Not a very positive take on M11 by Overgaard - says it will not be a classic

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, trickness said:

In an ideal world, everybody’s opinions would be cross referenced with their photographic output and then weighed for validity. Just because someone has used a particular brand of camera for a long time or presents themselves as “professional” (whatever that means), it doesn’t mean they’ve snapped a single frame that’s worth looking at.

I meet kids in Washington Square Park every week whose photographic work craps all over 99% of the photographers who post here, mine included. The work is the ONLY thing that matters in the end. All this other YouTuber babble is little more than self promotion in a gaseous form. A great photographer will make good work with whatever tools they have.

Of course you're dead right, and probably wrong too...."A great photographer will make good work with whatever tools they have". Absolutely, no question about that, and I think only a small number of people who inhabit here would in all honestly disagree with you. I don't disagree, I've seen too many examples that prove the rule.....even here the few photographers whose work I look forward to seeing more of seem to have the oldest gear whilst others with the newest produce images that do nothing to me, nada.....and then, vice versa.............Again the rule is that there are no rules.

In mentioning Overgaard's opinions of the camera I was referring to his long experience and the sheer volume of work he outputs, I was not commenting on the work he produces. He is a "professional" because that seems to be how he earns his living and his long time experience with the marque is what makes me interested enough to try to listen to what he has to say. It doesn't mean that I will agree with him, nor does it necessarily mean that I like his work, that in this discussion is immaterial and personal. He, and very few others however, I do find worth the listen / read, but that's just my opinion and only valid from just my perspective, right?

Opinions of other's work are subjective anyway, what you may like or think as "crap" I or others might see in a completely different light, that's the same with any art form as I am sure you know be it painting, dance, music, photography, culinary, performance and so on, ad nauseam.

[IkarusJohn]

Bus drivers are “professional” too.  It’s not an adjective of any value any more.  Even in equipment, it  simply means “top of the range”.

I like Thorsten’s photographs, and his opinions are interesting and as valid as anyone else’s.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[pgk]

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

Bus drivers are “professional” too.  It’s not an adjective of any value any more.  Even in equipment, it  simply means “top of the range”.

I like Thorsten’s photographs, and his opinions are interesting and as valid as anyone else’s.

Try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profession but it is a very misused word. Here in the UK we even have a toothpaste advert which suggests that we 'brush like a professional' although exactly whether there are any such people has to be questioned. And few 'top of the range' cameras could show themselves to be 'professional' models simply because more are sold to amateurs who as a body, are a far bigger market. In any case most of the professional photographers whom I know use cameras which will 'do the job' rather than being overspecified and more expensive. So you are right in that the word is devalued by being overused, and overused incorrectly.

Bus drivers probably aren't professional to be strictly accurate whilst lawyers and doctors are. Photographers have always been referred to as 'professionals' and I would suspect that this had a lot to do with the early days of photography and those from the social classes which were sufficiently well to do to become photographers.

[IkarusJohn]

Applying that metric, the “professions” are narrowly cast, and would not extend to photographers - doctors, lawyers, dentists, accountants, sure.

But, as Airlines now have customers instead of passengers and everyone has clients, I doubt much turns on it.  Taxi drivers and bus drivers make a living out oof driving, but you are right - the do not qualify as “professionals” in the traditional sense of the word.  Nor do photographers - if I say “professional painter”, would you think of an artist hanging paintings in the Royal Academy? Or would you think of a house painter?

I don’t think “professional photographer” necessarily carries with it the caché of being a fine artist.  If I say “professional photographer”, do you think of Ansel Adams and his ilk, or do you think of a commercial photographer taking wedding photos, studio portraits and event photos?  And if you think of the latter, do you feel it is something hobby-ists and Leica owners (at the extreme end) aspire to?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not disparaging anyone who makes a living from photography.  “Professional cameras” have become a subriquet for top of the. Line - that might suit a working photographer, it might not …

[trickness]

5 hours ago, lct said:

Manure? YouTuber babble? Not sure such childish comments are called for on this good forum. 

There are a large number of YouTube "content creators" with huge followings who have dozens/hundreds of hours of content (especially Leicaphiles) where they share their opinions and insights. When I look at the overwhelming majority of these channels (with very few exceptions), and then view the corresponding Instagram account, I quite often think they should spend more time shooting and looking at photo books, and a lot less time "creating content". Unless their goal is to extract revenue/adulation/recognition/credibility from the number of subscribers they have. Which is fine, but it ain't photography.

There are lots of photographic mentors worth listening to or taking examples from, but at least for me, their value flows singularly from the work they do. Not really interested in how many subscribers they have, let me see a portfolio, a zine they did, a contact sheet. 

The work is all that matters. The work is all that matters. The work is all that matters.

 

 

 

[trickness]

3 hours ago, petermullett said:

Of course you're dead right, and probably wrong too...."A great photographer will make good work with whatever tools they have". Absolutely, no question about that, and I think only a small number of people who inhabit here would in all honestly disagree with you. I don't disagree, I've seen too many examples that prove the rule.....even here the few photographers whose work I look forward to seeing more of seem to have the oldest gear whilst others with the newest produce images that do nothing to me, nada.....and then, vice versa.............Again the rule is that there are no rules.

In mentioning Overgaard's opinions of the camera I was referring to his long experience and the sheer volume of work he outputs, I was not commenting on the work he produces. He is a "professional" because that seems to be how he earns his living and his long time experience with the marque is what makes me interested enough to try to listen to what he has to say. It doesn't mean that I will agree with him, nor does it necessarily mean that I like his work, that in this discussion is immaterial and personal. He, and very few others however, I do find worth the listen / read, but that's just my opinion and only valid from just my perspective, right?

Opinions of other's work are subjective anyway, what you may like or think as "crap" I or others might see in a completely different light, that's the same with any art form as I am sure you know be it painting, dance, music, photography, culinary, performance and so on, ad nauseam.

Agree with most everything you say.

But I'll repeat the same thing I said in my reply to Torsten - the M11 has been out for a month. Isn't it a little early to be nailing the coffin shut? Or defining how it will be viewed long term?

It's well known that (in general) slagging something off gets more clicks on social media than positivity.

I don't find these two thoughts to be mutually exclusive.

 

 

 

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

46 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

..... you are right - they do not qualify as “professionals” in the traditional sense of the word.  Nor do photographers .....

But if you go back to the early days ofphotography, the individuals who engaged in photography, including those who made their living from it, were from the wealthier social classes to who the usage of the word 'professiona' had a significance. It would have conveyed a mastery and integrity that they would have been familar with from other 'professions' - don't forget that originally photography was a complex and difficult process. Many photographers were even members of learned societies and the early photographic clubs included dignitaries such as lords and even ladies (unusual back then) amongst their members. In the UK some would have attended 'Oxbridge' or similar. So I think that this is probably where the usage of the 'professional' descriptor started and whilst we may see not photographs as portraying absolute reality today, back in its early days photography showed the world and its inhabitants far more accurately than many artists, so it probably had an inherent integrity which elevated its practiotioners back in the day. The early photographic newspapers are fascinating to read as there was much discusssion about such inaccuracies as distortion due to lens design which was frowned down upon presumably as it detracted from reality. 

[IkarusJohn]

37 minutes ago, pgk said:

But if you go back to the early days ofphotography, the individuals who engaged in photography, including those who made their living from it, were from the wealthier social classes to who the usage of the word 'professiona' had a significance. It would have conveyed a mastery and integrity that they would have been familar with from other 'professions' - don't forget that originally photography was a complex and difficult process. Many photographers were even members of learned societies and the early photographic clubs included dignitaries such as lords and even ladies (unusual back then) amongst their members. In the UK some would have attended 'Oxbridge' or similar. So I think that this is probably where the usage of the 'professional' descriptor started and whilst we may see not photographs as portraying absolute reality today, back in its early days photography showed the world and its inhabitants far more accurately than many artists, so it probably had an inherent integrity which elevated its practiotioners back in the day. The early photographic newspapers are fascinating to read as there was much discusssion about such inaccuracies as distortion due to lens design which was frowned down upon presumably as it detracted from reality. 

In modern usage, no doubt this is right.  I think we understand "professional photographer" as someone who earns a living from photography - as opposed to amateur, who participates for non-payment, by definition.

I do not subscribe to the OED, so cannot post a link, but the definition of professional is membership of a body which has standards and qualification barriers to entry - hence lawyers, doctors, dentists etc.  While many "professional photographers" may belong to clubs and societies, it is not a pre-requisite for using the phrase, nor is there a penalty for using it if you don't belong to the regulating body or have the qualifications.  Engineer and Architect may be on the fringes, but call yourself a "lawyer", "doctor" or "dentist" without such qualification and membership, and you run the risk of being in serious trouble.

I hasten to add that membership of such professions doesn't always assume quality ...

[FlashGordonPhotography]

My opinion....

99% of things presented as facts are opinion. Opinions are facts but only to the person offering them.

My girl is the most beautiful woman on the planet. A simple reality to me. Others may disagree but they should do so quietly...  In my world it's a fact, plain and simple. But that's valid in my reality.

In Leica land the only facts are the specs sheets. All the rest is opinion. If you're particularly enamoured with CCD sensors then the M9 might be the best M ever made. Which is *best*? M3 or M6?

I think the problem here is that some are trying to work out *factually* whether an M11 is right for them based on the opinions of others. We do this by finding people we usually agree with on these forums, because surely they tell the truth (they only tell their truth) and they rely on those opinions to assure them their 9K is well spent. Unfortunately NOTHING will replace trying it for yourself and making your own decision. And thet's hard to do here in Oz, as you can't rent one. You need to make a 9K decision after 15 minutes in a shop. That's not conclusive. So here we all are looking for facts. There are few of them in these pages. On anywhere on the internet.

The M11 had me at "you can turn off the LENR" and "one hour exposures". Because until I saw those words I wasn't upgrading. Now I can say I'm pleasantly surprised by most of the upgrades. But that's me. If you don't shoot long exposures then my reasons aren't really valid. And I wrote off most of the leaked upgrades as not really useful to me. Features I now list as significant. I suppose being a camera whore and being able to compare the M11 to pretty much every other camer on the market gives me some value but really I'm still only useful to photographers who might want to use an M11 like I do. I'm NOT a proper street photographer. I've done some but I consider it a weak area.That might make my opinion useless for many. And it should. But I'm also an expert at M technique. I handhold to about 1/2 F. I can guess an exposure about 80% of the time within a stop. Does that make my opinion more useful? I've been a working photographer for 30 years but mostly people who do aren't the same people who can teach. (I have been a photography teacher but mostly for underwater shooting) 

Mr Overgaard doesn't shoot anything like the way I do. He presents himself as the unicorn Noctilux street photographer, which he may or may not be. I haven't met him. So I watch his videos knowing his use case isn't relevant to mine, mostly. But in there will be something small that's useful in helping me make the best guess at whether I *need* an M11. Same for Kia Wong and Huff, who's just pissed Leica cut him off.

Senna was the best and Ali was the greatest. Everything else is just opinion.

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

1 hour ago, trickness said:

There are a large number of YouTube "content creators" with huge followings who have dozens/hundreds of hours of content (especially Leicaphiles) where they share their opinions and insights. When I look at the overwhelming majority of these channels (with very few exceptions), and then view the corresponding Instagram account, I quite often think they should spend more time shooting and looking at photo books, and a lot less time "creating content". Unless their goal is to extract revenue/adulation/recognition/credibility from the number of subscribers they have. Which is fine, but it ain't photography.

There are lots of photographic mentors worth listening to or taking examples from, but at least for me, their value flows singularly from the work they do. Not really interested in how many subscribers they have, let me see a portfolio, a zine they did, a contact sheet. 

The work is all that matters. The work is all that matters. The work is all that matters.

 

 

 

Not always, for me. There are doers and there are teachers. They're not always the same. I know photographers who can *see* but cam't explain what they're seeing. Great image makers using *P* and TTL flash. Being able to do is a different skill to being able to communicate. I watched too many YouTube videos from really good photographers who just sprout all sorts of waffle and bull dung when they open their mouths. When I hear stuff like *capturing the essence* and I vomit in my mouth just a little bit.

To me, being a great coach does not mean you needed to be a great player. It's a different skill set. When I watch these things I'm trying to learn something that might be relevant to me and how I shoot. I need communication skills and an understanding of the process. I'll take an OK photographer who can communicate over a great photographer who's verbally incompetant, any day.

