RStyga

RStyga

Joined on Nov 8, 2010

Comments

Total: 661, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Richard Schumer: Reading the discussion so far, it appears to me many people have never used a rangefinder. My first serious camera (~1957 Minolta II) had a superimposed rf and even to my young eyes, it was dim, small, and uncertain to focus. Because of this, I traded for a newish Aries (w/Nikkor f:2.0 lens!) with an M-3 style bright finder. It was better but not yet good enough. I traded that for an SLR (Contax-D) and have never used a rangefinder again.

Some people, I believe, perceive the world in a way that invites the superimposition focus method, and others, like me, do not.

The point is: before you criticize this camera, whose range/viewfinder probably adds a couple of thousand dollars to its price, use one from a rental shop or a friendly, trusting dealer. You may love it or hate it. But it will be an informed emotion.

What do you think?

Direct link | Posted on May 3, 2015 at 10:26 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Schumer: Reading the discussion so far, it appears to me many people have never used a rangefinder. My first serious camera (~1957 Minolta II) had a superimposed rf and even to my young eyes, it was dim, small, and uncertain to focus. Because of this, I traded for a newish Aries (w/Nikkor f:2.0 lens!) with an M-3 style bright finder. It was better but not yet good enough. I traded that for an SLR (Contax-D) and have never used a rangefinder again.

Some people, I believe, perceive the world in a way that invites the superimposition focus method, and others, like me, do not.

The point is: before you criticize this camera, whose range/viewfinder probably adds a couple of thousand dollars to its price, use one from a rental shop or a friendly, trusting dealer. You may love it or hate it. But it will be an informed emotion.

Agreed, my apologies, no insult intended. I'm stressing a very common -unfortunately- practice by Leica -blind- followers.

I repeat that if an RF mechanism costs $2500 how is it possible that Voigtlander rangefinder cameras would cost around $500-700 and the very prestigious and expensive Zeiss Ikon around $1500-2000 (that is, the whole camera, not just its RF mechanism)?

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2015 at 13:16 UTC
In reply to:

garyknrd: I am fairly new to photography ( since retirement ). I enjoy looking at the pics, but hard for me to justify the cost.
What is the difference in buying a Leica lens and putting it on your existing camera and snapping some pics?
Is there that much difference?

I tend to hold my cameras for years. I can afford it if I really wanted it. I just cannot seem to turn the corner.

I am beginning to think these are for long time pro's that gradually move into this type of shooting. Not sure.

You need to read about flange distance before commenting. Almost all DSLM systems accept LM lenses without loss of infinity focus.

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2015 at 02:17 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Schumer: Reading the discussion so far, it appears to me many people have never used a rangefinder. My first serious camera (~1957 Minolta II) had a superimposed rf and even to my young eyes, it was dim, small, and uncertain to focus. Because of this, I traded for a newish Aries (w/Nikkor f:2.0 lens!) with an M-3 style bright finder. It was better but not yet good enough. I traded that for an SLR (Contax-D) and have never used a rangefinder again.

Some people, I believe, perceive the world in a way that invites the superimposition focus method, and others, like me, do not.

The point is: before you criticize this camera, whose range/viewfinder probably adds a couple of thousand dollars to its price, use one from a rental shop or a friendly, trusting dealer. You may love it or hate it. But it will be an informed emotion.

An RF mechanism costs next to nothing, so let's not fluff about it. If it costed thousands of dollars how is it possible that Voigtlander RF csneras cost a few hundred dollars... Really....
There is nothing magical about any focusing method; you shoot with whatever means is available. Once, much less was available, nowadays people have too many options and end up BS-ing about hot air...

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2015 at 02:01 UTC

These are the most entertaining threads... Leica, where are yours, as of lately? Give us some Special Edition sensor rendition! :-)))

Canon found the ultimate way to draw attention in their new camera models. It will cost them a tad bit more than the conventional marketing methods but people will remember (not to buy) these camera models for years to come. No competition can overshadow the imminent fame. :-)))

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 09:00 UTC as 87th comment
In reply to:

RStyga: Leica "upgrades" a $7,500 camera with Live View and 3" 921K LCD in 2015? At this rate they might catch up with the rest by 2050, give or take a decade.

Although good adapters are abundant for DSLM cameras, a native M mount camera could put a stop, or at least a brake, to the Leica camera charade...

Yes, I remember reading about it. We will see. So far the best implementation was done by Ricoh with GXR+A12M but it's an APS-C 12MP sensor (albeit without an AA filter). Sadly, they don't seem to be willing to follow up this with a newer, higher-res, model.

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 04:49 UTC

:-) I can see an army of Nikon soldiers sharpening their poisonous arrows for this post... Let the "fun" begin!

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 02:24 UTC as 135th comment
In reply to:

garyknrd: I am fairly new to photography ( since retirement ). I enjoy looking at the pics, but hard for me to justify the cost.
What is the difference in buying a Leica lens and putting it on your existing camera and snapping some pics?
Is there that much difference?

I tend to hold my cameras for years. I can afford it if I really wanted it. I just cannot seem to turn the corner.

I am beginning to think these are for long time pro's that gradually move into this type of shooting. Not sure.

Leica 'cannot' be good value: their know how is grossly overestimated. They once made and still make excellent film cameras and make excellent lenses. (The price is a very different story.) At any rate, there is nothing tangible that is uniquely superior about Leica digital cameras. 'Digital' and 'Leica' do not combine very well.

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 01:52 UTC
In reply to:

garyknrd: I am fairly new to photography ( since retirement ). I enjoy looking at the pics, but hard for me to justify the cost.
What is the difference in buying a Leica lens and putting it on your existing camera and snapping some pics?
Is there that much difference?

I tend to hold my cameras for years. I can afford it if I really wanted it. I just cannot seem to turn the corner.

I am beginning to think these are for long time pro's that gradually move into this type of shooting. Not sure.

It's hard to justify the cost because there is no justification for that cost. Leica has a provocative pricing policy and no photographer should tolerate it. Leica digital cameras do not last more than any well-built camera on the market, it's a myth. Leica digital cameras are sluggish, low-tech, non-ergonomic and expensive to buy and maintain. Leica lenses are excellent but too expensive for what they offer. You are, simply, way better off with a mirrorless camera system, APS-C or a Sony A7 series full frame, in practically all respects.

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 00:58 UTC
In reply to:

Jim Evidon: What many of you fail to realize is that Leica has no aspirations to be a cookie cutter camera giant. Canon, Nikon (at least some), Olympus and Fuji all make very fine cameras. Leica has never made cameras for the masses. The very first Leica I was unlike any other camera in the world and was predicted to be an absolute failures. So here we are 90 years later and the Leitz/ Leica camera company is still going strong in its own small way. It has a loyal customer base.

Leica knows it's market. Customer relations are excellent, IMO. It is an excellent camera and a unique shooting experience providing superb images again and again.

Will I buy a M240? No. The M9-P satisfies me very much. It is built to last and I love the fact that its functions are basic, and the images are tack sharp with the right balance of contrast and color; that illusive Leica look that non-Leica people believe is a fiction. Believe me, it is very real. The M240 and 240 Monochrom appear to be worthy successors.

Let me count your inaccurate statements here:
1. "Leica has never made cameras for the masses." - Leica CANNOT make cameras for the "masses".
2. " So here we are 90 years later and the Leitz/ Leica camera company is still going strong in its own small way." - Leica nearly went bankrupt a few years ago; why is it still here is a good question.
3. "It is built to last" - provided you spent a big load a cash to keep them in good 'lasting' order.
4. "Leica knows it's market. " - ...rather Leica knows its victims.

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 00:52 UTC
In reply to:

RStyga: Leica "upgrades" a $7,500 camera with Live View and 3" 921K LCD in 2015? At this rate they might catch up with the rest by 2050, give or take a decade.

Although good adapters are abundant for DSLM cameras, a native M mount camera could put a stop, or at least a brake, to the Leica camera charade...

Yes... wasting $Ks is no big deal when there is a "Leica" legend adding intangible photographic "value" to the owner. I suppose a "lowly" $2K RX1 is no match to a $10K M240+35/2.5 when it comes to consumer stupidity. It's $8K of pure Leica lens interchangeability value here...

Direct link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 00:47 UTC

Leica "upgrades" a $7,500 camera with Live View and 3" 921K LCD in 2015? At this rate they might catch up with the rest by 2050, give or take a decade.

Although good adapters are abundant for DSLM cameras, a native M mount camera could put a stop, or at least a brake, to the Leica camera charade...

Direct link | Posted on Apr 30, 2015 at 23:18 UTC as 66th comment | 6 replies
On Hands on with the Pentax 645Z article (674 comments in total)

Where is the review DPR??

Oh well, in the meantime here's the review by the masterful Ming Thein (in two parts):

http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/06/27/review-the-pentax-645z-part-i/

http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/06/29/review-the-pentax-645z-part-ii-medium-format-shootout/

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 10:34 UTC as 9th comment | 1 reply
On Yongnuo creates near-clone of Canon EF 35mm f/2 article (169 comments in total)
In reply to:

RStyga: I wonder if they use the same quality glass elements with equivalent coating. I also wonder about their QC.

I like that; it might 'help' Canon drop the price of the corresponding lens a bit.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 10:29 UTC
On Yongnuo creates near-clone of Canon EF 35mm f/2 article (169 comments in total)

I wonder if they use the same quality glass elements with equivalent coating. I also wonder about their QC.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 00:57 UTC as 35th comment | 4 replies
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-3 II article (521 comments in total)
In reply to:

RStyga: Pentax has mastered the APS-C DSLR concept overall, from features down to the retail price, well done! I believe this is the best Pentax camera ever made.

Oops, I meant "excluding the MF series".

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2015 at 00:53 UTC

I'm *very* displeased that Zeiss chose this Touit-style design for their new line of lenses. It's so damn unattractive, mate, it's one of the most ugly designs I've seen the last several years. Fortunately, the price is typically Zeiss so no dilemmas there.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 10:52 UTC as 23rd comment | 1 reply
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-3 II article (521 comments in total)

Pentax has mastered the APS-C DSLR concept overall, from features down to the retail price, well done! I believe this is the best Pentax camera ever made.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 10:40 UTC as 71st comment | 3 replies

Ground-breaking, brown-breaking.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2015 at 00:37 UTC as 73rd comment
In reply to:

Marty4650: I really do believe that most people who believe "the cops are always wrong" will be shocked at the outcome here.

These bodycams will MOSTLY vindicate the police, and prove the suspects were lying about brutality or improper conduct. Of course, in a few cases they will support the suspects version. But the real incidence of police brutality may be much smaller than the police haters think it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXJ_NKcaj8A
or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PtPzKbNe0M

Try to have a conversation with police officers and object to them like that in the US... Good luck.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 12:05 UTC
Total: 661, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »