 Posted July 15, 2013 ...There's joy in repetition... Speak for yourself my friend. All those rants add nothing to what we know well already. I see them as testimonies of ignorance or childish attempts to bash the best digital M ever made but it's just me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted July 15, 2013 Share #157 Posted July 15, 2013 Speak for yourself my friend. All those rants add nothing to what we know well already. I see them as testimonies of ignorance or childish attempts to bash the best digital M ever made but it's just me. And I see your opinion and entitlement to it, as no more, or less valuable than those of others. Positive or negative. And I was speaking for The Artist Formerly Known As Prince in fact, or as he is now know, P240. But that's neither here nor there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 15, 2013 Share #158 Posted July 15, 2013 I fully agree Michael. Yet some may proffer that the LiveView implementation on the 5DIII, despite being a secondary option to the OVF, is much better implemented than on the M240. Even if only for the moveable zoom area. Which is in reality only of practical use if you operate the camera on a tripod. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmclalla Posted July 15, 2013 Author Share #159 Posted July 15, 2013 FYI UPDATE (SR4) Two new Zeiss lenses coming along the new NEX-FF photocamera. | sonyalpharumors Of course, always (just) rumors... Yesterday, I attended Salgado's exhibition at Ara Pacis (Rome), and I realized, one more time, that the camera (regardless its brand) is merely a tool, the more irrelevant the more skilled is the photographer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted July 15, 2013 Share #160 Posted July 15, 2013 Which is in reality only of practical use if you operate the camera on a tripod. Is the M240's practical use any different? (Not snarky - just not sure if you're comparing or just commenting on LiveView in general....) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.