Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MP3

9

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 ... 9 ... 9 ...

 

So the meaning of life, the universe and everything must be updated to "27" ;-)))

 

Stefan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not a old timer to Leica, but I can say without hesitation that digital has not ended the lasting value of Leica for me as I will always want to use a film M over a digital one.

 

So it really is not so: period.

 

Just curious. What would be the defining moment for you that would let you drop film altogether and go digital fully? Other than no film being available that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does there have to be a "defining moment"? Why do people think that everyone wants to go digital AT ALL? It's not inevitable.

 

I have a foot in both camps, but will never stop shooting film. I don't care how "good" digital gets, it will never be film. And I like film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this whole thing came up 2 weeks ago. An announcement in Sept. is quite possible - that's not the same thing as deliveries.

 

Leica "announced" the S2 last Sept. They'll actually deliver it 13 months later.

 

(Don't knock numerology - I won $92 in the Lotto playing my lens focal lengths (wink!). And in the emerging markets of the Far East it is serious stuff. Why not take advantage of 09/09/09 if the camera is close enough to ready for an announcement?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just curious. What would be the defining moment for you that would let you drop film altogether and go digital fully? Other than no film being available that is.

When a sensor can give in B&W the same richness and depth i have sometimes with triX... probably not before year 9999

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just curious. What would be the defining moment for you that would let you drop film altogether and go digital fully? Other than no film being available that is.

 

When I find a camera that is as well made and sweet to use as my 1966 M4. It has never had a rebuild as its Leica wax seal is still intact. I will be exceedingly surprised if my M8 is still working in 2046. Mind you I will probably have to use a Ouija board to find out.

 

Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The French mag Chasseur d'Images does not spread rumors generally. They state (CI # 316, page 9) that the M9 will be presented in the beginning of September with probably ('selon toute vraisemblance') a full frame sensor and will offer enhanced high iso potentialities ('potentiel élevé en haute sensibilité'). They say nothing about IR filtering though. The M9 won't be another red-nosed camera hopefully.

 

This is surprising. I was hearing the same story from other sources...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is surprising. I was hearing the same story from other sources...

I just read the C.I. Article, it also mentions that the M9 will probably have the same processing electronics and associated algorithms than the S2 which could explain the simultaneous launch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought this whole thing came up 2 weeks ago. An announcement in Sept. is quite possible - that's not the same thing as deliveries. Leica "announced" the S2 last Sept. They'll actually deliver it 13 months later.

At last, some healthy realism! You are not going to own this non-existent camera until they've actually made it. When did Leica acquire the top secret manufacturing capacity to enable them simultaneously to crank out TWO new models in volume?

 

If the M9 is now universally accepted as being done and dusted for 9/9/99 - and remember 99.9 per cent of us were dismissing the full-frame and IR solution rumours only 999 hours ago - then what would that say about Stefan Daniel's apparently contradictory briefings with you all at Hessenpark?

Edited by Steve Pope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just read the C.I. Article, it also mentions that the M9 will probably have the same processing electronics and associated algorithms than the S2 which could explain the simultaneous launch.

 

A lot of rumors, but I think the M9 is far from finished. I would bet for the Photokina 2010 for a presentation. Maybe Leica is ready to present a M8.3 model, or something different, but not the M9 (FF M camera). Not yet. Chasseur d'Images could be wrong again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A lot of rumors, but I think the M9 is far from finished. I would bet for the Photokina 2010 for a presentation. Maybe Leica is ready to present a M8.3 model, or something different, but not the M9 (FF M camera). Not yet. Chasseur d'Images could be wrong again...

Chasseurs d'images has been right on a lot of things lately ... wanna bet ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leica are following it seems, with the production of the 'simple' mode on the M8.2. Oscar Barnack would be disgusted. It's becoming all too easy for amatuers to be calling themselves photographers, and go out doing free work, that legitimate full time professionals should be getting paid for. This coming from a full time working photographer that is starting to see a devastating trend, one which many pros cannot afford in such an economy.

 

Sorry dude, but if somebody's output in any line of work is comparable with what an amateur is happy to consistently produce for free, then they need to find another job. It's simple economics really. And don't try to tell me about customers not being educated enough in the nuances of the photographic art to make a truely informed decision about what is best for them.... If they are happy with a certain product at a certain price point, what can anyone say that will make any difference?

 

Having said all that, I would strongly disagree with you assumption about automation on cameras being the cause. IMHO, full automation on a camera will lead to easier differentiation of shots made by amateurs and pros, not make them more similar. I strongly beleive that putting high pixel count cameras into the hands of weekend warriors can't be the whole explanation for the downward trend you mention. Skilled amateurs will still make good photos of course, as they always have, and this is the real issue here. I think the key reason for the downward trend you report is this: the learning curve on digital photography is much steeper than with film, so more amateurs are achieving a higher standard. An amateur can pick up any cheap digital SLR, shoot as often as he/she wants, get as creative as they want for no extra cost, and the camera will record all settings in the metadata for subsequent analysis. There are countless forums and flickr groups online where amateurs can report these settings and get instant feedback, and swap techniques. But not only do many of them have better technique and execution than before, they are also perfectly capable of providing output in a format required by the customer; large resolution jpgs are standard, they don't need to develop any obscure darkroom skills, or even learn how to prinit with any of the latest high quality printers. What I'm trying to say is that these days some customer groups see less of a difference in product between amateurs and pros - and that's the real bottom line, not whether the high end cameras have automatic functions.

Edited by andybarton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry dude, but if somebody's output in any line of work is comparable with what an amateur is happy to consistently produce for free, then they need to find another job. It's simple economics really. And don't try to tell me about customers not being educated enough in the nuances of the photographic art to make a truely informed decision about what is best for them.... If they are happy with a certain product at a certain price point, what can anyone say that will make any difference?

 

Having said all that, I would strongly disagree with you assumption about automation on cameras being the cause. IMHO, full automation on a camera will lead to easier differentiation of shots made by amateurs and pros, not make them more similar. I strongly beleive that putting high pixel count cameras into the hands of weekend warriors can't be the whole explanation for the downward trend you mention. Skilled amateurs will still make good photos of course, as they always have, and this is the real issue here. I think the key reason for the downward trend you report is this: the learning curve on digital photography is much steeper than with film, so more amateurs are achieving a higher standard. An amateur can pick up any cheap digital SLR, shoot as often as he/she wants, get as creative as they want for no extra cost, and the camera will record all settings in the metadata for subsequent analysis. There are countless forums and flickr groups online where amateurs can report these settings and get instant feedback, and swap techniques. But not only do many of them have better technique and execution than before, they are also perfectly capable of providing output in a format required by the customer; large resolution jpgs are standard, they don't need to develop any obscure darkroom skills, or even learn how to prinit with any of the latest high quality printers. What I'm trying to say is that these days some customer groups see less of a difference in product between amateurs and pros - and that's the real bottom line, not whether the high end cameras have automatic functions.

I would disagree with this one; there need not be any distinction between an amateur and a pro as far as technical level is concerned. The professional is better at a number of other things: marketing, business building, photographic vision and concept, presentation, etc. As for amateurs who are as good or better than the average pro at all of these, those are no competition. Either they would be professional photographers, or they are not interested in the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would disagree with this one; there need not be any distinction between an amateur and a pro as far as technical level is concerned./QUOTE]

 

That is exactly what I said. In some cases there is very little difference in "ability". The main point I dealt with in my post was about how that level of ability can be acheived in the digital world without the need for a lengthy formal photographic education or apprentiship. That is one reason why there is less room for pros in some areas these days. What do you disagree with Jaap?

 

The professional is better at a number of other things: marketing, business building, photographic vision and concept, presentation, etc..

 

Marketing and business building are certainly key professional attributes, no doubt, as is financial awareness obviously, but these are entirely unnecessary to an amateur who either uses a stock photo agency or knows his "customers" personally. As such, they do not differentiate the END PRODUCT, which is what we are really talking about here as something which can be correlated to the automation of camera features.

 

As for amateurs who are as good or better than the average pro at all of these, those are no competition. Either they would be professional photographers, or they are not interested in the job.

Do you mean that these guys'n'gals are amateurs not because of their skill sets, but because they in fact have other jobs and do not wish to become professional photogs? I think that is undoubtedly the case for some highly skilled amateur photogs. But are you suggesting that just because a photographer does not wish to be paid for a gig, that they are not competition for a paid professional? Surely not. You may be thinking that they will not compete with the pro "one-on-one" for every gig. This is undoubtedly true, but the fact remains that for each gig the pro photog will be facing competition from one eager amateur or another who is going to an event/location anyway and wants every excuse to justify his/her tremendous financial outlay in their gorgeous camera gear. So where does this leave us? In the future will professional photogs only be employed for the gigs that amateurs don't want to shoot? I'm thinking now about such things as unsociable hours, uncomfortable environments, or danger. I doubt this will ever be the case (because some professional photogs are specifically requested for their STYLE, which may be hard for an amateur to emulate), but it is clear that a professional working in such an area will have much less competition to deal with.

 

Neither of my posts on this thread are intended to be vitriolic or inflamatory; I just don't understand some people's mentality that professionals have a God given right to be paid to shoot something, and amateur photographers are taking away "their business". I see things the other way - consumers buy services that they value and cannot perform themselves. If somebody wants to make money by providing a service, then they need to differentiate their quality and reliability from others, and (thanks for this point Jaap) they need to effectively communicate that to a target audience. I believe that this is becomming harder and harder for the majority of pro photogs to do, but I think that it is certainly not due to camera automation. The only reason I can see to have S mode on a Leica M is so that you can hand your rangefinder over to someone (who likely only has digital compact experience) and at least have some possibility that the photo they take of you will be any good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good amateur may be better than a good pro but a bad amateur may be much worse than the worst pro.

See what i mean? (not sure i do)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I do lct.

At least a bad pro must have a minimum level of technical ability to consistently give output other people are prepared to pay money for. A bad amateur on the other hand is just someone with a camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I misunderstood your very first sentence about the quality of output, that I disagree with. My point was that it is not the quality of the output that distinguishes the professional from the amateur, but a host of other factors.

Anyway, what I do agree with vehemently is that it is unethical for an amateur to try and take somebodies business away simply by being able to do it for free. Personally, although I have had some opportunities in that direction, I have never stooped so low. The main area of conflict is, I think, wedding photography. My opinion is that a guest with a camera should talk with the pro and abide by his/her wishes. It has earned me the pleasure of seeing a photograph of the wedding photographer himself at work, taken by me, in his shop window.

 

Somebody else mentioned that an amateur can be as bad as he wishes. I would say a pro can be as bad as he can sell

Both may be at the same level again. I think we do not find those groups on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy