Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Leica M240 review  (Read 59983 times)
PierreVandevenne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 512


WWW
« Reply #40 on: April 19, 2013, 07:36:53 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm sorry this thread got lost – it could have remained interesting.

Hasn't Erwin Put essentially closed the threat anyway? :-)
Logged
llamallama
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #41 on: April 20, 2013, 06:50:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Amazing... and disappointing.

I have no Ph.D, have never been involved in leading edge research, and I'm not a professional photographer.

In my unqualified opinion, MarkD appears to be a quack. This is just my feeling, I don't have 3 years to prove this. You can if you want to, and share with us afterwards.

Logged
nutcracker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35



« Reply #42 on: April 22, 2013, 04:53:41 PM »
ReplyReply

He is a very very enthusiastic enthusiast. My reading of his article is that he declares himself thus, and does not seek to pretend otherwise.
He has not persuaded me to invest in the Leicas, any of them that have appealed to him at times, but he has persuaded me in another enthusiastic article to buy Alpa FPS. I have no regrets.

It is in the nature of enthusiasm that opinions alter with experience beyond initial pleasure.
Phrases that might be interpreted as implying intentional or reckless misinformation are misplaced on this generally very lively and informative site (bravo Michael and team) seem to me to be regrettable.
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713


« Reply #43 on: April 23, 2013, 12:44:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Phrases that might be interpreted as implying intentional or reckless misinformation are misplaced on this generally very lively and informative site (bravo Michael and team) seem to me to be regrettable.
English is not my native tongue. Can you rephrase that so that I may comprehend it?

-h
Logged
nutcracker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35



« Reply #44 on: April 23, 2013, 03:06:35 AM »
ReplyReply

The term "quack" means that a person is a fraud, dishonest.
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713


« Reply #45 on: April 23, 2013, 06:20:00 AM »
ReplyReply

The term "quack" means that a person is a fraud, dishonest.
So, basically you disliked that llamallama said that Mark appeared to be a quack?

Another option is to be honest, but wrong. I am sure that most homeopaths are honestly trying to improve peoples lives. I am also convinced that they don't know what they are doing.

-h
Logged
Dave (Isle of Skye)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1073


Don't mistake lack of talent for genius.


WWW
« Reply #46 on: April 23, 2013, 06:59:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Let me get this straight, the ‘off-topic’ aspect of this thread, appears to me to be saying, that because financially affluent ‘enthusiast photographers’, can and often will buy the newest and most expensive top-end camera kit, on what can appear to be a whim to the rest of us, that their ownership of it, can bear no relationship to their abilities or skills at being able to fully and correctly evaluate it. Because having made their money elsewhere and not through hard work as a pro photographer, they are nothing more than rich boys playing with expensive toys, or in other words, all the gear, but no idea...?

I don’t know if this assumption is driven by sour grapes from those that cannot afford such top-end kit, or if this is an entirely valid point of view in some instances, but either way, right or wrong, all I can say is this, how else are we going to receive (for free), such reviews of top-end kit as soon if not before it is released and that most of us can only ever dream of owning, that are completely unbiased by the need to retain advertising revenues, or that give a hoot what the manufactures think?

Mark has given us his ‘gut instinct’ review of the new Leica and I thank him for that and in time I am sure other reviewers will widen out the debate, but you simply cannot dismiss what Mark is saying, purely on the assumption that just because he can easily afford the new Leica and all the lenses to go with it, that his review is automatically flawed as a result.

Photography is an art and art comes from the heart, not through a comparison of the minutiae contained within data sheets, and I think Mark has given us just that in his review and once again I thank him for that.

Dave
« Last Edit: April 23, 2013, 07:13:23 AM by Dave (Isle of Skye) » Logged

Fine Art Photography on the Misty Isle of Skye
http://www.photography.info
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #47 on: April 23, 2013, 08:25:02 AM »
ReplyReply

new Leica and all the lenses to go with it, that his review is automatically flawed as a result.

Photography is an art and art comes from the heart, not through a comparison of the minutiae contained within data sheets, and I think Mark has given us just that in his review and once again I thank him for that.

Dave



That's the trouble, Dave; we aren't speaking here about art, we're speaking about photographic exotica which has precious little bearing on photographic art but heaps to do with ability to buy such exotica.

Would I if I could? Now, frankly, no. I never did buy M cameras when they were easily deductible, they never served the purpose of accuracy, and tripod work with such bodies smacks of contradiction. Live view isn't what such cameras are basically about.

Regarding the value of the writer's opinion: no less and no more than anyone else's opinion. That's what drives the market: opinion and ability to buy into it (the market) at whichever level one can. Why expect more? Camera manufacture is about shifting units, not creating art. That's for photographers to worry about.

Rob C
Logged

JohnBrew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 763


WWW
« Reply #48 on: April 23, 2013, 11:41:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Well stated, Rob.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8011


WWW
« Reply #49 on: April 24, 2013, 02:01:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

On the other hand, it is up to anyone to use the tools they choose in the way that suits their way of working best. Leica is said to make some of the best lenses, and to really make use of a fine lens takes meticulous work, including tripod and live view at actual pixels for exact focusing.

Best regards
Erik



That's the trouble, Dave; we aren't speaking here about art, we're speaking about photographic exotica which has precious little bearing on photographic art but heaps to do with ability to buy such exotica.

Would I if I could? Now, frankly, no. I never did buy M cameras when they were easily deductible, they never served the purpose of accuracy, and tripod work with such bodies smacks of contradiction. Live view isn't what such cameras are basically about.

Regarding the value of the writer's opinion: no less and no more than anyone else's opinion. That's what drives the market: opinion and ability to buy into it (the market) at whichever level one can. Why expect more? Camera manufacture is about shifting units, not creating art. That's for photographers to worry about.

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #50 on: April 24, 2013, 03:12:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I couldn't agree with you more, Erik.

But there's a huge fly in that ointment: you make photographs of life as it happens or you arrange it, and life doesn't hang about waiting. You have to be ready to grab it as it happens, and all the theoretical fantasy about depth of field, optimum stop for a specific lens, perfect focus, ETTR etc, etc. goes well into second place compared with actually catching the image if/as it presents itself to you. The reality is that you are forced to use the stop that gives the depth you need, quite regardless of any list of tables provided by whichever grading department or purveyor of comparative values! This site is full of people writing endlessly about the number of pixels their camera simply must have before they can even think of using it; a lens without built-in stabilisation in beyond contempt and if their lens isn't equipped with the letter G then it just can't produce a worthwhile image; what a load of utter bullshit, a screen to mask the reality that these writers never produce a single, worthwhile image all their days... possibly they produce no kind of image, ever.

If you have time to consider all of the niceties, check and triple-check everythng, then I humbly suggest that you should be using a monorail for whatever incredibly demanding work you have embarked upon. (I don't mean 'you' as in you, personally, by the way!)

Perfect theoretical technique is just that: theoretical. I knew most of the technical rules as well as anyone else when I was working; what I actually did was forget most of them and just produce images that earned my keep. And that's the problem I always have with these writers of how-to: its all theory and miles away from practical life as most snappers find and live it. I sometimes find myself wondering how those photographic pioneers and masters of yesteryear ever managed to expose a single sheet or roll of anything, never mind make the images that have shaped our history, sell for thousands of bucks; how perverse and inconvenient of them.

Rob C
Logged

OldRoy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 437


WWW
« Reply #51 on: April 24, 2013, 03:44:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Rob C wrote:
"you make photographs of life as it happens or you arrange it, and life doesn't hang about waiting. You have to be ready to grab it as it happens, and all the theoretical fantasy about depth of field, optimum stop for a specific lens, perfect focus, ETTR etc, etc. goes well into second place compared with actually catching the image if/as it presents itself to you"
This is nicely put. At very least it describes the position I've arrived at in relation to my own modest efforts.
 
As to the original article in question, Erwin Puts' comments on Mark Dubovoy's successive reviews of these two Leica products (neither of which I've had more than the briefest urge to acquire, and can't realistically afford anyway) highlight absurd contradictions which amount to something worse than diminishing enthusiasm: precisely what, I'm not sure. As someone else has already observed, trumpeting one's qualifications by way of emphasis is a counter-productive strategy in this case and only serves to amplify the contradictions.

Roy
Logged
Riccardo
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #52 on: April 24, 2013, 04:35:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Well said, Rob!
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8011


WWW
« Reply #53 on: April 24, 2013, 04:39:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Yes, I can agree with that. But we have different way of shooting. I do also some street shooting, but it mostly turns out crap, because that is not what I am good at. Now, the stuff I am good at may still turn out crap, anyway.

For me it is just that it beats my senses why anyone would invest 10-20 kUSD in camera and lenses and throw away most of the quality.

Best regards
Erik


I couldn't agree with you more, Erik.

But there's a huge fly in that ointment: you make photographs of life as it happens or you arrange it, and life doesn't hang about waiting. You have to be ready to grab it as it happens, and all the theoretical fantasy about depth of field, optimum stop for a specific lens, perfect focus, ETTR etc, etc. goes well into second place compared with actually catching the image if/as it presents itself to you. The reality is that you are forced to use the stop that gives the depth you need, quite regardless of any list of tables provided by whichever grading department or purveyor of comparative values! This site is full of people writing endlessly about the number of pixels their camera simply must have before they can even think of using it; a lens without built-in stabilisation in beyond contempt and if their lens isn't equipped with the letter G then it just can't produce a worthwhile image; what a load of utter bullshit, a screen to mask the reality that these writers never produce a single, worthwhile image all their days... possibly they produce no kind of image, ever.

If you have time to consider all of the niceties, check and triple-check everythng, then I humbly suggest that you should be using a monorail for whatever incredibly demanding work you have embarked upon. (I don't mean 'you' as in you, personally, by the way!)

Perfect theoretical technique is just that: theoretical. I knew most of the technical rules as well as anyone else when I was working; what I actually did was forget most of them and just produce images that earned my keep. And that's the problem I always have with these writers of how-to: its all theory and miles away from practical life as most snappers find and live it. I sometimes find myself wondering how those photographic pioneers and masters of yesteryear ever managed to expose a single sheet or roll of anything, never mind make the images that have shaped our history, sell for thousands of bucks; how perverse and inconvenient of them.

Rob C
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8011


WWW
« Reply #54 on: April 24, 2013, 04:48:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I reread Mark Dubovoys article a few times and I don't really understand the reactions. Mark likes it, that's OK. He makes some statements that may be disputed. I have found quite a few errors in Erwin Puts articles, too.

One of the issues I have with these tests are that that they are enthusiast's tests.

Some more balanced tests:

Tim Ashley writes a lot of good stuff and puts his experience in perspective and even has actual images at actual size to download.

Lloyd Chambers has some good stuff on the Leica but his site is a pay site.

Best regards
Erik


Rob C wrote:
"you make photographs of life as it happens or you arrange it, and life doesn't hang about waiting. You have to be ready to grab it as it happens, and all the theoretical fantasy about depth of field, optimum stop for a specific lens, perfect focus, ETTR etc, etc. goes well into second place compared with actually catching the image if/as it presents itself to you"
This is nicely put. At very least it describes the position I've arrived at in relation to my own modest efforts.
 
As to the original article in question, Erwin Puts' comments on Mark Dubovoy's successive reviews of these two Leica products (neither of which I've had more than the briefest urge to acquire, and can't realistically afford anyway) highlight absurd contradictions which amount to something worse than diminishing enthusiasm: precisely what, I'm not sure. As someone else has already observed, trumpeting one's qualifications by way of emphasis is a counter-productive strategy in this case and only serves to amplify the contradictions.

