PIX 2015
shigzeo

shigzeo

Lives in Japan Chiba, Japan
Works as a Writer, Audio Critic
Has a website at http://ohm-image.net
Joined on Sep 14, 2010
About me:

utterly impressionable

Comments

Total: 365, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Firewire 800 is a bit anachronistic. I'd love if Hasselblad would embrace better, more ubiquitous connections. It is one of the main reasons I didn't purchase their backs.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 5, 2015 at 00:38 UTC as 16th comment
On Sony rides wave of US Mirrorless sales surge article (732 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alpha Photo: Now if Sony could only get rid of the fake prism box on top of their cameras....

Got to agree with le_alain: while I don't love fake prism humps, other NEX or FE designs are too space age. The A7 is more grounded.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 4, 2015 at 12:23 UTC
In reply to:

RStyga: Sigma manufactures in Japan, and still offer extremely low prices. Leica is a "tad bit" overpriced...

You mean sigma that released the SD1 for 7000$?

Edit: I should say the plastic, APS-C SD1.

Edit II: I should also say that wages here in Japan (I live here) are quite low.

Edit III: I should also add that Sigma are a third-party doing their best to change a pretty poor image. Their prices are rising and so is their quality. If they wanted to make something as nicely made as the Leica, or even copy it directly and then market it, you can be assured that it would cost a LOT of money. No one manufacturers like Leica.

Metal camera does not equal Leica. Since the 1960's Japanese cameras have been doing whatever possible to strip away expensive items and have arrived at the fantastic plastic, poorly-designed, opaque-utilty cameras we have today.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2015 at 23:55 UTC
In reply to:

bigdaddave: The criteria for me is simple - do top professional photographers - for whom image quality is everything shoot Leica digital cameras? No, of course not because they offer nothing a good system dslr does at a vastly more sensible price. Plus they are massively limited in speed and focal lengths

Pontificate about how lovely they are all you like, they offer nothing new, special or magical, they just cost a ridiculous amount

@bigdaddave:

I am a pro photographer, shooting commercial audio products for companies around the globe. Your reply shows how little you are willing to break with your hatred of Leica.

I admitted: there are better cameras for sports and for macro/stacking, betraying my line of work. But I would never, ever, be so bold as to say that any camera is useless for pro work.

That is blind and ridiculous.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2015 at 13:38 UTC
In reply to:

ThePhilips: Leica users are basically a cult.

@The Philips:

Leica have AF in all other camera lines. They did NOT fail to bring AF, they chose to leave it out of the M line. Neither Nikon nor Canon offer a camera made for the person that wants an independent focus/TTL system.

If you want to shoot the way Leica allow, there is a single option available. And that is Leica.

Even if there were others, they would be expensive, or cheapened alternatives.

Leica are one of maybe two camera companies that still MAKE choices rather than simply throw everything in hoping that someone will appreciate something and another will appreciate another thing.

Design with intent is completely lost on most other manufacturers.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2015 at 13:36 UTC
In reply to:

kadardr: This camera is for masters of B&W film photography who want to take high resolution B&W images above ISO1600. Using such camera requires a B&W state of mind, which is a different endeavour. For me the whole business of using corrective color filters and work with B&W eyes just does not fit. I like to use Color Efex Pro in a free style mode (film simulation without film simulation) and that is it.

@bigdaddave: which is the vast sum of what you get if you don't know what you're doing, no matter the tool, no matter the price.

If you don't know how to wipe, it doesn't matter if your toilet paper is triple, or single, or no-sheeted. It's all sh*t.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2015 at 12:52 UTC
In reply to:

mlewan: The issue here is not whether BW is good or not. It clearly has a big place in photography, and arguably a lot of people could improve their photos a lot by using BW.

The issue is whether the Leica adds anything to mix with their dedicated BW cameras. And if they add anything, is it anything anyone except pixelpeeping enthusiasts can see?

I doubt it.

I would be happy to get this camera if it were not for its price. Limitations force me to think more about what I'm doing, and that's what I like with photography. I love using a DSLR in M mode with a manual focus prime lens and old fashioned aperture ring. That's what's fun.

But if my only goal had been great appealing pictures for non-experts to admire, then I'm pretty sure there are loads of other much cheaper cameras that do it better, faster and easier.

Essentially, it all comes down to price? Then delete your first two paragraphs.

Then, think about your third and fourth: how is it that other cameras not optimised for MF will be faster and better than Leica MMs for B&W photography?

Or, next to regular Leica digital cameras, better at all?

If it all comes down to price, and you're using manual focus lenses with 'old fashioned aperture' rings, you are wasting your money. There are better, faster options for you than old-fashioned SLR lenses on modern dSLR bodies.

That, or if it's all about the aperture rings and M-mode, pick up film camera and shoot lenses form the film era.

You'll save bazillions over a modern dSLR and modern lenses or even a modern dSLR and old lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2015 at 12:50 UTC
In reply to:

bigdaddave: The criteria for me is simple - do top professional photographers - for whom image quality is everything shoot Leica digital cameras? No, of course not because they offer nothing a good system dslr does at a vastly more sensible price. Plus they are massively limited in speed and focal lengths

Pontificate about how lovely they are all you like, they offer nothing new, special or magical, they just cost a ridiculous amount

Here's a simple test: grab all your dSLR lenses, bring them with you, do a special, important shoot. And challenge a Leica user with their 'limited lenses' to the same shoot.

I hope that Leica user won't be limited by her f/0,95 50mm lens, especially next to your super-speed SLR lens. Or her selection of 35, 50, 28, 90, and more lenses at speeds of f/4 to f/2,8 and faster.

I hope the Leica user won't feel left out by being stuck at 12mm on the wide end. Or, when she needs it, to adapt a Leica SLR or any other SLR lens to magically shoot the same moon at which you are aiming.

It is true that there are better sports cameras than Leicas. It is also true that the M is next to useless for macro/stacking photography. But it takes knowledge to admit that.

Ignorance says: Leica is limited and leaves it at that.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2015 at 12:45 UTC
In reply to:

ThePhilips: Leica users are basically a cult.

Like it or not, there is only one company making a digital rangefinder. That company is Leica.

Prod Fujifilm or Nikon or Canon into making a camera with as much attention to detail and I promise you: it will cost a fortune. Not Leica-fortune, but then none of those companies could do it.

They are part of the mass market. Not that mass market is a bad thing. But we are talking about completely different segments. Even Nikon, which released the plastic/metal extraordinaire frankenstein Df, charged over 3000$ for it.

If you want to cheapen a product, give it to one of the above. Leica don't cheapen anything. Like them or hate them, they do their own thing for their own customers.

As for cult: take a look at these forums and tell me that there isn't a cult for every brand out there: Nikonians challenging the quality of Canonites on every level, and vice versa.

It gets even heavier the more you get into mirrorless. Leica users simply aren't into camera-hopping.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2015 at 12:41 UTC
In reply to:

Don051348: Leica products are targeted for the uber rich, much like Rolex, Ferrari, etc. Are they well made? Probably. Will they take better photos than most any other modern digital camera? Probably not (certainly not $9000 better). Will a Rolex keep better time than a Timex? Will a Ferrari really perform that much better than an American Corvette or even a Shelby Mustang? Certainly not that much better to justify the 4 to five times price difference. The uber rich need to spend thier money on something. That's why these companies exist. You are buying mystique, tradition, cachet at these price levels.

Will a home-cooked meal perform better than Kraft Dinner?

You got me there.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2015 at 12:34 UTC
On Canon EF 50mm F1.8 STM real-world samples gallery article (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

fatdeeman: Judging by the reflection at the top of dgb-ISO-100-IMG_6865.acr the edges sure seem usable sharp at F/1.8 even at the edge of a full frame sensor, that's pretty impressive!

The overall image quality doesn't seem all that different, the bokeh is still harsh (despite several people arguing that the extra aperture blades would somehow make a difference wide open!) but the edges do seem a little better. My copy of the mkII was always decent in the centre but I don't think the edges are this good even on APS-C!

@fatdeeman: I have a few lenses that, wide-open, show the shape of the aperture blades. While it doesn't bog down my photography, a person that shoots with bokeh-quality in mind may find it troubling.

Most SLR-type lenses wide open show no influence from the aperture blades, but a large number of copy and enlarging lenses do. As do some wide angle M-mount lenses I use.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 2, 2015 at 23:16 UTC
In reply to:

MAGMATCICO62: Greatly overpriced. The Pentax 645D is much much cheaper with the same CMOS sensor

@HowaboutRAW:

I wasn't clear. Sorry.

The Pentax camera is fully-integrated. You can't use the camera body and sensor separate from each other. No slide copy with wide angle lenses, no bellows with even modestly wide angle lenses, no interchangeable film/digital focus screens or backs on bellows, slides, etc.

The Pentax is great for the FF dSLR person that wants to upgrade the images they produce. But that's it. It remains a slow-syncing digital SLR with no other options.

Lots of burn for the budget, but next to no compatibility.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 2, 2015 at 23:13 UTC
In reply to:

EssexAsh: such a shame they have these crappy little sensors. I'll stick with real medium format, 6x6 and 6x7 film.

Can their software actually load up a tiff file yet? something MS Paint can do effortlessly but their software seems to struggle with.

@Steve Sanacore: I'd probably be a more cautious regarding vis-a-vis digital MF being better than film MF. It certainly isn't close to LF, and 6x8 is quite a bit larger than the largest MF digital backs.

Considering the fact that you can use phenomenal modern digital lenses on film, it's all down to focus.

While I've not shot MF film back to back with an IQ80, Petapixel put one up against MF film on different lens systems. It would be interesting to see the new IQ back and MF film back shooting through the same Rodenstock digital lenses just to be sure.

I'd imagine the larger film would have little problem keeping up with the IQ. That said, it's far better to use digital today. If you're shelling out for a large MF digital back, you're probably tied into high-end commercial photography that needs speed and workflow that MF film can't touch.

I'm not a film apologist. I don't use it anymore. But still today, some films and the right lenses are amazing.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 2, 2015 at 23:10 UTC
In reply to:

MAGMATCICO62: Greatly overpriced. The Pentax 645D is much much cheaper with the same CMOS sensor

The two are not even close in terms of utility. The Pentax sensor is slaved to a dSLR body. You cannot remove the sensor, pack it tight, slap it onto a LF body with wide angle lenses, easily iPad away, or anything.

The Pentax is a great dSLR, but it is as limited as its smaller sensor brethren and is used in the same exact ways.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 2, 2015 at 12:08 UTC
In reply to:

EssexAsh: such a shame they have these crappy little sensors. I'll stick with real medium format, 6x6 and 6x7 film.

Can their software actually load up a tiff file yet? something MS Paint can do effortlessly but their software seems to struggle with.

Pretty sure you're not their market anyway, so stick with your 6x7; Phase One don't have you and are not losing a customer, merely gaining a troll.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 2, 2015 at 12:06 UTC
On Mono a mono: Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246) hands-on article (688 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tungsten Nordstein: Why does a range-finder need live view, anyway?

At first it seems redundant, but since the wide viewfinder covers 28 - 90 and 135 with a huge squint, an optional EVF or the LCD then allows you to frame any lens without all the external finders that people have used all the time. It's not as elegant, but it works very well for rangefinder users.

And because the lenses can still focus through the viewfinder/rangefinder window, the M is the only camera on which you can focus no matter the ND or other filters on the lenses you use.

Wonderful and utilitarian tool.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 1, 2015 at 09:48 UTC
On Mono a mono: Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246) hands-on article (688 comments in total)
In reply to:

Johannes Zander: If I had the money for the camera AND for appropriate lenses, I would buy one!

I'm pretty sure that you could probably afford it. I've met a number of regular mirrorless users that collect bodies at tremendous rates, lenses and adapters a tremendous rates, that, when they stop collecting, they find more than enough funds to buy a Leica. They have to be more selective and can't wheel and deal as much, but they can afford it. I'm pretty sure you can too. It's HOW you budget, not your budget that isn't the problem.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 1, 2015 at 09:46 UTC
On Mono a mono: Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246) hands-on article (688 comments in total)
In reply to:

Chris Noble: No hand-grip, a single control wheel, fixed LCD... how much does this camera cost?

I also noticed that it doesn't have the important logos for SD, wifi, NFC, nor does it have a can opener, juggling balls, cantilever curtain rods, or a coffee machine.

Rip off.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 1, 2015 at 09:44 UTC
On Mono a mono: Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246) hands-on article (688 comments in total)
In reply to:

Conrad567: Oooh baby, that's how I like it! Take it off, pure black body, no red dot or chrome to distract from the natural trimmed beauty. Yeah Leica, do it just like that... I could run my fingers all over that thing, and enjoy every second of it. [Insert Barry White music here]

Incredibly sexy.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 1, 2015 at 09:42 UTC
On Mono a mono: Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246) hands-on article (688 comments in total)
In reply to:

wootpile: I like the first 2 images that show how it barely fits inside 2 model hands because of size and probably weight.

Image 3 is the best though. That's a fat body. What's in there? You could fit several nexes in there. of course they haven't but the fat style is a trademark... and they can't just leave it empty - it would weigh too little to be a Leica...

AHA, the answer to why it is so expensive: they filled it up with gunmetal grey inside too

This camera could have been at least 50% smaller, but then I guess it wouldn't be a Leica. At least not the modern style of one.

You haven't ever shot a film interchangeable lens camera before? The smallest 35mm cameras were absolutely tiny, but the main body of them were the size of the M, or larger; some were much larger indeed.

The M is still one of the smallest full-frame digital cameras out there, just barely larger than the A7, and much, much better built.

If you're interested in crop sensor cameras, check out the Leica T. Basically the same size as the Sony cameras, though thicker. This is also a difference in style. Sony Nex design to be as small as possible, though recent FE cameras have grown in size.

As to your final paragraph, Leica could not have made it half the size the same as Sony couldn't make the full-frame FE cameras half the size. Considering that the M is the only mirrorless camera to be physically focus-coupled to the lenses it shoots (not all: certain wide angels are not coupled), it is also the most fully mechanically elegant of all mirrorless cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 1, 2015 at 09:41 UTC
Total: 365, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »