Interesting view of next M from Reichmann

[Jim Radcliffe]

Jim,

No. Never said you don't have a valid opinion or that you can't hang around and post. Hang around as long as you want.

Auni, this is what you wrote about me.....

Take JR, he doesn't have one. I asked and he said he sold it because he didn't like it. Now he sticks around to complain about it and at the same time say he is not anti-Leica... over and over again.

I have to say it over and over again because some people have such thick skulls they don't understand what I have written.. instead they take something out of context and disregard the rest of what I have to say.... so maybe if I speak slowly and do it more than once they will understand.

To answer your personal attacks which did not offend me even in the slightest: Of course I'm nuts. I'm hanging around here talking to the rest of the asylum patients like you when I could be doing something else. How nuts is that? And, am I a Leica Fanboy? I guess so. I love this little camera and lenses. But, remember, I also bought the 5D2 exactly one year ago and I'm a Canon Fan boy as well, if that is what you want to call it.

What you own has nothing to do with what you have written. I explained myself to you once before in this same thread and thought you understood.. then you drop this little word bomb with your reference to me... so which is it? Do you really understand or do you just enjoy stirring the pot?

--
Jim Radcliffe
http://www.boxedlight.com
http://www.oceona.com

The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear used to capture it.

 

[Mark Ehlers]

In his first response: "I’m worried about Jim. He often intervenes in threads like this but I’m not convinced that he ever grasped the true nature of Leica the company or the cameras or the market that exists for them..." If any thing I gave Euston a break since on another reading I notice that he's not convinced that JR as "ever grasped". Ever grasped. That's not condescending?

Maybe so, but I have to say that Jim's decision making process confuses me at times. Call it what you want, but I don't think that Euston is completely wrong here. That being said, I would rather not continue such a personal debate concerning Jim on this public forum. If I continue, I would rather do it privately between him and me. He has made a decison to take a break here, so I'm going to honor that. Jim knows where I stand and I know where he stands. I will respect that.

Lastly, regarding MR's bio. He clearly states that its easy to be a critic. But then he lists some fairly impressive credential over the last 40 years. Most of which he has shot and exhibited Leica photographs. Why might it be that his opinion might be carrying just a tad more weight? Has he also never grasped?

It sure seems that way. Although I sense a bit of KR's approach in MR's letter. That is, providing nonsensical entertainment with a bit of worhwhile content thrown in.

--

• Mark Ehlers (formerly 'markE')

http://www.pbase.com/marke



'Good street/wildlife photography is a controlled accident,
a vision of preparation and surrender materialized.'

 

[Auni]

JR, you are attacking me again saying I have a thick skull and that you need to talk slowly. I'm not exactly sure what is wrong that you would take all of this so personally, but I am leaving, I don't want any part of you. You win.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rickleica/show/

 

[Jim Radcliffe]

JR, you are attacking me again saying I have a thick skull and that you need to talk slowly. I'm not exactly sure what is wrong that you would take all of this so personally, but I am leaving, I don't want any part of you. You win.

It's not about winning.. but you write one thing and then you say another.. no response to my earlier post regarding what you wrote?

And please... it's not about you... the comment was about those who do not understand what I have been saying. It's like selective hearing.. they only hear what they want to hear, not what is actually said.

I was not attacking you.. it was a general statement regarding the inability of some here to understand what I have written and my feelings about another offering from Leica rather than the M and the S... I don't even consider the X. That you took it to be aimed specifically at you is your mistake.
--
Jim Radcliffe
http://www.boxedlight.com
http://www.oceona.com

The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear used to capture it.

 

[glowie NYC]

because the images will just get over PP'd with faux vignetting, over-saturation and over unsharp masking to make it look like what the user think is a true leica looking image.

I say just update your copy of Nik Software or whatever LR or PS plugin you're using and save a few thousand dollars.

--
..:...::.:..:..::.:..:::..:..
glowie NYC
http://www.flickr.com/photos/glowie
http://www.glowie.net

 

[LJL]

If any manufacturer really wants to make me happy, give me two viewfinders
if I can't have a rangefinder -- one traditional (with the framelines and all,
just without the rangefinder) and one EVF.

Thom Hogan discussed the M10 (or future Leica):
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/hogan-leica.shtml

He wants a traditional rangefinder with a flip-up EVF. Now this idea I obviously like more. I don't know if that's something that's really needed and if it's something that's doable in any elegant way, but it's an interesting thought.

--
LJL