geaibleu Posted October 3, 2009 Share #41 Posted October 3, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Most comments are indeed surprisingly out of place. Reichmann's review might have been renamed "Love story" inasmuch as it elegantly describes the infinite joy of re-possessing a modernised remarkable tool the forbearers of which he enjoyed for 4 decades. This is far more suited to what amateurs expect in terms of feelings. For technical "nonsense" we still have the likes of Erwin, with their graphs and numbers. Healthful as it may sound, counting calories does prevent me from enjoying any adult beverage.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 3, 2009 Posted October 3, 2009 Hi geaibleu, Take a look here Reichmann's M9 field report live now.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ceflynn Posted October 3, 2009 Share #42 Posted October 3, 2009 Man, I left a comment on his blog to the effect that his 'analysis' was trite and ill-informed and demonstrated why paid content on the internet may have a chance after all (and I also made some serious points, such as that all current MF back manufacturers use CCD, which he describes as 'what Japanese companies were using 10-15 years ago') Guess what? He deleted it. What a prat! T I can just imagine Mr. Greenspun's surprise should he start reading about amateur astrophotography (not something I know about; I just enjoy comparing questionable dismissals of Leica rangefinders to equally questionable dismissals of the Questar telescope): Starlight Xpress Company Seven | Introduction to Selecting a Questar 3-½ Astronomical Telescope Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted October 3, 2009 Share #43 Posted October 3, 2009 [quote Healthful as it may sound, counting calories does prevent me from enjoying any adult beverage.... A glass of dry white wine calculated to 2units will optimise your cholesterol and hdl and have very little adverse effect on the calorie count. Take your bicycle out tomorrow for sixty minutes of exercise to the point of mild breathlessness and you'll be way ahead! A few months of this and you'll be able to carry a top DSLR system around again and save lots of money on a Leica system. I wouldn't recomend the latter but I've been using a rangefinder since I was eleven and my dad bought a Nikon F so I have to confess a bias toward rangefinder cameras cheers Tony Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMB Posted October 5, 2009 Share #44 Posted October 5, 2009 Sorry to say but your rambling shows only that you either missed the point or purposely misconstrued it for the sake of disagreeing. ... In that regard postprocessing plays an even greater role. However to understand and agree with that, you have to consider my other, and more relevant point (which you conveniently ignored, for whatever reason): what is important in the world of professional photography is the end product, be that a print or a print-ready file. I suggest that in the future you read the posts before accusing others of rambling. And if you are not sure whether you correctly understand a post, you read it twice and spend a minute thinking what the poster may have intended to say. I only took issue with your analogy of the cook and the steak, which I think is wrong and shows that you do not understand cooking. As far as your point on the importance of post-processing is concerned, I even stated that I think a good post processor can make more out of a “bad” RAW file than a good cook can make out of a “bad” ingredient. So I did not dispute, but rather affirmed your point of the importance of post processing. Had you carefully read my post, you would also have noticed that I even questioned the relevance of my comment on the cook and the ingredient for the issue of photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammam Posted October 5, 2009 Share #45 Posted October 5, 2009 First off, Reichman lost his credibility in my book along with everyone else who didn't see or didn't report the IR debacle on the M8 in the beginning. That said, I have little respect for someone who calls himself a pro and then compares a Leica rangefinder to a Canon D-SLR. It's like comparing a Nissan Mizmo with an Armada. Furthermore anyone who calls himself a pro knows enough that you can't take expert postprocessing out of the equation. Clients buy prints, or at least print-ready files, not RAWs. A good chef can make a tastier steak from the supermarket than an average chef can do with the finest Kobi cut. That's why restaurant reviewers rarely ask that their meat be served uncooked We'd all be better off if camera reviewers could get salmonella from comparing raw files Absolutely biased and pointless comment. The guy is comparing FILES from different cameras, not home work by some LR, C1 or PS wizards. Geez! Three weeks on the LUF should learn to count to ten before typing away. Talk about credibility. I have little respect for someone who acts as a «reviewer of reviewers» and doesn't even bother to consider what the reviewer is... reviewing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.