Roy
« Last Edit: April 24, 2013, 08:19:34 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713


« Reply #55 on: April 24, 2013, 06:51:00 AM »
ReplyReply

I think that enthusiasm is what drives many of the positive human activities. Love, art, ... Without enthusiasm we would all possibly be aimless zombies (or worse, easily controlled drones).

With that said, the initial enthusiasm that we all have felt over a relationship, a new idea or a gizmo can, and often do change over time as we get to see things from many angles. I am amazed at those who are capable of falling in love with a new person several times a year, as enthusiastic every time.

This is my main gripe with "enthusiasm-based" reviews. Not that the people writing them are bad people or that they should stop writing them. But that their enthusiasm seems to tell me even less about the inherent "qualities" of a product or their own long-term satisfaction with the product than incomprehensible DXO-scores. Except possibly feeling well after reading an enthusiastic review, what purpose does it have?

-h
Logged
wildlightphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 671


« Reply #56 on: April 24, 2013, 09:05:48 AM »
ReplyReply

... it is up to anyone to use the tools they choose in the way that suits their way of working best. Leica is said to make some of the best lenses, and to really make use of a fine lens takes meticulous work, including tripod and live view at actual pixels for exact focusing.

One need not extract every last detail from the finest lenses 100% of the time.  I like using good lenses because there are occasions where I want to record the most detail I can in an image.  There are also occasions where the detail, gradation, DR, bokeh etc. truly don't matter.  If I could predict with perfect accuracy when I will or will not want technical perfection I can use old crap lenses when I don't need the technical quality, leaving the good stuff safely locked up in their climate-controlled display cases (ha!) and conversely leave the bulk and weight of the old lenses in the truck when maximum image quality is required.

Being of limited means and even more limited storage space I'd rather purchase, carry, maintain and store a single set of lenses; having found that it's much easier to eliminate unwanted detail than to add it where the lens couldn't record it, I'll favor the better lenses even if it means I suffer the occasional extreme overkill of using an apo asherical summicron to photograph my cat.

This site is full of people writing endlessly about the number of pixels their camera simply must have before they can even think of using it; a lens without built-in stabilisation in beyond contempt and if their lens isn't equipped with the letter G then it just can't produce a worthwhile image; what a load of utter bullshit, a screen to mask the reality that these writers never produce a single, worthwhile image all their days... possibly they produce no kind of image, ever.

It's the psycology that Rob C describes here combined with the barely-disguised remnants of my adolescent rebellion that drive me to use the oldest, most feature-unladen equipment I can.  I'm using an 8-year-old digital SLR, manual-focus lenses, manual EVERYTHING.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #57 on: April 24, 2013, 09:14:27 AM »
ReplyReply

It's the psycology that Rob C describes here combined with the barely-disguised remnants of my adolescent rebellion that drive me to use the oldest, most feature-unladen equipment I can.  I'm using an 8-year-old digital SLR, manual-focus lenses, manual EVERYTHING.



My standard way of setting up a digital camera, too, but don't forget one important factor: sensors and associated in-camera processing seem to have improved quite a lot. I'm convinced that my D700 gives me more pleasing straight colour than does my older D200, using the same optics - the only ones I have.

Rob C
Logged

wildlightphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 671


« Reply #58 on: April 24, 2013, 09:58:15 AM »
ReplyReply

...  don't forget one important factor: sensors and associated in-camera processing seem to have improved quite a lot. I'm convinced that my D700 gives me more pleasing straight colour than does my older D200, using the same optics - the only ones I have.

Start with the best and the improvements in the later models are small.  Newer cameras haven't approached the DMR's colors so there's no need to 'upgrade' every few years.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8011


WWW
« Reply #59 on: April 24, 2013, 10:03:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Which later model of the DMR do you mean?

Best regards
Erik

Start with the best and the improvements in the later models are small.  Newer cameras haven't approached the DMR's colors so there's no need to 'upgrade' every few years.
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad