wattsy Posted November 27, 2015 Share #41 Â Posted November 27, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) There is plenty out there in the country that isn't landscape photography, and is just as suitable for a range of interpretations as city- or street- based photography where wider lenses are often favoured. Â Yes, there are focal lengths and there are things to photograph, no need to pigeon-hole particular lenses for certain types of environment. Â By the way, what's with the black and white? I thought you rejected the fauxness of black and white photography or was it just a particularly grey day? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 27, 2015 Posted November 27, 2015 Hi wattsy, Take a look here Jump from M6 to M (262). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Peter H Posted November 27, 2015 Share #42 Â Posted November 27, 2015 Yes, there are focal lengths and there are things to photograph, no need to pigeon-hole particular lenses for certain types of environment. Â By the way, what's with the black and white? I thought you rejected the fauxness of black and white photography or was it just a particularly grey day? Â You're quite right, I'm not a devotee of B&W most of the time. Â Sometimes it suits a purpose though, and in this case reducing the mish-mash of colours in the clothes made it easier to get an appropriate balance between the people and the sheep. An artifice really. Â As I often say, it's easier to get a decent photo in B&W. Colour is the real challenge, and I didn't rise to it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen.w Posted November 27, 2015 Share #43 Â Posted November 27, 2015 Nice photo, Peter (which well illustrates the point). I recall the edition of What Do Artists Do All Day featuring Tom Wood, where he was shown taking some "sheep pics" with an X100 and wide-angle converter (effectively a 28mm) (I think the results were in colour though ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 27, 2015 Share #44 Â Posted November 27, 2015 As I often say, it's easier to get a decent photo in B&W. Â This isn't the thread to discuss it but I really don't accept this argument other than on a very superficial level. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted November 27, 2015 Share #45 Â Posted November 27, 2015 This isn't the thread to discuss it but I really don't accept this argument other than on a very superficial level. Â Open a new thread. It's still an interesting subject. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted November 27, 2015 Share #46  Posted November 27, 2015 Agreed...  It would be a very interesting thread. I would certainly contribute. I am predominately a B&W kind of guy... but I do use colour from time to time when I feel it is more appropriate to the final image.  I think I know why I make those choices, but it would be interesting to explore the thought processes of others. It wouldn't necessarily change anything for any of us, but it would be an interesting discussion nonetheless.  Ian, do you feel like opening the discussion somewhere? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 27, 2015 Share #47 Â Posted November 27, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Please feel free to start a thread, Bill. (I'm on my phone at the moment so not ideal for me to write the opening post,) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ai_Print Posted November 27, 2015 Share #48 Â Posted November 27, 2015 So digital photography isn't "real" photography? ......and giving a client what they want is conforming to a social norm? Â I spent 36 years as a working professional photographer ......once digital hit..... thats the way the business went....and the darkroom became unnecessary.....wet labs went out of business ...and deadlines changed from weeks to hours. Not all pro's have to work like that. Sure, I have some quick deadline stuff but I also have some wonderfully long lead time work in which I have nearly a year to shoot it. I use both film and digital, clients like both too and often have the budget for the relatively minor extra cost. Â I was just saying what I did because the op sounded forced to give up something that they loved and there is simply no reason at all to do that, especially with black and white film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dunhoy Posted November 27, 2015 Share #49  Posted November 27, 2015 @ Rick  Thank you Rick. To be honest, I miss me M6 enormously. I hardly ever used it professionally, but in my free time I always carried it with me, mostly with the 35mm attached to it. In fact, it was hard to spot me without my M6 in the '90's and the early '00's. I have thousands of contactsheets with M6-shots. In the mid '00's I dismantled my darkroom and my analogue camera's moved to the top shelves.  For a while I grabbed the D200 and later the D300 fitted with a 20mm lens when I left the house. But that never did the trick. And nowadays I hardly ever carry a camera with me when I'm off duty. Kind of fed up with it after toting the heavy D800 around while working. So I long for a easy to carry high quality camera and since I have this high quality Leica M glass laying around, the M is the obvious way to go. Had a closer look at the Fuji X-Pro1 a while ago but I wasn't that happy with the hybrid viewfinder, and after all I prefer FF.  Can you please elaborate on the advantages of LV?  @ Dunhoy  When you say 'bloated M240' do you refer to LV and video, or to other stuff too?  @ pkilmister  I love The Who. I have, amonst others, the original Quadrophenia album from 1973 (not the soundtrack from 1979) with the booklet containing the beautiful black and white photographs by Ethan Russell.  Yes.  its bigger and and heavier than the M9 (which was bigger than the super film MP)  live view is pointless - I have not nor ever will use it - I have 21SEM and the external finder works fine  video - seriously why did Leica include this (and make me pay for) - if I want video I will use a camcorder  That said the shutter on the M240 is way better noise wise than the M9 or original Monochrome Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted November 27, 2015 Share #50  Posted November 27, 2015 Apart from the last sentence, all of this is complete nonsense or at best, exaggeration.  You can make your point without rehashing the same misinformation time and time again.  The M is not bigger than the M9.  Heavier, maybe, but most of that is the battery.  I don't use the live view much either, but a lot of people do and it's certainly not pointless... there are many advantages for some users.  Video is a function you get anyway with the sensor and live view... it doesn't add anything in real terms to the cameras cost.  