Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: The M9 for landscape  (Read 16937 times)
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #40 on: June 25, 2010, 09:00:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
The M9 is not targetting the same consumer that the 550D.

Of course there are fantastic cheap dslr today that coupled with primes can do the job very fine. The Canon is one, there are also some bargains in Nikon and Pentax.

First, you have to be able to buy one. Second, you have to need or want its particular design. An M serie will be smaller and lighter than the Canon.
Then, it targets a sort of purists or very demanding photographers in terms of lens quality.

The MFD users feel "at home" more than with any other dslr because of no AA filter and the image processor.

This is not comparable IMO to this 550 or any other camera.

Maybe the best bargains I can think today are the Canon 5DII and this Sony A850.
But some photographers are not looking, neither in need to find bargains but the very best device available to complish a specific task.



There's another problem associated with these über-products: perhaps many people can afford them, but as with cars, that doesn't mean you think it is a justified expense.

I can go out today and put down the cheque for a nice car - or blasted M9, for that matter -  but in the relative scheme of things, I simply can't convince myself that either is worth doing, and trust me, I have been trying!

Take the car: two days after I bought my Ford, twelve years next month, somebody paid it a visit with a pointed instrument and attempted to free it from its blue oval on the trunk/boot. Failure to do that simple thing led them round to the front where they had more luck. So you have to ask yourself, is living in a world where a blue oval is deemed theft-worthy, truly conducive to the purchase of more tempting fare? Further, in an environment where many many vehicles are rentals (most companies even omit hubcaps on these cars), where your own car picks up a rainbow, a virtual cacophony of colour on its sides, how tempting that pretty little BMW M3 in silver? (Okay, I might have lied about the M3 - the State pays me a pension that proves it believes in State-sponsored euthanasia and the banks have ensured that my interest is a thing of the past, but why spoil a good argument?)

The camera? Same deal sans hubcaps. Are you a master in martial, not photographic arts? Or possibly both - I think we have one here? Do you wear your Rolex when you venture into the seamy side of town to visit your wholesaler? Isn't that the very milieu in which the M is supposedly designed to shine, the black one too?

So many questions but so few relevant answers.

Rob C (Curmudgeon, Premier Cru)

Logged

Robert Roaldi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 446


WWW
« Reply #41 on: June 25, 2010, 09:29:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
There's another problem associated with these über-products: perhaps many people can afford them, but as with cars, that doesn't mean you think it is a justified expense.

I can go out today and put down the cheque for a nice car - or blasted M9, for that matter -  but in the relative scheme of things, I simply can't convince myself that either is worth doing, and trust me, I have been trying!

Take the car: two days after I bought my Ford, twelve years next month, somebody paid it a visit with a pointed instrument and attempted to free it from its blue oval on the trunk/boot. Failure to do that simple thing led them round to the front where they had more luck. So you have to ask yourself, is living in a world where a blue oval is deemed theft-worthy, truly conducive to the purchase of more tempting fare? Further, in an environment where many many vehicles are rentals (most companies even omit hubcaps on these cars), where your own car picks up a rainbow, a virtual cacophony of colour on its sides, how tempting that pretty little BMW M3 in silver? (Okay, I might have lied about the M3 - the State pays me a pension that proves it believes in State-sponsored euthanasia and the banks have ensured that my interest is a thing of the past, but why spoil a good argument?)

The camera? Same deal sans hubcaps. Are you a master in martial, not photographic arts? Or possibly both - I think we have one here? Do you wear your Rolex when you venture into the seamy side of town to visit your wholesaler? Isn't that the very milieu in which the M is supposedly designed to shine, the black one too?

So many questions but so few relevant answers.

Rob C (Curmudgeon, Premier Cru)


Jeez, it's a miracle that we can get through the day at all, with all the dangers lurking around every bend. So, is the solution to only own cars or cameras that no one wants to steal?  No, of course not, we should all buy M9s. If everyone had one, there'd be no reason to steal them.  
Logged

--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #42 on: June 25, 2010, 01:34:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Robert Roaldi
Jeez, it's a miracle that we can get through the day at all, with all the dangers lurking around every bend. So, is the solution to only own cars or cameras that no one wants to steal?  No, of course not, we should all buy M9s. If everyone had one, there'd be no reason to steal them.



Robert, I like that philosophy; and yet, and yet - there is a flaw lurking in dem dare shadows!

;-)

Rob C
Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2907

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #43 on: June 27, 2010, 03:44:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Don Libby
I'll admit I was put off at first that the M9 was "only" 18 megapixels till I started comparing files sizes to other cameras that we own and use.

Phase One P45+ average file size: 42.544kb
Leica M9 average file size: 35,580kb
Canon 1DsIII average file size: 24,202kb
Canon 1DsII average file size: 16,531kb

Does Phase or Leica compress their RAWs (losslessly) like Canon does? If they don't, that comparison is all but meaningless. Well, even then it's useless as I'm sure file size is a poor proxy for IQ when normalized for MP count.

I know, it's like arguments about religion...
Logged

wildlightphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 584


« Reply #44 on: June 27, 2010, 04:17:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
... there are so many opportunities for compromise and I think that when you are working for yourself, that's the very time you should never compromise. What's the point if you are the client, and there is no external pressure, for you to do other than the very best? It's yourself you are ripping off.

That's what I like about not being dependent on photography to pay the mortgage.  I can do it my way, without trying to keep up with a rat race.

Quote from: tnargs
Again I say, show me the prints, and without telling me which is which first. I agree with Rob, "folks tend to see what they want to see, especially when they have spent a lot of money".

Unless you visit the Sacramento area it's unlikely you'll see my prints, but I've shown them to gallery owners who had no knowledge of the format or brand of camera I used to make the prints.  The cameras I used to make the prints are a mix of Nikon film, Leica film and Leica DMR (10 MP, no AA filter, Leica APO glass).  One of the galleries also represents a Canon 'Explorer of Light' photographer.  Their reaction to the DMR prints is always the same: jaw drops, eyes bug out, the brain's speech center is temporarily knocked out of order.  They stand back to look at the whole print, they get really close to the print and look over the entire surface of it.  Invariable they first things they say are a comment on the color quality and detail, and "What camera are you using"?  Great fun.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2010, 04:19:26 PM by telyt » Logged
JohnBrew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 705


WWW
« Reply #45 on: June 27, 2010, 06:54:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ndevlin
I, too, shoot Leica for landscape, and can confirm that it is both wonderful and a total pain in the ass.
On the pain-in-the-ass side, it's irritating to have to change lenses all the time, and the framelines are awfully inaccurate. This means shooting, chimping, move the camera slightly, reshooting, re-chimping, etc.  That's just the price of using a RF.

I shot my M8 as a landscape camera. I mostly used a 35 Cron ASPH. I don't find using a single lens limiting. Actually it is the opposite, it is liberating. A simple kit. Using a single lens forces the photographer to spend more time looking for the perfect angle to take the shot. Someday I'll get a M9 or its successor. At the moment I'm playing with a D700 and Zeiss 50 Makro. Every time I drag out that monster (compared to a Leica!) I curse myself for not going ahead and biting the bullet and getting on the waiting list for an M9.
John
www.johnbrewton.zenfolio.com
Logged

James R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


« Reply #46 on: June 27, 2010, 08:10:28 PM »
ReplyReply

To the "Leica is too expensive" crowd:

What is too expensive is a relative concept.  I've seen minimum wage workers buying Starbuck coffee and I know well to-do individuals who wouldn't waste their money one.  Most everybody goes through the same purchase process, whether it is a Canon 550, or a Leica, or a Hassy.  The purchase is made once the decision process is over.  For some reason, every time somebody discusses a Leica camera, there is this desire to berate the purchaser for making a wrong decision.  I'll bet there are many complainers who probably have 20K+ in N or C, which, of course, is justified.  

These treads would be more useful if the conversation stayed on the camera and images, and not on the cost; or, how I can do that photo for thousands of dollars less buy using a cheaper Canon.
Logged
tnargs
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


« Reply #47 on: June 27, 2010, 09:27:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: telyt
...The cameras I used to make the prints are a mix of Nikon film, Leica film and Leica DMR (10 MP, no AA filter, Leica APO glass).  ... Their reaction to the DMR prints is always the same: jaw drops, eyes bug out, the brain's speech center is temporarily knocked out of order.  They stand back to look at the whole print, they get really close to the print and look over the entire surface of it.  Invariable they first things they say are a comment on the color quality and detail, and "What camera are you using"?  Great fun.
Good story! Reminds me of the "FF prints easily beaten for dynamic range by MF prints even at 5x7-inch even viewed at 20 feet via a glimpse after walking through the door of a dimly lit camera store" story.