There's a bunch of people on the net making nice pictures but when they open their mouth jibberish pour out. Even some of the greats.

It is nice when you get both though.

Gordon

[IkarusJohn]

3 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

My opinion....

99% of things presented as facts are opinion. Opinions are facts but only to the person offering them.

My girl is the most beautiful woman on the planet. A simple reality to me. Others may disagree but they should do so quietly...  In my world it's a fact, plain and simple. But that's valid in my reality.

In Leica land the only facts are the specs sheets. All the rest is opinion. If you're particularly enamoured with CCD sensors then the M9 might be the best M ever made. Which is *best*? M3 or M6?

I think the problem here is that some are trying to work out *factually* whether an M11 is right for them based on the opinions of others. We do this by finding people we usually agree with on these forums, because surely they tell the truth (they only tell their truth) and they rely on those opinions to assure them their 9K is well spent. Unfortunately NOTHING will replace trying it for yourself and making your own decision. And thet's hard to do here in Oz, as you can't rent one. You need to make a 9K decision after 15 minutes in a shop. That's not conclusive. So here we all are looking for facts. There are few of them in these pages. On anywhere on the internet.

The M11 had me at "you can turn off the LENR" and "one hour exposures". Because until I saw those words I wasn't upgrading. Now I can say I'm pleasantly surprised by most of the upgrades. But that's me. If you don't shoot long exposures then my reasons aren't really valid. And I wrote off most of the leaked upgrades as not really useful to me. Features I now list as significant. I suppose being a camera whore and being able to compare the M11 to pretty much every other camer on the market gives me some value but really I'm still only useful to photographers who might want to use an M11 like I do. I'm NOT a proper street photographer. I've done some but I consider it a weak area.That might make my opinion useless for many. And it should. But I'm also an expert at M technique. I handhold to about 1/2 F. I can guess an exposure about 80% of the time within a stop. Does that make my opinion more useful? I've been a working photographer for 30 years but mostly people who do aren't the same people who can teach. (I have been a photography teacher but mostly for underwater shooting) 

Mr Overgaard doesn't shoot anything like the way I do. He presents himself as the unicorn Noctilux street photographer, which he may or may not be. I haven't met him. So I watch his videos knowing his use case isn't relevant to mine, mostly. But in there will be something small that's useful in helping me make the best guess at whether I *need* an M11. Same for Kia Wong and Huff, who's just pissed Leica cut him off.

Senna was the best and Ali was the greatest. Everything else is just opinion.

Gordon

To a point.  Much of what is written is, i agree, unhelpful.  But that is the fact of the internet.

I have been taking photographs since my father bought me and my brother bellows rangefinders (with exposure values written in my father's appalling medical handwriting on Leukoplast, stick on the back) in the early 1960s; I've been using rangefinders since I got a Canonet for Christmas in 1968; and I've used Leicas since the M9.  I'm happy with what I have, but like many I look at what I don't have and wonder ... a 75 Noctilux, another 35 ... so, when the M11 broke cover, I was interested - what does it all mean?  I, like you, wasn't interested in the leaks - why steal Leica's thunder?  Let them release the camera, then think about it.  But, the starting point must be, like your M10-R, there is nothing wrong with the cameras I have.  Nada.  Zilch (though I take your point on your long running frustration over LENR).

So what do we do, without the benefits of renting, borrowing, or even just holding the camera in my hand (in my case - though why it would feel any different from any other M I own, I don't know).  We filter reviews and try to build up facts from the enthusiastic, and at times defensive, comments from those who've taken the plunge ..

Facts:

• 60MP sensor, with in-camera down-res (not "pixel-binning" as described by Leica) 
• in-camera cropping (while the original DNG file is not actually cropped)
• sensor exposed and live on powering up
• loss of centre-weigthed metering off the shutter (never had a problem with internal reflections)
• electronic shutter

Opinion - don't really like or need any of this, and prefer what I have.

Benefits:

• better DNG files (I accept your opinion as fact)
• better highlight protection (again, I accept your experience as fact)
• overall, the best sensor to date, with some modification to shooting technique required, but as a competent photographer, that isn't daunting
• no baseplate (finally!)
• USB-C (yay)
• better battery
• Maestro III processor\Internal memory
• they haven't seemed to screw anything up ... 😀

Thorsten's video was informative, like many other reviews; but I make up my own mind.  If they issue a black paint version, with the traditional shutter and meter, and without permanent live view, I could be tempted.  That's opinion.

 

[trickness]

9 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Not always, for me. There are doers and there are teachers. They're not always the same. I know photographers who can *see* but cam't explain what they're seeing. Great image makers using *P* and TTL flash. Being able to do is a different skill to being able to communicate. I watched too many YouTube videos from really good photographers who just sprout all sorts of waffle and bull dung when they open their mouths. When I hear stuff like *capturing the essence* and I vomit in my mouth just a little bit.

To me, being a great coach does not mean you needed to be a great player. It's a different skill set. When I watch these things I'm trying to learn something that might be relevant to me and how I shoot. I need communication skills and an understanding of the process. I'll take an OK photographer who can communicate over a great photographer who's verbally incompetant, any day.

There's a bunch of people on the net making nice pictures but when they open their mouth jibberish pour out. Even some of the greats.

It is nice when you get both though.

Gordon

I hear you and yes I agree, there are some fantastic teachers on YouTube. 
 

But I am also reminded of that Woody Allen quote from Annie Hall: “those who can’t do, teach. And those who can’t teach, teach gym” 😂

[trickness]

8 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

To a point.  Much of what is written is, i agree, unhelpful.  But that is the fact of the internet.

I have been taking photographs since my father bought me and my brother bellows rangefinders (with exposure values written in my father's appalling medical handwriting on Leukoplast, stick on the back) in the early 1960s; I've been using rangefinders since I got a Canonet for Christmas in 1968; and I've used Leicas since the M9.  I'm happy with what I have, but like many I look at what I don't have and wonder ... a 75 Noctilux, another 35 ... so, when the M11 broke cover, I was interested - what does it all mean?  I, like you, wasn't interested in the leaks - why steal Leica's thunder?  Let them release the camera, then think about it.  But, the starting point must be, like your M10-R, there is nothing wrong with the cameras I have.  Nada.  Zilch (though I take your point on your long running frustration over LENR).

So what do we do, without the benefits of renting, borrowing, or even just holding the camera in my hand (in my case - though why it would feel any different from any other M I own, I don't know).  We filter reviews and try to build up facts from the enthusiastic, and at times defensive, comments from those who've taken the plunge ..

Facts:

• 60MP sensor, with in-camera down-res (not "pixel-binning" as described by Leica) 
• in-camera cropping (while the original DNG file is not actually cropped)
• sensor exposed and live on powering up
• loss of centre-weigthed metering off the shutter (never had a problem with internal reflections)
• electronic shutter

Opinion - don't really like or need any of this, and prefer what I have.

Benefits:

• better DNG files (I accept your opinion as fact)
• better highlight protection (again, I accept your experience as fact)
• overall, the best sensor to date, with some modification to shooting technique required, but as a competent photographer, that isn't daunting
• no baseplate (finally!)
• USB-C (yay)
• better battery
• Maestro III processor\Internal memory
• they haven't seemed to screw anything up ... 😀

Thorsten's video was informative, like many other reviews; but I make up my own mind.  If they issue a black paint version, with the traditional shutter and meter, and without permanent live view, I could be tempted.  That's opinion.

 

I think there are a lot of experts out there, whether they be self appointed or anointed, who really are not in service of the art, they are in service of the fetish. And I think it’s really important for one to know the difference between the two.

I say that knowing that all I really need for 99% of what I do is one camera and one lens. And of course I own more than that. The fetish is strong 

[trickness]

10 hours ago, pgk said:

Seriously? Come on, let's have some valid discussion. I know that I neither need nor want an M11 based on its features and specification. My problem is that Leica don't make a current M model that I do need or want; and my photographic output is entirely irrelevant in this regard.

And 'professional' generally means someone who makes the bulk (majority) of their living from an activity.

We all have our individual usage case scenarios. The difference here is that very few of us are making videos with pronouncements about the perceived success or failure of a camera based on those individual needs. I certainly wouldn’t have the hubris to produce a video making such a pronouncement just because a tool didn’t fit my needs exactly - especially if I was doing it as a “professional” and speaking to a large audience of subscribers in that capacity. And if I did, I might wait until the firmware was mature, & the camera in question was out in the marketplace more than four weeks.

We are all entitled to our opinions of course, just as we are all entitled to listen to somebody else’s opinion and make a call on whether or not we think it is “valid”. And I do think it is entirely appropriate to question they intent of such videos when they are posted on social media platforms, where negative/controversial posts typically enjoy much more engagement, and engagement is the name of the game for Youtubers seeking revenue growth.

[Herr Barnack]

3 hours ago, trickness said:

I think there are a lot of experts out there, whether they be self appointed or anointed, who really are not in service of the art, they are in service of the fetish. And I think it’s really important for one to know the difference between the two.

I say that knowing that all I really need for 99% of what I do is one camera and one lens. And of course I own more than that. The fetish is strong 

I'm not nearly that good.  I need one camera and two lenses. 

And my Last Waltz.

Edited February 28, 2022 by Herr Barnack

[orcinus]

1) Whether something will or won’t be a classic has nothing to do with what any single person says, or claims

2) Whether something is or is not a classic or will be a classic has nothing to do with how you use, or will use it

I’m always fascinated by these dozen pages long threads that just keep popping up over and over and over again (not just here and not just for M11).
It’s like a car accident - it’s horrible, but everyone has to stop and take a gander (me included)

[harmen]

6 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

 

• 60MP sensor, with in-camera down-res (not "pixel-binning" as described by Leica) 

Great summary - and a clear distinction between attributes and whether they are useful or even a reason to purchase.

Note that binning means summing up or grouping of data.  Binning does not mean throwing away.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

7 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

To a point.  Much of what is written is, i agree, unhelpful.  But that is the fact of the internet.

I have been taking photographs since my father bought me and my brother bellows rangefinders (with exposure values written in my father's appalling medical handwriting on Leukoplast, stick on the back) in the early 1960s; I've been using rangefinders since I got a Canonet for Christmas in 1968; and I've used Leicas since the M9.  I'm happy with what I have, but like many I look at what I don't have and wonder ... a 75 Noctilux, another 35 ... so, when the M11 broke cover, I was interested - what does it all mean?  I, like you, wasn't interested in the leaks - why steal Leica's thunder?  Let them release the camera, then think about it.  But, the starting point must be, like your M10-R, there is nothing wrong with the cameras I have.  Nada.  Zilch (though I take your point on your long running frustration over LENR).

So what do we do, without the benefits of renting, borrowing, or even just holding the camera in my hand (in my case - though why it would feel any different from any other M I own, I don't know).  We filter reviews and try to build up facts from the enthusiastic, and at times defensive, comments from those who've taken the plunge ..

Facts:

• 60MP sensor, with in-camera down-res (not "pixel-binning" as described by Leica) 
• in-camera cropping (while the original DNG file is not actually cropped)
• sensor exposed and live on powering up
• loss of centre-weigthed metering off the shutter (never had a problem with internal reflections)
• electronic shutter

Opinion - don't really like or need any of this, and prefer what I have.

Benefits:

• better DNG files (I accept your opinion as fact)
• better highlight protection (again, I accept your experience as fact)
• overall, the best sensor to date, with some modification to shooting technique required, but as a competent photographer, that isn't daunting
• no baseplate (finally!)
• USB-C (yay)
• better battery
• Maestro III processor\Internal memory
• they haven't seemed to screw anything up ... 😀

Thorsten's video was informative, like many other reviews; but I make up my own mind.  If they issue a black paint version, with the traditional shutter and meter, and without permanent live view, I could be tempted.  That's opinion.

 

I think the jury is still out on the pixel binning. Leica say it is with some new secret sauce. Red Dot said it was "hardware binning" although we don't know their source. Some of us don't think the math adds up. I'm just at the point where I'm saying I don't actually care as all three resolutions do produce excellent results. You don't lose anything except resolution by going smaller, if you want to, and that's good enough for me. Kind of like having an M10P and an M10R in one box.

But I don't think we can say it's a *fact* either way. The fact is you have three shooting resolutions to choose from in DNG.

Gordon

[IkarusJohn]

I think we’ve been through this … 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[harmen]

We like nothing more than going in circles!