Im not really sure why these same inaccurate points come up time and time again and no matter how sensible the discussion that follows, people simply choose to ignore any evidence to the contrary. I'm not sure if it is simple ignorance or just pure bloody mindedness.  Maybe people think if it is repeated often enough, a few people who can't really be bothered to find out for themselves will just end up believing it anyway.  Dunhoy, make your argument based on some basic and accurate facts...  Or simply admit it is a position based on prejudice or personal opinion. That's fine. We all have those. And it least it won't mislead anyone.  I'm very happy you have a different opinion to many of us, but please, if it's based on unclear thinking and simple ignorance of the facts, excuse us if we don't feel particularly convinced by your position. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted November 28, 2015 Share #51  Posted November 28, 2015 Video is a function you get anyway with the sensor and live view... it doesn't add anything in real terms to the cameras cost. But the hardware (button and circuitry) and software to provide video function cost Leica money to engineer and implement, and that surely added something in real terms to the camera's cost. (Although it may have been offset by the deletion of the frame preview mechanism which was standard on the M9, and also the sapphire LCD cover which was standard on the M9P).  Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted November 28, 2015 Share #52 Â Posted November 28, 2015 The software probably comes bundled with the Fujitsu operating system with the maestro processor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted November 28, 2015 Share #53 Â Posted November 28, 2015 Leica still had to pay someone to integrate it with the camera's menu system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted November 28, 2015 Share #54 Â Posted November 28, 2015 Leica still had to pay someone to integrate it with the camera's menu system. Don't be silly... it'll be part of the main OS and there as the default installation. Â Why is this such an issue for some people and why do they not understand the cost of adding video is minimal? Once you have live view, you have everything you need to provide video recording direct to the card. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2015 Share #55 Â Posted November 28, 2015 Wow, the grumpiest thread I've had the pleasure of reading in years. Â Right, where's the popcorn. Â Ric Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted November 28, 2015 Share #56  Posted November 28, 2015 The only one it seems to be an issue for is you, because you keep trying to convince intelligent people that Leica invests nothing in the image quality of their cameras. Because if video came canned on the chip, so did still imaging. Why is this such an issue for some people and why do they not understand the cost of adding video is minimal? Once you have live view, you have everything you need to provide video recording direct to the cardTh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted November 28, 2015 Share #57  Posted November 28, 2015 The only one it seems to be an issue for is you, because you keep trying to convince intelligent people that Leica invests nothing in the image quality of their cameras. Because if video came canned on the chip, so did still imaging. Better leave out the personal stuff, please.  No one here implied that Leica did not invest into the quality of the resulting image. The argument used here was that once we have a camera capable of supporting live view (at any quality whatsoever), implementing the video function as well came at a negligible cost. The time  of the management discussing whether or not to include that function might just as soon cost more than the actual development and production of the feature. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Livingston Posted November 28, 2015 Share #58  Posted November 28, 2015 The only one it seems to be an issue for is you, because you keep trying to convince intelligent people that Leica invests nothing in the image quality of their cameras. Because if video came canned on the chip, so did still imaging.   Bocaburger, the still imaging doesn't come 'canned in the chip' as you put it.  The resultant image is primarily down to the quality of the optical systems, just as it has always been -  the sensor is effectively the same as your film, except the 'data' isn't stored there as it is with film, it is sent to the SD card. That's it. The whole way your camera works is much the same as it has always been.  Thank you Pop.  I think there is a very fundamental misunderstanding here... and I am not sure it will ever be possible to explain it well enough for some people to finally understand how this all works. Thank you for trying as well... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
platypus Posted November 28, 2015 Share #59 Â Posted November 28, 2015 Peter, that is a wonderfully droll photo! Interaction between people and animals can be so amusing, and sweet, this is a great example of that. It is perfect in b&w all the better to focus on the subtleties without the distraction of colour. You took it....and I'm jealous!! Â Â Â Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted November 29, 2015 Share #60  Posted November 29, 2015    Bocaburger, the still imaging doesn't come 'canned in the chip' as you put it.  The resultant image is primarily down to the quality of the optical systems, just as it has always been -  the sensor is effectively the same as your film, except the 'data' isn't stored there as it is with film, it is sent to the SD card. That's it. The whole way your camera works is much the same as it has always been.  Thank you Pop.  I think there is a very fundamental misunderstanding here... and I am not sure it will ever be possible to explain it well enough for some people to finally understand how this all works. Thank you for trying as well...  Let me try to explain this as simply as I can. Video capability comes on the chip. But in order for video to work in the M240 it has to have a) a button to turn it on and off; b ) electronic circuitry to make the button do that; c) menu items in firmware to allow users to specify certain things about how they want video captured.  That requires R&D to design, bespoke parts to be manufactured, and skilled human labor to install. Those all cost Leica money.  If you want to argue that video costs Leica nothing to implement, it is of course your right to be wrong Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.