A pity your print viewers asked the wrong question. Like the hifi nuts whose jaws drop at the sound of a system and their first question is "what amp are you using?"

Quote from: fredjeang
.... An M serie will be smaller and lighter than the Canon....
Not so, I guess you missed post #14.

Quote from: fredjeang
...Of course there are fantastic cheap dslr today that coupled with primes can do the job very fine. The Canon is one, there are also some bargains in Nikon and Pentax.
...Maybe the best bargains I can think today are the Canon 5DII and this Sony A850.
But some photographers are not looking, neither in need to find bargains but the very best device available to complish a specific task.
Definitely agree, and 'the very best device available' is a matter of many factors not just a matter of image quality; there is no way a 550D can match the tactile experience of an M9, for instance. If one has the money and the M9 resonates then by all means buy it, take and make outstanding landscape prints, and live the good life. The bickering only starts when the M9 owner lapses into leicaphilia and starts raving about stunning superiorities in pure image terms, or even in image-per-kg terms. Them's fightin' words, even if they are delivered with an air of calm superiority.     The Canon 18MP sensor is a natural contestant, its kit weight with primes is slightly less than the M9 kit, the primes are FF so their IQ is mostly about their centre performance whereas the m-series are being stretched to their edges, so it looks like a green light contest to me.

The biggest problem would be finding an unbiased reviewer on the internet, with access to both cameras and lenses, interested in landscape photography, prepared to not only test the usual extremes of performance (pixel peeping, edges and corners, high iso, huge enlargements, max aperture), but also compare the results of sensible practice where one tries to use one's equipment to best advantage and make prints of typical print size and view at normal viewing distance for that size (may I humbly suggest A3 max for arm's length viewing, larger prints for viewing at larger distances), photographed at non-max apertures, and in reasonable light levels or using a tripod rather than high iso when things are dim.

It would be a great contest to do blind comparisons of such prints. But the reviewing world is not oriented to such comparisons because the cameras have different customer bases, and reviewing is all about comparisons of market competitors. Review-world does not seem to take seriously the possibility that something much cheaper could be indistinguishable in *any* aspect of results: that is not the way product ranges work or the way salesmen want us to think!
 

Quote from: James R
To the "Leica is too expensive" crowd:...For some reason, every time somebody discusses a Leica camera, there is this desire to berate the purchaser for making a wrong decision....
I agree, to some extent there is that, and to some extent there is the opposite where someone raves about their wonderful affordable kit and there seems to be the desire for someone to point out their Leica. But the bigger piece of bait is when someone makes unsubstantiated claims of innate superiority.

Jack Perkins' article says "...What I was working with now was a camera that is significantly lighter and easier to handle, with lenses lighter and much smaller than 35mm lenses and thus more appropriate for eschewing the back-, shoulder-, or belly-pack , putting a few lenses into pockets and heading off to photograph. If light levels were low or terrain especially uneven I might carry a monopod ...What I early discovered was that these luscious Leica lenses have a different way of rendering. The Leica-look, aficionados call it..."

I would love to see the results of an objective investigation of the twofold claims of lightness and quality. I have suggested an alternative of similar weight; is it inherently lower in quality in a way that is detectable with normal landscape prints? I suspect we will never know. I also reckon it is incumbent on those making the claim of (innate, everyday, easily-seen-in-average-prints) superiority to back it up with something objective.

BTW I think is not common knowledge that someone seeking a lightweight high quality digital landscape kit has any genuine option to the Leica. The general mood seems to be that dslr-based kit is much heavier. I think it would be a surprise to many readers to realise they can get a dslr with a quality 18MP sensor and equivalent prime lenses that adds up to a kit actually lighter than the M9 kit. It might even be a surprise to Jack Perkins!
Logged
wildlightphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 584


« Reply #48 on: June 27, 2010, 09:34:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tnargs
The biggest problem would be finding an unbiased reviewer on the internet

I agree.  You've demonstrated the need.  What you need to do is let go of your own biases and pay attention to those who use the equipment.

(EDIT) On further thought, I'm wondering why it matters to you that others prefer to use the M9.  What's most important to you is that you're satisfied with the results you're getting from your camera.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2010, 09:58:57 PM by telyt » Logged
James R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


« Reply #49 on: June 27, 2010, 11:16:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tnargs
I agree, to some extent there is that, and to some extent there is the opposite where someone raves about their wonderful affordable kit and there seems to be the desire for someone to point out their Leica. But the bigger piece of bait is when someone makes unsubstantiated claims of innate superiority.

Jack Perkins' article says "...What I was working with now was a camera that is significantly lighter and easier to handle, with lenses lighter and much smaller than 35mm lenses and thus more appropriate for eschewing the back-, shoulder-, or belly-pack , putting a few lenses into pockets and heading off to photograph. If light levels were low or terrain especially uneven I might carry a monopod ...What I early discovered was that these luscious Leica lenses have a different way of rendering. The Leica-look, aficionados call it..."

I would love to see the results of an objective investigation of the twofold claims of lightness and quality. I have suggested an alternative of similar weight; is it inherently lower in quality in a way that is detectable with normal landscape prints? I suspect we will never know. I also reckon it is incumbent on those making the claim of (innate, everyday, easily-seen-in-average-prints) superiority to back it up with something objective.

BTW I think is not common knowledge that someone seeking a lightweight high quality digital landscape kit has any genuine option to the Leica. The general mood seems to be that dslr-based kit is much heavier. I think it would be a surprise to many readers to realise they can get a dslr with a quality 18MP sensor and equivalent prime lenses that adds up to a kit actually lighter than the M9 kit. It might even be a surprise to Jack Perkins!


I read your first post and disagreed with it.  First off, praising KR as a first rate reviewer and photography expert was too much for me.  But, let us assume for the sake of argument that he is first rate.  Here is a quote from his website, dated this past December I believe, "The LEICA M9 is the smallest, lightest, highest-quality digital camera ever created by the hand of Man."  

You made a claim that there is no difference between a print made from a Canon 550D and a Leica M9.  However, you do put qualifiers on the comparison.  Unfortunately, you make a claim and then tell us to prove it.  This is sort of a KR review.  Personally, I'll take my 35 Summicron over any Canon EF-S lens even if they made an f/2.  

Putting all this aside, I'm happy with my cameras and I hope you are equally happy with yours.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2010, 08:59:49 AM by James R » Logged
dseelig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


« Reply #50 on: June 28, 2010, 12:25:59 AM »
ReplyReply

I am a working pro no I do not make lots of money at it, never made 50 grand in a year, yet I have a complete canon system 2 1d mk111's a 5d mk11 a 1d mk1v and lenses form 16-35 to a 400 2.8. I also have 2 m9s and 24 35 50 75 luxes a 90 crom aa and the wate. I do not go out for dinner much. Why do I own the leica photography is my life and there is nothing else that feels more right for my work for myself then shooting with a leica. I see better with a leica it slows you up and makes you think. Canons put people off that do not know you I am less obtrusive into lives and the lenses are sharper and better then canons. If I want to make pictures I will get a canon if I want to make photographs the leicas come out.
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1707


« Reply #51 on: June 28, 2010, 02:24:13 AM »
ReplyReply

I just realised that for what I paid for my 1Ds mkIII second hand I could buy a mint condition late edition Jaguar XJS with all the trimmings, big engine, modern electrics/AC and with around 70,000 miles on the clock. I could use that gorgeous car to drive in extreme luxury, comfort and coolness to anywhere I want and take pictures with the no slouch pair of 5D's I already own.

My priorites are so very screwed up...    
« Last Edit: June 28, 2010, 02:24:57 AM by Ben Rubinstein » Logged

Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 700



WWW
« Reply #52 on: June 28, 2010, 02:57:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Hopefully I can do such a test next month.

I am (hopefully) getting a Hassy 40MP, a Phase P40, a Leaf 40MP and an S2 to play with. Epson are lending me a 7900 with some paper, and myself and two other photogs plan to do some 20x30prints and a blind test. Should be interesting.

Quote from: tnargs
Good story! Reminds me of the "FF prints easily beaten for dynamic range by MF prints even at 5x7-inch even viewed at 20 feet via a glimpse after walking through the door of a dimly lit camera store" story.

A pity your print viewers asked the wrong question. Like the hifi nuts whose jaws drop at the sound of a system and their first question is "what amp are you using?"


Not so, I guess you missed post #14.


Definitely agree, and 'the very best device available' is a matter of many factors not just a matter of image quality; there is no way a 550D can match the tactile experience of an M9, for instance. If one has the money and the M9 resonates then by all means buy it, take and make outstanding landscape prints, and live the good life. The bickering only starts when the M9 owner lapses into leicaphilia and starts raving about stunning superiorities in pure image terms, or even in image-per-kg terms. Them's fightin' words, even if they are delivered with an air of calm superiority.     The Canon 18MP sensor is a natural contestant, its kit weight with primes is slightly less than the M9 kit, the primes are FF so their IQ is mostly about their centre performance whereas the m-series are being stretched to their edges, so it looks like a green light contest to me.

The biggest problem would be finding an unbiased reviewer on the internet, with access to both cameras and lenses, interested in landscape photography, prepared to not only test the usual extremes of performance (pixel peeping, edges and corners, high iso, huge enlargements, max aperture), but also compare the results of sensible practice where one tries to use one's equipment to best advantage and make prints of typical print size and view at normal viewing distance for that size (may I humbly suggest A3 max for arm's length viewing, larger prints for viewing at larger distances), photographed at non-max apertures, and in reasonable light levels or using a tripod rather than high iso when things are dim.

It would be a great contest to do blind comparisons of such prints. But the reviewing world is not oriented to such comparisons because the cameras have different customer bases, and reviewing is all about comparisons of market competitors. Review-world does not seem to take seriously the possibility that something much cheaper could be indistinguishable in *any* aspect of results: that is not the way product ranges work or the way salesmen want us to think!
 


I agree, to some extent there is that, and to some extent there is the opposite where someone raves about their wonderful affordable kit and there seems to be the desire for someone to point out their Leica. But the bigger piece of bait is when someone makes unsubstantiated claims of innate superiority.

Jack Perkins' article says "...What I was working with now was a camera that is significantly lighter and easier to handle, with lenses lighter and much smaller than 35mm lenses and thus more appropriate for eschewing the back-, shoulder-, or belly-pack , putting a few lenses into pockets and heading off to photograph. If light levels were low or terrain especially uneven I might carry a monopod ...What I early discovered was that these luscious Leica lenses have a different way of rendering. The Leica-look, aficionados call it..."

I would love to see the results of an objective investigation of the twofold claims of lightness and quality. I have suggested an alternative of similar weight; is it inherently lower in quality in a way that is detectable with normal landscape prints? I suspect we will never know. I also reckon it is incumbent on those making the claim of (innate, everyday, easily-seen-in-average-prints) superiority to back it up with something objective.

BTW I think is not common knowledge that someone seeking a lightweight high quality digital landscape kit has any genuine option to the Leica. The general mood seems to be that dslr-based kit is much heavier. I think it would be a surprise to many readers to realise they can get a dslr with a quality 18MP sensor and equivalent prime lenses that adds up to a kit actually lighter than the M9 kit. It might even be a surprise to Jack Perkins!
Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Landscape Photographer
www.nickrains.com
iPad Publishing
www.photique.com.au
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #53 on: June 28, 2010, 04:12:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Mention was made about the reasons that price crops up almost ever time the word Leica comes into a conversation.

I think that's because it's exactly what Leica wants to happen. Price and a relatively small, niche market is what the marque was ever about; in fact, I would bet that it's the silent cornerstone of company thinking.

There is no way I would spend the money, now, on a Leica, new or used. When I was working I often thought about it, but all the intelligence indicated that it was M lenses that had whatever superiority the glass was reputed to have. I do remember printing shots of tv studio room sets from a 21mm lens set of negatives at my last place of work, and the 'look' was certainly different to the Nikon stuff we did. However, I knew that RF wasn't what I'd need for myself once I went solo and so I never did buy into the brand.

Now, with no client list anymore, life has a very different perspective and buying Leica is no longer a matter of professional choice based on professional needs. Making such a purchase now - making any purchase now - is based on how it leaves the bank account looking and on how important that purchase might be within the greater scheme of things.

It was never cheap buying into the 500 series either; one made the decision for what it might achieve, and achieve (and grow) the system did. So really, I think one has to look at the ownership question from a clear, differentiated perspective: for the pro, if it gives what you think it will, you will buy and take the mugging; for the am, then it all depends on how rich you are or how committed (a nice, if dangerous word) you might (or should?) be to the idea of photography.

But in the end, unless our skill-set is pretty damn extensive, one might as well buy a better car- like that old Jag. No, not like that; old cars are even worse losers of money for mere non-dealer mortals.

I walk through the local marina a couple of times a week doing my obligatory exercise; I was crazy about boats when I was young, but suffered from acute lack of mad-money if not mad-ideas, one of which was to sell the house in Scotland and come to Spain and live on a yacht. Fortunately, my wife saw the reality while I but the dream, and agreed to move but only into more bricks and mortar. Anyway, during those walks, I do look again at the Sunseekers and Fairlines, and then wham! I walked past a Riva up on the hard. It's one of those small things that must be the current version of the Rudi - it is impossible to read the logo: it looks like RUBARIVA or something similar - I can't make it out - and have long stopped buying boat magazines to know.  Bad marketing or clever? Anway, it did strike a chord of instant love, for the design, if nothing more, the reality of boat ownership becoming very clear if you live alonside the Med... But that little Riva, isn't that exactly the same thing as Leica and its Ms? That it's all about design and striking the sweet spot of peoples' desires?

Rob C
Logged

Paulo Bizarro
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1296


WWW
« Reply #54 on: June 28, 2010, 04:23:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sojournerphoto
There is also a tendency to an even tighter definition of landscape photography that is based on always using a tripod etc etc to maximise resolution or 'image quality'. It's absolutely the case that my 35mm rangefinders never get used on a tripod - occasionally a monopod stick, but never a tripod. My dslr does get used on a tripod as does the MF RF, though they both also get used handheld.

Horses for courses, but it's all about making pictures

Mike

Of course everybody has its own definition of what "landscape photography" is. However, I would risk saying that there seems to be a general consensus about how landscape photos seem to be more interesting when the light is more interesting. And the light seems to be more interesting when it is more difficult to handhold the camera, be it a M9 or a 5D MKII. What is the point of having a great camera and lenses, and compromise the results by shooting handheld? I amo not talking shooting under mid day sun now, I am talking about shooting before sunrise and after sunset.

What I am saying is that, even if I had a M9, I would shoot with it from a tripod, to make the most of its wonderful lenses and sensor. If I happen to go on a trek or hiking, where a tripod is a "no-go", I would much prefer to have some sort of system that incorporates some sort of image stabilization.
Logged
sojournerphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473


« Reply #55 on: June 28, 2010, 06:39:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pbizarro
Of course everybody has its own definition of what "landscape photography" is. However, I would risk saying that there seems to be a general consensus about how landscape photos seem to be more interesting when the light is more interesting. And the light seems to be more interesting when it is more difficult to handhold the camera, be it a M9 or a 5D MKII. What is the point of having a great camera and lenses, and compromise the results by shooting handheld? I amo not talking shooting under mid day sun now, I am talking about shooting before sunrise and after sunset.

What I am saying is that, even if I had a M9, I would shoot with it from a tripod, to make the most of its wonderful lenses and sensor. If I happen to go on a trek or hiking, where a tripod is a "no-go", I would much prefer to have some sort of system that incorporates some sort of image stabilization.


I understand, but my 35mm rangefinders still use film:), so if I want ultimate resolution they will have stayed at home. It doesn't stop me using them for some sorts of landscape though. If I really want to resolve things then the Mamiya 7 on a  tripod with Kodak Ektar is really spectacular (to me, a mere dslr and not mf back owner)

Mike
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2907

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #56 on: June 28, 2010, 09:04:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: James R
What is too expensive is a relative concept.  I've seen minimum wage workers buying Starbuck coffee and I know well to-do individuals who wouldn't waste their money one.

It hasn't occurred to you it is exactly that mentality why the wealthy bocome and stay wealthy, and why the poor don't?
Logged

James R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


« Reply #57 on: June 28, 2010, 09:52:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
It hasn't occurred to you it is exactly that mentality why the wealthy bocome and stay wealthy, and why the poor don't?

No it hasn't.  I know too many middle and lower income people who will not buy coffee at Starbucks and they are still not wealthy.  Value judgments are made within the margin of the possible; therefore, the poor don't buy Rolls Royces.
Logged
ndevlin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 496



WWW
« Reply #58 on: June 28, 2010, 10:41:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: James R
Value judgments are made within the margin of the possible

A perfect last word.
Logged

Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #59 on: June 28, 2010, 01:40:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ndevlin
A perfect last word.



You have just sown the seeds of your own verbal destruction: never, ever, tempt fate, even as a joke!

The wealthy become, and often remain wealthy because as the popular saying goes, they are different. For once, popular science is correct. It is a mental condition as much as anything else, has little to do with education, and also works in the traditional rags-to-riches way which many deride as impossible.

This is not a perfect parthian shot, just an observation of ships that have passed in my night.

;-)

Rob C
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad