Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: The M9 for landscape  (Read 17941 times)
James R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260


« Reply #60 on: June 28, 2010, 02:08:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
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

And with that mixed metaphor, I will give you the last word Rob.  Besides, you will take it anyways.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #61 on: June 28, 2010, 02:16:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: James R
And with that mixed metaphor, I will give you the last word Rob.  Besides, you will take it anyways.



It's the weather....

;-(

Rob C
Logged

douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


« Reply #62 on: June 28, 2010, 05:52:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Don Libby
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

I've used the M9 handheld, on a monopod and on my primary tripod and in each case the image file is stunning.  Is it better than medium format? No.  Do I like it better than the files the 1DsIII produce?  Yes.  Again the answers depend on how exact the captures were taken.

  Interesting.  FWIW, my A900's file size is around 38,500kb per raw.  I would have thought the Phase One's was bigger.
Logged
ndevlin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 504



WWW
« Reply #63 on: June 28, 2010, 07:16:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: douglasf13
Interesting.  FWIW, my A900's file size is around 38,500kb per raw.  I would have thought the Phase One's was bigger.

I don't think you can read diddly into these numbers -- I can see no difference between the compressed Raw and Uncompressed Raw files on the M9. I suspect that file size varies largely on the basis of the cameras' proprietary RAW compression capabilities.

That said, the M9 is supposedly a true 14 bit camera, same as the D3x in 14 bit mode, which should make some difference to both file size and quality.

- N.
Logged

Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera
tnargs
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38

Shoot me, I'm not the piano player


« Reply #64 on: June 29, 2010, 07:38:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: telyt
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.
It doesn't matter to me at all what anyone prefers. Preference, like taste, is personal, and I respect that in every way.

But the game is on when people make claims of objective superiority. These claims are fair game. The person making the claim should do some research first, or measure it, or have properly controlled (double blind or a reasonable approximation thereof) assessments made to confirm it. Like Rob C said in this thread, "folks tend to see what they want to see", which is fine, until they claim that what they see is objectively true.

Mr Perkins made two significant objective claims:
1. the M9 and its lenses are significantly lighter than dslr kit. Well, I questioned that by proposing an equivalent dslr kit that weighs less.
2. the M9 kit's images have a 'luscious' quality, a special look, and a particular level of 'beauty'. This is an objective claim, that the lenses themselves and the images in the camera have these qualities. I took the bait and asked the forum if these claims are really true, objectively true, when producing realistic prints with a similar-weight, good quality dslr kit.
 
Arg
Logged

“Symbolism exists to adorn and enrich, not to create an artificial sense of profundity.” ― Stephen King
tnargs
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38

Shoot me, I'm not the piano player


« Reply #65 on: June 29, 2010, 07:50:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: James R
...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.  ...
Actually Mr Perkins made a claim, that images from his M9 kit have special attributes, and I only asked that it be demonstrated objectively. That fact that I suggested a 550D for the comparison (purely because it weighs less and has the same 18MP) does not mean I am the one making the claim.
 
Logged

“Symbolism exists to adorn and enrich, not to create an artificial sense of profundity.” ― Stephen King
larsrc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 173


WWW
« Reply #66 on: June 29, 2010, 08:09:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
I giggle quietly - okay, sort of sotto voce, if you will - when I read about these awful, time-comsumig problems with starting up a dslr before it can shoot.  I never experience any such thing: I have but one af lens which is seldom used and the rest are the latest manuals. I have set the two bodies to as close to manual as dammit and nothing could be simpler in the field. Menu? What menu? The matrix metering is very accurate, you can either check your screen for the highlight sparkle or look at a histogram, exactly what I suppose the Leica offers; you can choose to do neither and just trust the meter. (One must learn to forget all about those siren bells, whistles and buttons; they're for the camera club smoking room.)

You want more simple?

Rob C

I don't know what those "awful, time-consuming problems with starting up a dslr" would be. Mine is just on all the time, it doesn't eat any battery when sleeping, so why turn it off? All important settings are changable with a button + dial, no need to go into menus. I hardly ever have to go outside Aperture Priority and Manual modes (not shooting any sports). Yes, there's a lot of features that I never use and that I don't really think belongs on the camera, but they don't get in the way. As you say, one must learn to forget about all the bells & whistles. Goes for any camera except a Holga, which has none.

-Lars
Logged

James R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260


« Reply #67 on: June 29, 2010, 10:38:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tnargs
It doesn't matter to me at all what anyone prefers. Preference, like taste, is personal, and I respect that in every way.

But the game is on when people make claims of objective superiority. These claims are fair game. The person making the claim should do some research first, or measure it, or have properly controlled (double blind or a reasonable approximation thereof) assessments made to confirm it. Like Rob C said in this thread, "folks tend to see what they want to see", which is fine, until they claim that what they see is objectively true.

Mr Perkins made two significant objective claims:
1. the M9 and its lenses are significantly lighter than dslr kit. Well, I questioned that by proposing an equivalent dslr kit that weighs less.
2. the M9 kit's images have a 'luscious' quality, a special look, and a particular level of 'beauty'. This is an objective claim, that the lenses themselves and the images in the camera have these qualities. I took the bait and asked the forum if these claims are really true, objectively true, when producing realistic prints with a similar-weight, good quality dslr kit.
 
Arg

I believe what he said was, "What I was working with now was a camera that is..."  (emphasis added by me), which compares his new Leica kit to his previous kit.  He is not saying it is the lighter than every DSLR.  I believe you are trying too hard to discredit him.  

"Luscious" and "beauty" are subjective terms and he uses them to describe the feeling he gets from Leica images. He wasn't baiting anybody, just expressing his opinion--OPINION.  Why would he care to test your "opinion."  His opinion is based on his body of work.  Maybe you need to buy an M9 and see if your opinions are correct.  If they are, then we have nothing more than a difference of opinion.  A long way to get nowhere.  



Logged
dseelig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 439


« Reply #68 on: June 29, 2010, 04:52:15 PM »
ReplyReply

For me to carry two canon 5d mk 11 and a 24, 35 f1.4 and a 50 and 85 f1.2 lenses and 2 M9s a 24 35 50 and 75 luxes well. Between the size and weight well I do not want to carry the canon stuff. That is a real comparison not a bunch of f 2.8 lenses. The leica lenses will smoke the canon ones and the autofocus in low light on the 5d does not work that well. If I go to a1ds mk111 well that would be much heavier. I own both systems and love canons as well for certain work I have the Canon 35 and 50 and 85 lenses I am talking about I owned the older 24 1.4 eos. I will own the 24 1.4 vr 11 sooner or later. But for me the canons are for some assignment work the leica for my own work.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2010, 04:54:54 PM by dseelig » Logged
tnargs
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38

Shoot me, I'm not the piano player


« Reply #69 on: June 30, 2010, 08:14:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: James R
I believe what he said was, "What I was working with now was a camera that is..."  (emphasis added by me), which compares his new Leica kit to his previous kit.  He is not saying it is the lighter than every DSLR.  I believe you are trying too hard to discredit him.  

"Luscious" and "beauty" are subjective terms and he uses them to describe the feeling he gets from Leica images. He wasn't baiting anybody, just expressing his opinion--OPINION.  Why would he care to test your "opinion."  His opinion is based on his body of work.  Maybe you need to buy an M9 and see if your opinions are correct.  If they are, then we have nothing more than a difference of opinion.  A long way to get nowhere.
...funny old world.... author writes an article, makes a couple of claims...... someone suggests the claims can be objectively checked..... others respond with mostly negativity.... gently chiding the objectivist.... who now questions himself, maybe he lacks artistry or a 'good eye'...? (He certainly lacks the resources....)

Maybe this is not a good forum for myth-busting....   ....it once was though, read the old cognitive dissonance article on LL.... "The dissonance thus lay in the fact that I had the audacity to claim that a mere fixed lens digicam could actually be a useable alternative to an interchangeable lens DSLR. The fact that this particular camera, the Sony, had some image characteristics that were inferior when judged at relatively large enlargement sizes was seized on as proof that I must be wrong." ... I think LL has also published the odd article that it was hard to distinguish prints from certain famous cameras from certain cheapie cameras...?

Is there a wealthy engineer    in the house? With a bit of time to spare?       A bit dangerous though.... we might learn something counter-intuitive.....

Testing a Leica 'by eye' is hopeless.... like road testing a Ferrari.... "I took it commuting at 60km/h and I was stunned, I was shocked.... I could feel the latent power coursing through my veins... worth every penny to have that feeling". Which is fine... just subjective impressions... not generated by the car, rather triggered by its presence.... Then they make the mistake: "this car is amazing!".....

OK I give up.... the gracious loser..... the silent few who might agree need no more from me....  
Logged

“Symbolism exists to adorn and enrich, not to create an artificial sense of profundity.” ― Stephen King
wildlightphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 610


« Reply #70 on: June 30, 2010, 09:57:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tnargs
OK I give up.... the gracious loser.....

Thank you, but that's not very gracious.
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #71 on: June 30, 2010, 12:16:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Let me put it in another way about the M.

In a world where they think we have to have some technical assistance to go to pee, where the most advanced technology is given to us almost for free,
where the sexy is the siliconed and the agencies are finding their ressources in Flickr for free, where the top models are crying under the strong lightnings
and the AD are playing with their I.PAD while the photographer and tech are trying to make all those devices work properlly.
A world where the adventurers are risking their lifes with the GPS and the I.phone connected to Mayday radio.

Simplicity, pureness and minimalism are indeed a luxury, and as any luxury, it is expensive.

This M puts the photographer on chalenge and deserves respect. IMO.
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #72 on: June 30, 2010, 02:38:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
Let me put it in another way about the M.

In a world where they think we have to have some technical assistance to go to pee, where the most advanced technology is given to us almost for free,
where the sexy is the siliconed and the agencies are finding their ressources in Flickr for free, where the top models are crying under the strong lightnings
and the AD are playing with their I.PAD while the photographer and tech are trying to make all those devices work properlly.
A world where the adventurers are risking their lifes with the GPS and the I.phone connected to Mayday radio.

Simplicity, pureness and minimalism are indeed a luxury, and as any luxury, it is expensive.

This M puts the photographer on chalenge and deserves respect. IMO.

Or as I said elsewhere, Leica has managed to make lack of features seem desirable. No mean feat.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #73 on: June 30, 2010, 03:43:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
Or as I said elsewhere, Leica has managed to make lack of features seem desirable. No mean feat.



That might be a little harsh, feppe, it's more that it is an object of desire per se.

If you looked at the video that Michael published here of his visit to the Leica factory, you may remember the interview with the boffin, an M9 sitting the while on the table, moved this way and that, and I can tell you, I never owned a Leica but I couldn't get my eyes off the beautiful thing: it was like seeing a beautiful woman at a party and wondering how in hell you can ask her to pose for you when you know she isn't a model, doesn't want to be and would possibly scream blue murder if you asked. Not to scream, to model, I mean.

It transcends the practical; it isn't even just junk jewellery, it has something quite unique in the world of cameras. I have never lusted after a contemporary Hasselblad at several times the price of the little M9; no, it is the damn thing itself; it is its own raison d'ętre and not a lot of things attain that status in my eyes.

Rob C
« Last Edit: June 30, 2010, 03:44:05 PM by Rob C » Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #74 on: July 01, 2010, 04:16:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
That might be a little harsh, feppe, it's more that it is an object of desire per se.

If you looked at the video that Michael published here of his visit to the Leica factory, you may remember the interview with the boffin, an M9 sitting the while on the table, moved this way and that, and I can tell you, I never owned a Leica but I couldn't get my eyes off the beautiful thing: it was like seeing a beautiful woman at a party and wondering how in hell you can ask her to pose for you when you know she isn't a model, doesn't want to be and would possibly scream blue murder if you asked. Not to scream, to model, I mean.

It transcends the practical; it isn't even just junk jewellery, it has something quite unique in the world of cameras. I have never lusted after a contemporary Hasselblad at several times the price of the little M9; no, it is the damn thing itself; it is its own raison d'ętre and not a lot of things attain that status in my eyes.

Rob C

Fortunately I'm impervious to such lust for material things - unless we're talking about Harleys...
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #75 on: July 01, 2010, 06:09:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
Fortunately I'm impervious to such lust for material things - unless we're talking about Harleys...
See?

So you can understand the all process then. It is just a question of where you put your unrational desire(s) in.

Under the window of my studio, there is a areographer that paints harleys, and not far away, a Harley garage.
I've never seen people spending so much money, time and reparations with their bikes.
And the bloody noise they do when I'm concentrating in my tasks is just fun...

Easy rider myth is exactly the same as the red dot myth.

Both are the essence of something.
Logged
ndevlin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 504



WWW
« Reply #76 on: July 01, 2010, 07:45:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
Or as I said elsewhere, Leica has managed to make lack of features seem desirable. No mean feat.

Precisely. And seriously. If (when)  photography is a function, performed for the sole end of producing a particular image, a whiz-bang dslr is usually better.  If (when) photography is an end in itself - a process with an intended outcome but undertaken in part for its own sake - the simplicity and mechanical purity/quality of the Leica makes it better for some of us.

The Harley analogy is apt. if your goal is transport from A to B, the Harley is a lousy answer for myriad reasons (cost, comfort, performance, lack of cargo space, noise).  But if your goal is to ride then, for many, doing it with a Harley is part of the essence of the experience.

Those of us who feel this way about Leicas are not deluding ourselves.  There are a lot of other things I would do with the money I spend on the red dot if I weren't actually getting something out of it. I have sufficient money to afford a Leica, but not mindlessly unlimited resources.  It is a serious choice and commitment. It's also not just about what some call 'psychological compensators', either.  I sold my M8 at great loss because I felt it was inadequate as a photographic tool.

I would also never rely on a Leica M to make a living as any sort of commercial shooter (which I have done). That would just be stupid. I would own a whiz-bang DSLR (several of them) and maybe a MFSLR.  Like James, I would have the Leica too, if I could afford it, because it would allow me to cook something special every now and again.  But mostly I would work with sufficiently sharp zooms on cameras that could get them in focus on whatever I was being paid to put in front of my camera.

All that said, there is (thankfully) a phalanx of rich nobs who think the most expensive camera must be best, and can afford it. These blessed folk keep Leica alive (any contribute to the well being of Phase and other companies as well) for the benefit of those of us who have somewhat more considered reasons for owning these very special tools.  

Photography is both an art and a science. The M Leicas are good at the science (if not always the best) and rather strong on the art in the right hands.

If you don't agree, that's cool. If you don't agree because you have a different vision of the art that you can articulate, then I'm listening, because that's interesting.  If you disagree because you don't agree on the measurement of the art part, then I just don't care. And I mean that in a nice way. If the paintings in this room of the gallery don't move you, walk to the next.

Cheers,

- N.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2010, 07:48:13 AM by ndevlin » Logged

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

Posts: 12215


« Reply #77 on: July 01, 2010, 08:42:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
Fortunately I'm impervious to such lust for material things - unless we're talking about Harleys...



Ah... so there's a hint of the wish for self-destruction lurking behind that considered, sober facade!

But I can understand that too well too; I used to have a 500mm cat lens and the number of times I used it is represented by the very few shots in my website where its use is obvious.

And you know what? It lay unused for years and then I traded it in for something I can no longer remember (breaking, retroactively, my new rule of selling nothing!) and guess what: I am currently looking around the web with the vague idea of getting another one. I sold the first one because it was mine in the days when ordinary people were not allowed CB radio, possession of which, of itself, would have caused customs problems on arrival at some of the airports we visited (in Cyprus, my wife was pulled into an office and questioned for some time because her name was the same as somebody on a 'wanted' list, despite the fact that we had been met at the airport by a representative of the Cypriot Tourist Board), and how could you make yourself heard by some poor girl standing several hundred feet away from you in the surf if not via some form of radio? The lens vignetted like crazy and the definition was never really convincing for anything other than effect shots. And yet, I'm teetering on the verge of getting one again. It isn't the missing perfection, it's probably because of the effect of those bright doughnuts, the compression and not a lot else.

So yes, trifling RF failings can always be accommodated where there is the will!

Rob C
Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #78 on: July 01, 2010, 09:26:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
See?

So you can understand the all process then. It is just a question of where you put your unrational desire(s) in.

Under the window of my studio, there is a areographer that paints harleys, and not far away, a Harley garage.
I've never seen people spending so much money, time and reparations with their bikes.
And the bloody noise they do when I'm concentrating in my tasks is just fun...

Easy rider myth is exactly the same as the red dot myth.

Both are the essence of something.

Agreed to a certain extent. The main difference is that I don't go around posting on motorcycle forums how my Harley goes from 0-100kmh in 3.7 seconds, to 160kmh in first gear, or has 100 more horsepower than the Japanese bikes which sound more like sewing machines than motorcycles.

In other words, I know that Harleys are inferior to much cheaper Japanese bikes on many objective metrics, but choose to ride one because it is the only true bike there is for me (although Indian and Triumph are close as well). Many Leica owners, on the other hand, seem to claim superiority on objective metrics where they aren't.
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #79 on: July 01, 2010, 09:43:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
Agreed to a certain extent. The main difference is that I don't go around posting on motorcycle forums how my Harley goes from 0-100kmh in 3.7 seconds, to 160kmh in first gear, or has 100 more horsepower than the Japanese bikes which sound more like sewing machines than motorcycles.

In other words, I know that Harleys are inferior to much cheaper Japanese bikes on many objective metrics, but choose to ride one because it is the only true bike there is for me (although Indian and Triumph are close as well). Many Leica owners, on the other hand, seem to claim superiority on objective metrics where they aren't.
Feppe, I add an important name on your list: Ducati.

[attachment=22886:robert_l...nce__46_.jpg]
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad