Leica Digilux 2: PC World labtest discovers detachable lens hood...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ThomasH, Jun 8, 2004.

  1. ThomasH

    ThomasH Guest

    Aren't you astonished how massive computer (or personal
    computing) magazines suddenly deal with digital cameras??

    I could enlist here a variety of recent "tests" and "reports"
    with a different level of embarrassment to these self proclaimed
    "photography experts," but probably this message about the $1800
    Leica Digilux 2 hits the spot for the "Grand Moron Super Award":

    The June 2004 edition of PC World on page 141 notifies its
    readers that the Digilux 2 has been added to the "Top 100"
    ranklist after it was tested by the PC World lab. PC World
    states:

    "At $1850 the Leica Digilux 2 is one of the most expensive
    cameras we've tested. However it has a unique bounce flash
    and a detachable lens hood."

    End of message. Wooow, a detachable lens hood. Why or why do
    we pay $400-900 for these inferior Canons, Nikons, Olympuses
    or Minoltas, when for mere $1800 we can *also* get the one of
    a kind detachable lens hood, a marvel of technology!

    (sarcasm off, now serious):
    Well, I have send a 3rd protest letter to the editors of both
    PC World and PC Magazine. This time its a divorce time for me.
    I am canceling the subscriptions. They neglect severely computer
    technology and try to become would-like-to-be Photo Magazines
    with computers.

    Of course, as long enough people will accept this crap and keep
    purchase their papers, they will keep printing their photography
    "tests" and rank lists of cameras. "Ease of use Very Good, Battery
    life fair, 88 points." I will rather stick with these old
    fashioned photo magazines. Maybe their writers still know more
    about photography? What do you think, do they? Or will American
    Photographer begin soon to test processors and graphic cards?

    Thomas
     
    ThomasH, Jun 8, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ThomasH

    Bill Crocker Guest

    Yes, I saw that also. I can't believe someone actually gets paid to write
    such trash!

    Bill Crocker


    "ThomasH" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Aren't you astonished how massive computer (or personal
    > computing) magazines suddenly deal with digital cameras??
    >
    > I could enlist here a variety of recent "tests" and "reports"
    > with a different level of embarrassment to these self proclaimed
    > "photography experts," but probably this message about the $1800
    > Leica Digilux 2 hits the spot for the "Grand Moron Super Award":
    >
    > The June 2004 edition of PC World on page 141 notifies its
    > readers that the Digilux 2 has been added to the "Top 100"
    > ranklist after it was tested by the PC World lab. PC World
    > states:
    >
    > "At $1850 the Leica Digilux 2 is one of the most expensive
    > cameras we've tested. However it has a unique bounce flash
    > and a detachable lens hood."
    >
    > End of message. Wooow, a detachable lens hood. Why or why do
    > we pay $400-900 for these inferior Canons, Nikons, Olympuses
    > or Minoltas, when for mere $1800 we can *also* get the one of
    > a kind detachable lens hood, a marvel of technology!
    >
    > (sarcasm off, now serious):
    > Well, I have send a 3rd protest letter to the editors of both
    > PC World and PC Magazine. This time its a divorce time for me.
    > I am canceling the subscriptions. They neglect severely computer
    > technology and try to become would-like-to-be Photo Magazines
    > with computers.
    >
    > Of course, as long enough people will accept this crap and keep
    > purchase their papers, they will keep printing their photography
    > "tests" and rank lists of cameras. "Ease of use Very Good, Battery
    > life fair, 88 points." I will rather stick with these old
    > fashioned photo magazines. Maybe their writers still know more
    > about photography? What do you think, do they? Or will American
    > Photographer begin soon to test processors and graphic cards?
    >
    > Thomas
     
    Bill Crocker, Jun 8, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ThomasH

    ArtKramr Guest

    >Subject: Leica Digilux 2: PC World labtest discovers detachable lens hood...
    >From: ThomasH
    >Date: 6/7/04 5:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time
    >Message-id: <>
    >
    >Aren't you astonished how massive computer (or personal
    >computing) magazines suddenly deal with digital cameras??
    >
    >I could enlist here a variety of recent "tests" and "reports"
    >with a different level of embarrassment to these self proclaimed
    >"photography experts," but probably this message about the $1800
    >Leica Digilux 2 hits the spot for the "Grand Moron Super Award":
    >
    >The June 2004 edition of PC World on page 141 notifies its
    >readers that the Digilux 2 has been added to the "Top 100"
    >ranklist after it was tested by the PC World lab. PC World
    >states:
    >
    > "At $1850 the Leica Digilux 2 is one of the most expensive
    > cameras we've tested. However it has a unique bounce flash
    > and a detachable lens hood."
    >
    >End of message. Wooow, a detachable lens hood. Why or why do
    >we pay $400-900 for these inferior Canons, Nikons, Olympuses
    >or Minoltas, when for mere $1800 we can *also* get the one of
    >a kind detachable lens hood, a marvel of technology!
    >
    >(sarcasm off, now serious):
    >Well, I have send a 3rd protest letter to the editors of both
    >PC World and PC Magazine. This time its a divorce time for me.
    >I am canceling the subscriptions. They neglect severely computer
    >technology and try to become would-like-to-be Photo Magazines
    >with computers.
    >
    >Of course, as long enough people will accept this crap and keep
    >purchase their papers, they will keep printing their photography
    >"tests" and rank lists of cameras. "Ease of use Very Good, Battery
    >life fair, 88 points." I will rather stick with these old
    >fashioned photo magazines. Maybe their writers still know more
    >about photography? What do you think, do they? Or will American
    >Photographer begin soon to test processors and graphic cards?
    >
    >Thomas
    >



    I think the last of the great photo magazines was Modern Photography. When they
    folded, it was all over.


    Arthur Kramer
    344th BG 494th BS
    England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
    Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
    http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
     
    ArtKramr, Jun 8, 2004
    #3
  4. ThomasH

    ArtKramr Guest

    >ubject: Re: Leica Digilux 2: PC World labtest discovers detachable lens
    >hood...
    >From: "Bill Crocker"
    >Date: 6/7/04 6:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time


    >Yes, I saw that also. I can't believe someone actually gets paid to write
    >such trash!
    >
    >Bill Crocker


    But they don't get paid much. They do get perks form the makers; free cameras
    etc.


    Arthur Kramer
    344th BG 494th BS
    England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
    Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
    http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
     
    ArtKramr, Jun 8, 2004
    #4
  5. ThomasH

    Paul J Gans Guest

    ArtKramr <> wrote:

    [snip]

    >>Of course, as long enough people will accept this crap and keep
    >>purchase their papers, they will keep printing their photography
    >>"tests" and rank lists of cameras. "Ease of use Very Good, Battery
    >>life fair, 88 points." I will rather stick with these old
    >>fashioned photo magazines. Maybe their writers still know more
    >>about photography? What do you think, do they? Or will American
    >>Photographer begin soon to test processors and graphic cards?
    >>
    >>Thomas
    >>



    >I think the last of the great photo magazines was Modern Photography. When they
    >folded, it was all over.


    I agree.

    ---- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Jun 8, 2004
    #5
  6. ThomasH

    Mick Sterbs Guest

    "ThomasH" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Aren't you astonished how massive computer (or personal
    > computing) magazines suddenly deal with digital cameras??
    >


    The logic is, well, they connect to computers, we write about computers,
    therefore we will also write about digital cameras.
    But their depth of ignorance on the latter is astounding.
     
    Mick Sterbs, Jun 8, 2004
    #6
  7. I think there is a tad of confusion by some folks. A camera, even a digital
    one, should be seen only as a tool to take photographs. Latest and greatest
    is not particularly relevant. Does it do what you want it to? - take
    photographs as you want to take them.
    Paul Riemerman



    "ThomasH" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Aren't you astonished how massive computer (or personal
    > computing) magazines suddenly deal with digital cameras??
    >
    > I could enlist here a variety of recent "tests" and "reports"
    > with a different level of embarrassment to these self proclaimed
    > "photography experts," but probably this message about the $1800
    > Leica Digilux 2 hits the spot for the "Grand Moron Super Award":
    >
    > The June 2004 edition of PC World on page 141 notifies its
    > readers that the Digilux 2 has been added to the "Top 100"
    > ranklist after it was tested by the PC World lab. PC World
    > states:
    >
    > "At $1850 the Leica Digilux 2 is one of the most expensive
    > cameras we've tested. However it has a unique bounce flash
    > and a detachable lens hood."
    >
    > End of message. Wooow, a detachable lens hood. Why or why do
    > we pay $400-900 for these inferior Canons, Nikons, Olympuses
    > or Minoltas, when for mere $1800 we can *also* get the one of
    > a kind detachable lens hood, a marvel of technology!
    >
    > (sarcasm off, now serious):
    > Well, I have send a 3rd protest letter to the editors of both
    > PC World and PC Magazine. This time its a divorce time for me.
    > I am canceling the subscriptions. They neglect severely computer
    > technology and try to become would-like-to-be Photo Magazines
    > with computers.
    >
    > Of course, as long enough people will accept this crap and keep
    > purchase their papers, they will keep printing their photography
    > "tests" and rank lists of cameras. "Ease of use Very Good, Battery
    > life fair, 88 points." I will rather stick with these old
    > fashioned photo magazines. Maybe their writers still know more
    > about photography? What do you think, do they? Or will American
    > Photographer begin soon to test processors and graphic cards?
    >
    > Thomas
     
    Paul Riemerman, Jun 8, 2004
    #7
  8. ThomasH

    ArtKramr Guest

    >Subject: Re: Leica Digilux 2: PC World labtest discovers detachable lens
    >hood...
    >From: "Paul Riemerman"
    >Date: 6/8/04 9:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time
    >Message-id:


    >I think there is a tad of confusion by some folks. A camera, even a digital
    >one, should be seen only as a tool to take photographs. Latest and greatest
    >is not particularly relevant. Does it do what you want it to? - take
    >photographs as you want to take them.
    >Paul Riemerman


    That's heresy. Everyone knows it is the camera that counts not the
    photographer. (grin)


    Arthur Kramer
    344th BG 494th BS
    England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
    Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
    http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
     
    ArtKramr, Jun 8, 2004
    #8
  9. ThomasH

    Rico Tudor Guest

    >From: (ArtKramr)
    >...
    >>From: "Bill Crocker"
    >>Yes, I saw that also. I can't believe someone actually gets paid to write
    >>such trash!

    >
    >But they don't get paid much. They do get perks form the makers; free cameras
    >etc.


    If they wrote for "American Neurologist" they'd get a free brain!

    --------
     
    Rico Tudor, Jun 11, 2004
    #9
  10. ThomasH

    Dev Null Guest

    On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:50:04 -0000, Rico Tudor hath writ:
    >>From: (ArtKramr)
    >>...
    >>>From: "Bill Crocker"
    >>>Yes, I saw that also. I can't believe someone actually gets paid to write
    >>>such trash!

    >>
    >>But they don't get paid much. They do get perks form the makers; free cameras
    >>etc.

    >
    > If they wrote for "American Neurologist" they'd get a free brain!


    And, for "Proctology Today" ? ? ?
     
    Dev Null, Jun 11, 2004
    #10
  11. ThomasH

    ThomasH Guest

    Bill Crocker wrote:
    >
    > Yes, I saw that also. I can't believe someone actually gets paid to write
    > such trash!


    Now, the July edition claims the following: (page 175)

    "Though it costs $1850, Leica's Digilux 2 has a fixed lens. However,
    the lens does have rings for focus and aperture adjustments."

    How can you top these revelations! :)

    They also misquote Steve Sander's conclusions about newest
    DSLR's EOS300D / Digital Rebel versus D70 (see page 91).
    Of course, Steve gives the (later arrival) D70 a clean
    preference over the Rebel, because Nikon packed it with
    advanced features as opposed to Canon, who stripped the
    Rebel of many functions to keep their EOS-10D afloat.

    Ah well, all the talking for nothing...

    Do not forget, Leica's lens has a ring for focus and for aperture,
    astonishing! Settle for nothing less than that ! :))

    Thomas


    >
    > Bill Crocker
    >
    > "ThomasH" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Aren't you astonished how massive computer (or personal
    > > computing) magazines suddenly deal with digital cameras??
    > >
    > > I could enlist here a variety of recent "tests" and "reports"
    > > with a different level of embarrassment to these self proclaimed
    > > "photography experts," but probably this message about the $1800
    > > Leica Digilux 2 hits the spot for the "Grand Moron Super Award":
    > >
    > > The June 2004 edition of PC World on page 141 notifies its
    > > readers that the Digilux 2 has been added to the "Top 100"
    > > ranklist after it was tested by the PC World lab. PC World
    > > states:
    > >
    > > "At $1850 the Leica Digilux 2 is one of the most expensive
    > > cameras we've tested. However it has a unique bounce flash
    > > and a detachable lens hood."
    > >
    > > End of message. Wooow, a detachable lens hood. Why or why do
    > > we pay $400-900 for these inferior Canons, Nikons, Olympuses
    > > or Minoltas, when for mere $1800 we can *also* get the one of
    > > a kind detachable lens hood, a marvel of technology!
    > >
    > > (sarcasm off, now serious):
    > > Well, I have send a 3rd protest letter to the editors of both
    > > PC World and PC Magazine. This time its a divorce time for me.
    > > I am canceling the subscriptions. They neglect severely computer
    > > technology and try to become would-like-to-be Photo Magazines
    > > with computers.
    > >
    > > Of course, as long enough people will accept this crap and keep
    > > purchase their papers, they will keep printing their photography
    > > "tests" and rank lists of cameras. "Ease of use Very Good, Battery
    > > life fair, 88 points." I will rather stick with these old
    > > fashioned photo magazines. Maybe their writers still know more
    > > about photography? What do you think, do they? Or will American
    > > Photographer begin soon to test processors and graphic cards?
    > >
    > > Thomas
     
    ThomasH, Jun 15, 2004
    #11
  12. ThomasH

    ThomasH Guest

    Paul J Gans wrote:
    >
    > ArtKramr <> wrote:
    >
    > [snip]
    >
    > >>Of course, as long enough people will accept this crap and keep
    > >>purchase their papers, they will keep printing their photography
    > >>"tests" and rank lists of cameras. "Ease of use Very Good, Battery
    > >>life fair, 88 points." I will rather stick with these old
    > >>fashioned photo magazines. Maybe their writers still know more
    > >>about photography? What do you think, do they? Or will American
    > >>Photographer begin soon to test processors and graphic cards?
    > >>
    > >>Thomas
    > >>

    >
    > >I think the last of the great photo magazines was Modern Photography. When they
    > >folded, it was all over.

    >
    > I agree.
    >
    > ---- Paul J. Gans


    And what is your opinion about Photo Techniques (phototechmag.com)?

    Thomas
     
    ThomasH, Jun 16, 2004
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. AES/newspost

    Giveaway: Damaged Leica Digilux Zoom

    AES/newspost, Nov 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    410
    AES/newspost
    Nov 27, 2003
  2. Jimmy Smith

    Let's talk about more about the new Leica Digilux 2

    Jimmy Smith, Dec 5, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    379
    David J. Littleboy
    Dec 5, 2003
  3. Jimmy Smith

    Noise and Leica Digilux 2

    Jimmy Smith, Dec 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    387
    Jimmy Smith
    Dec 21, 2003
  4. canon G5 or Leica digilux 1

    , Feb 28, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    558
    Tim Boniwell
    Apr 1, 2004
  5. Thad

    DP Review Leica Digilux 2 Review

    Thad, May 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    565
    ArtKramr
    May 12, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page