Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: And the E-PL2 goes back

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: And the E-PL2 goes back

 
 
Bowser
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2011


"Bruce" wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>It's just not worth the money.



Translated:

Bowser cannot afford a Leica M9, or his skills are nowhere
near good
enough to exploit its amazing potential. Or, more likely,
both.

===========================================

Actual meaning:

I could, if I wanted to. But it's a terrible value given
that a 5D II produces better images and is a much more
capable tool.

Assume what you want, but if you can produce a better image
using an M9 than a 5D II, prove it.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2011
On 2/1/2011 6:22 AM, Bruce wrote:
> Bowser<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 1/31/2011 3:43 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>> Bowser<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No question, the M9 is absurd
>>>
>>>
>>> Absurd only to people who:
>>>
>>> (a) cannot afford it, and
>>> (b) have no understanding or experience of the supreme excellence of
>>> Leica M lenses.
>>>

>>
>> Overpriced. Nothing more than that.

>
>
> Translated:
> Bowser cannot afford a Leica M9.
>
>
>> And those nice lenses are wasted on a mediocre sensor.

>
>
> Translated:
> Bowser's skills are nowhere near good enough to exploit its amazing
> potential.
>
>
>> Nice jewelry, mediocre camera.

>
>
> Translated:
> Or, more likely, both.
>


For the record. The translator represents the proposition that those who
do not perform, bluster.


--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2011
On 2/1/2011 7:33 AM, Bowser wrote:
>
>
> "Bruce" wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> It's just not worth the money.

>
>
> Translated:
>
> Bowser cannot afford a Leica M9, or his skills are nowhere near good
> enough to exploit its amazing potential. Or, more likely, both.
>
> ===========================================
>
> Actual meaning:
>
> I could, if I wanted to. But it's a terrible value given that a 5D II
> produces better images and is a much more capable tool.
>
> Assume what you want, but if you can produce a better image using an M9
> than a 5D II, prove it.



Don't hold your breath.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2011
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:43:36 +0000, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >
: >No question, the M9 is absurd
:
:
: Absurd only to people who:
:
: (a) cannot afford it, and
: (b) have no understanding or experience of the supreme excellence of
: Leica M lenses.

Yeah, that's me. Guilty on both counts.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-06-2011
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 11:22:22 +0000, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:
: >On 1/31/2011 3:43 PM, Bruce wrote:
: >> Bowser<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >>>
: >>> No question, the M9 is absurd
: >>
: >>
: >> Absurd only to people who:
: >>
: >> (a) cannot afford it, and
: >> (b) have no understanding or experience of the supreme excellence of
: >> Leica M lenses.
: >>
: >
: >Overpriced. Nothing more than that.
:
:
: Translated:
: Bowser cannot afford a Leica M9.
:
:
: >And those nice lenses are wasted on a mediocre sensor.
:
:
: Translated:
: Bowser's skills are nowhere near good enough to exploit its amazing
: potential.

There's not a person alive who could reliably tell images taken with an M9 and
the best Leica lenses from those taken with a D700 or a 5D2 and the best Nikon
or Canon lenses.

: >Nice jewelry, mediocre camera.
:
:
: Translated:
: Or, more likely, both.

The M9 is like a Rolls-Royce. It's a fine product, but that's not why you buy
it. You buy it to prove that you can.

I'm not convinced that even Bruce entirely believes his fawning pean to the
M9. I think I detect a note of humorous sarcasm in his uncharacteristic use of
the terms "supreme excellence" and "amazing potential". ;^)

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-06-2011
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:04:56 -0500, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: [The Leica M9 is] just not worth the money. It's a niche product without
: even a decent tele option. What's the longest lens? 135mm?

It's a rangefinder camera, isn't it? Unless it has a magnifying viewfinder and
unusually accurate parallax correction, you probably wouldn't want to try to
use a lens longer than 135mm.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-06-2011
Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>The M9 is like a Rolls-Royce. It's a fine product, but that's not why you buy
>it. You buy it to prove that you can.
>
>I'm not convinced that even Bruce entirely believes his fawning pean to the
>M9. I think I detect a note of humorous sarcasm in his uncharacteristic use of
>the terms "supreme excellence" and "amazing potential". ;^)



I try to include some humour where I can, but the optical excellence
of Leica gear is not related to its value as jewellery.

It is true that there are many wealthy doctors, dentists etc. who see
owning a Leica as a badge of something or other, and go on to us it
take the usual execrable family snaps and record their upmarket
holidays in the most boring possible fashion. However, it is also
true that Leica M lenses achieve results that no other lenses can.

You can pay quite a lot of money for Canon L or Nikon pro glass and
the results are usually significantly better than those from
consumer-grade zoom lenses. But almost all Canon L and Nikon pro
lenses have the same weaknesses. Their main weakness is that, in
terms of resolution and contrast, they perform much less well wide
open than when stopped down. Most of these top grade Canon and Nikon
lenses achieve their best results only when stopped well down,
typically at f/8 or f/11, beyond which diffraction begins to affect
the image quality.

On the other hand, Leica M lenses tend to perform exceptionally well
wide open. I have the Leica 24mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M which gives its best
image quality in the centre at f/2.8 and across the whole frame at
f/4. Stop down beyond that, and there is nothing to be gained in
terms of image quality. The lens can be said to be diffraction
limited at f/4. The same is true of other Leica M lenses, with the
35mm and 50mm f/1.4 Summilux lenses being exceptional performers.
Their performance peaks at around f/4 beyond which they are
diffraction limited, but all of these lenses outperform anything that
Nikon and Canon can offer from wide open right down to f/11.

I suspect most people who read this forum don't have the slightest
idea just how good Leica glass is, and don't care. They know that
most lenses - regardless of brand - perform adequately at f/8 or f/11
so they select one of those apertures and use it almost all the time.
If they need to open up the lens to get the shot, they just accept
that its performance drops off dramatically as they go wider than f/8.

They aren't particularly interested in shooting wide open because that
restricts depth of field, and we musn't do that, must we? The poor
optical performance of their lenses when used wide open ensures that
they won't be doing that very often. No matter that they deny
themselves a whole range of creativity - they are perfectly happy with
their mediocre snapshots taken at f/8 or f/11.

So I am not in the least surprised when people criticise Leica as
expensive jewellery. They don't understand what Leica lenses can do,
because they believe they have no need to shoot wide open. They
wouldn't ever get the best out of Leica glass because they would
almost always shoot at f/8 or f/11, so they would have wasted their
money.

So Leica is not for people who take mediocre snapshots. They may as
well buy cheap Cosina, Sigma, Vivitar (present day) and Quantaray
glass and shoot at f/8 or f/11. Or spend some more money on better
Canon and Nikon lenses to show off to their friends. Yes, there is a
lot of snobbery even at this low level of ability.

Of course the people who buy Leica as jewellery also tend to take
mediocre snapshots ... but there are also those who recognise what
Leica's optical qualities can do for their photography, and use those
qualities to the full. Not that people who are happy with their
consumer-grade gear would ever know the difference.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-06-2011
Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Robert Coe
>says...
>> It's a rangefinder camera, isn't it? Unless it has a magnifying viewfinder and
>> unusually accurate parallax correction, you probably wouldn't want to try to
>> use a lens longer than 135mm.

>
>But... in the era of EVIL cameras why do rangefinder cameras still
>exist? Why would the M9 benefit from not having live preview (and a
>high-res screen) and contrast AF?



There is a very simple answer to that: the M9 would not benefit from
having live preview (and a high-res screen) and contrast AF.

People who use Leica M rangefinders want the simplest possible picture
taking device with a traditional direct view finder, bright line frame
lines and a traditional superimposed rangefinder spot that is
mechanically coupled to the focusing mechanism. The M9 is designed to
sell to that market, just like the M3 - M8 models before it. It is as
simple as that.

If you don't get it - and you obviously don't - then don't buy one.
But please don't criticise something that you can't understand.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bowser
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2011


"peter" wrote in message
news:4d47fe88$0$5646$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com...

On 2/1/2011 7:33 AM, Bowser wrote:
>
>
> "Bruce" wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> It's just not worth the money.

>
>
> Translated:
>
> Bowser cannot afford a Leica M9, or his skills are nowhere
> near good
> enough to exploit its amazing potential. Or, more likely,
> both.
>
> ===========================================
>
> Actual meaning:
>
> I could, if I wanted to. But it's a terrible value given
> that a 5D II
> produces better images and is a much more capable tool.
>
> Assume what you want, but if you can produce a better
> image using an M9
> than a 5D II, prove it.



Don't hold your breath.

==============================================

the lack of a response says it all...

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bowser
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2011


"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Robert Coe
says...
> It's a rangefinder camera, isn't it? Unless it has a
> magnifying viewfinder and
> unusually accurate parallax correction, you probably
> wouldn't want to try to
> use a lens longer than 135mm.


But... in the era of EVIL cameras why do rangefinder cameras
still
exist? Why would the M9 benefit from not having live preview
(and a
high-res screen) and contrast AF?

================================================== ==

Because then it wouldn't be jewelry.

Honestly, for some people the concept can work. But some of
us prefer to see exactly what will be in the frame without
parallax errors and guesswork focusing.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Windows Goes Back To The CLI—But Don’t Call It That! Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 5 10-22-2010 08:11 AM
Why after format it doesn't goes back? Alain's Studio Digital Photography 19 07-26-2007 12:24 AM
Java awt Dialog goes back in mac 10.4 Francis Abraham Java 1 05-17-2006 06:20 AM
When I open laptop lid i have display then it goes away then comes back Ed Computer Support 1 03-02-2006 07:26 PM
Clock goes back exactly one hour Kracka Computer Information 2 11-23-2003 01:13 PM



Advertisments