just a drop in the ocean...
as a leica user, i do understand the skepticism surrounding the m cameras. there are aspects of them which are very frustrating, as has been hashed over ad nauseum in the leica forum here and elsewhere. yes, we wish it had a better lcd and displayed critical focus; yes, we wish the buffer cleared with a bit more alacrity. the list goes on.
but, the m9 is still (more than 2 years after introduction) the smallest ff camera available by far; easily exceeds the output of nearly any current camera at base iso (i've tested the d4 against it, haven't yet gotten my mitts on a d800, which will probably surpass it); and, what is really the only factor that matters, the only digital rangefinder available new.
not everyone has to prefer or even like using a rf, but it is a unique way of shooting which offers unique strengths. it is *not* slower than shooting a dslr (exept for frame rate). it offers more control, and it rewards skill. it's good to have the option.
At least google doesnt just delete pages upon pages of comments criticizing their photo pages, the way fb does.
Mr Fartleberry: You'd think Adobe would try to encourage more licensed seats rather than drive people away, eh Grumpy?
reply to tom o'conner:"If you want a new car, you have to sell your old one and buy a new one. Can't just upgrade it by paying a small fee..."and there you've put your finger on the reason why upgrade prices for software are more than reasonable: you can't sell your old copy of photoshop the way you can your old car.
i have nothing against paying for software--i've even contributed to shareware and freeware when the product is good--but the amounts of money involved in adobe cs is out of control. obviously they are calibrating it to commercial production houses, but in the process they leave nonprofits, small designers, and others who might only use the unique capabilities once or three times a year out in the cold.
i've paid for my current version (and several before that), but i don't have the money for cs6 anytime soon.
i am a bit disappointed with the presentation of the interview here. i would have liked if you had challenged them more instead of simply repeating dubious marketing pablum. two examples: Erhardt may 'insist' that the m9 shutter lag is 'extremely short', but that is a completely meaningless statement in the absence of either a time in milliseconds, or a comparison to previous m cameras. is it exactly as fast as an m6ttl? [no, it isn't, or at least my m9 isn't as fast as my m6.] is it faster than the m8, which leica used to state on their website had a shutter lag of 80ms (that's 4x slower than an old mechanical leica m)? second example: it is well and good for leica to suggest that you become one of the family through purchase of a leica, and to note their warrantee coverage terms (excellent). but what are they doing to shorten repair times, currently projected as 6-8 weeks even for minor repairs--that's /if/ they have the parts in stock?
it's a start, but hope you follow up.
Well seen and executed shot. Nice mix of street-documentary style and classic composition.
I could quibble that anything shot at f/1.4 and iso6400 is way, way past the magic hour, even the latitudinally-enhanced magic 2&1/2 hour-hour we enjoy up here in seattle. But you've pulled a little after-hours magic out of the hat regardless.
bigdaddave: Must be me but I see nothing to commend this shot photographically at all
Yup, it's you. You see nothing.
xtoph: Marvelous. Now can somebody explain to me please why they put an /electronic/ vfin the middle of the camera body, rather than on the side where it belongs?!?
I hope whomever was responsible gets fired. Sheesh.
@davemarx--awe, c'mon. The evf's belong in the same position as every rf vf has been for decades. It wasnt hard for fuji (x100) or sony (nex7) to figure out. Yes, i know nikon isnt the first company to flub this. But the vast majority of photogs are rt eye dominant; for the left eye fanciers, they're still better off with more room between their nose and the hand holding the shutter side of the camera, as they always have been, or they can do what some always have and shoot upside down.
This is a simple matter of anatomy. Humans have noses, i am not the first wag to observe. And i dont /really/ want anyone fired, but i do want them to learn, and to get it right from here on out.
Marvelous. Now can somebody explain to me please why they put an /electronic/ vfin the middle of the camera body, rather than on the side where it belongs?!?
larrytusaz: I always hear bad things about the ACLU, how they sue for public posting of the 10 commandments etc, but on this count I agree with them 100%.
The attitudes of people nowadays are ridiculous. Once I was photographing ducks at the lake. A hysterical woman yelled "don't take photos of my kids you pervert." My reply: don't worry, I only photograph things which look good (meaning: my, your kid is UGLY), ha ha.
Another: last year we were at a garage sale. A young girl, 13 or so, took a liking to my 1 year old son & picked him up. I took a photo of this, later the mother came by (she was a FRIEND of the one having the sell but not the home owner) and asked me to delete the photo, "I don't know you." My reply: "well, I don't know you and yet I didn't have a cow when your girl picked up my child without my permission. I just saw it as something sweet & innocent, a point of view which you could learn from, frankly."
@bhphotog--you're right that there's a difference between what is legal and what is ethical, but you are wrong to conclude that the feelings of the person photographed always trump the feelings or intent of the photographer. There is no ethical imperative to never hurt anyone's feelings; people have an ethical responsibility for their own feelings. If their feeling of injury is /justified/, then you have a case, but not otherwise. If you think about it, by your argument it doesn't even matter if the photograapher takes a photo; lots of people are made uncomfortable by simply seeing a person with a camers, ergo carrying a camera in public is unethical.
The fact is that we all have a shared interest in public space; being visible is an inherent consequence of being in public. It isn't enough to just feel uncomfortable; there has to be actual harm involved, not imaginary harm.
The ethics of sp is more subtle than you think. And people in general are more resilient, too.