kodachromeguy

Lives in United States Vicksburg, United States
Works as a Retired and free
Has a website at worldofdecay.blogspot.com
Joined on May 5, 2007

Comments

Total: 386, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Have your say: Best high-end ILC of 2017 (149 comments in total)
In reply to:

Steve Bingham: Lot of funny comments! Not much thought.

As you find with any article or review where the word "Leica" appears.

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2017 at 15:07 UTC
In reply to:

MikeStern: For the price of this stupid Leica, I could buy A7R3 with 18-35 GM, excellent Sony 85mm f/1.8 and 100-400zoom
What a dream system.

Well, once again, so what? Some photographers want to use a mechanical rangefinder camera. So what if it is expensive on your budget? How does that affect you?

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2017 at 00:40 UTC
In reply to:

Mike FL: It is LEICA.

It just likes watches, no any Swiss watches regardless of the price can match the quality of a $300 Japanese Seiko, or even a $200 Seiko.

LEICA is selling you the life style, just like expensive name brand Swiss watches. but SONY. NIKON and Seiko do not sell you a life style.

Well, OK, Mike. So what? Why do you care? Millions of buyers love their Swiss mechanical watches. And most are as good quality as the Seiko, although the Seiko quartz may be a better time keeper. But so what if a mechanical watch gains or loses a few seconds per day? And so what if a Canikon has a slightly higher dynamic range sensor than a Leica? The Leica user will still be able to do great work with his camera, especially if he like the feel, responsiveness, comfort factor. Real photographers use the tools they are comfortable using.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2017 at 04:51 UTC
In reply to:

BobT3218: I wish someone would come out with a khaki or olive coloured camera and lens. Great for wildlife. Olympus made an olive coloured E-3 but it was a one off for an eminent Japanese wildlife photographer. The are few things wildlife hate more than having long big black things pointed at them. I know one can get camo lens sleaves but that's a bit messy and pretentious. Plain dark olive paint would do me fine.

Many years ago, Leica made a safari version of their R3 camera along with three khaki lenses (28, 50, and 90?). Also, they made khaki cameras for the military, but these are rare collectors' items now.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2017 at 03:47 UTC

Some of you may remember that the Panasonic G3 was available in red. But I only had a plain black one. That tiny G3 was a very good camera, especially for travel.
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5147591010/panasonicdmcg3

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 23:11 UTC as 54th comment
In reply to:

CanonKen: I'd rather live in a world with Leica than without Leica. More options are better, and the fact they make something *different* in a world where much is the same is special.

And notice how threatened the typical Dpreview commenter is with something that is different. Rather than learn about it or try it in the field, they put it down. You also see this behavior with film, monochrome imaging, medium format, and more.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 16:23 UTC
In reply to:

Copal Fit: I have the feeling that prices for these used lenses will explode soon enough....

They will. Real photographers around the world will want them for film and digital photography. However, we here on Dpreview know that they are inferior because our kit zooms are so much sharper, have stability, do not require that bothersome zooming with your feet, have more glass elements, and have autofocus to eliminate that ever-bothersome need to think about focus.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 05:31 UTC
In reply to:

Stigg: i won't be shedding any tears over this. out of 40+ years (and presently) using manual film slr cameras and manual focus lenses i have never used anything from the likes of zeiss or leica and have been published in most of the major publications. manual focus lenses by minolta, olympus, pentax, canon, mamiya, etc. are far more than sufficient for any use.

Let me try to understand: because you never used lenses by Leica or Zeiss but did all right with lenses by other manufacturers, you think these other manufacturers' products are sufficient for everyone's use and it is OK for Zeiss to stop manufacturing a classic line of lenses?

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 00:46 UTC
On article A fully loaded iMac Pro will cost you $13,200 (507 comments in total)
In reply to:

DualSystemGuy: $13,200, aimed at content creators, and you can't even calibrate the screen properly. For that price (or the entry level $5000) they should make the monitor hardware calibrate-able.

"The best computer is the one you have with you...." Wait am I doing that right?

Sleek looking machine for sure but grossly overpriced. A cool niche product I guess.

Oh, no, here is this grossly overpriced nonsense again. I know, I know, a Leica anything is grossly overpriced. So is the new Olympus f/1.2 lens. So is software by Adobe. So is anything that is not "full frame." So is a roll of film. So is......

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2017 at 21:32 UTC

The original Kodak Retina Reflex used a similar lens system with changeable front components or convertible lenses (German: Wechselobjektiv). The rear unit contained the leaf shutter. I wonder if these new Lomo lenses use the same Schneider formulas as those older convertible lenses?

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2017 at 04:58 UTC as 7th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Linerider: Vintage?
Errr, this is not "nostalgia"
I think she is confused as there are no defined parameters to her style.
I mean, why use a strobe, RAW , fast aperture or even do any digital editing?
Atleast film was a different format that produced a quality, but this stuff is rubbish!

If you want to get the blown highlights, chromatic aberration, rudimentary noise reduction, coma and the horrible "digicam" look then just use your phone camera!
No need to "pretend" that a slightly older camera makes you into an artist.

Sorry, Line, you are not the only one in this Dpreview crowd who does not get it.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 02:41 UTC
In reply to:

vaughanB: "In fact, high-end cameras, once you’re pretty good at shooting, make it too easy to produce an acceptable image. Where’s the fun in that?"........... Totally agree with that statement :-) I have said this kind of thing here before and been ridiculed, modern cameras are so good, so fast and potentially so expensive I have lost interest, I shoot for a living (D7200 I don't need anything "better") for personal use I use a 2005 Sony R1, a Sony DSC F717 ( 5mp 2002) I t and a Canon Powershot ixus 870IS and I get results that make me happy for very little cost, same with my motorcycles, sold my Japanese superbikes, too fast, too perfect, too boring and I ride a 350cc Czech 2 stroke twin and a 1977 east German 250cc 2 stroke single and I ride every day all year round, much more fun.....sometimes technology gets so good that it takes away all the fun

The Sony R1 was and still is fantastic. The lens was top grade, and lots of people wish it could be adapted to a newer camera. The early-vintage EVF was a bit grainy, but it worked. I found the R1 to be a convenient long-exposure camera. Mounted on a tripod, I clicked the exposure and let it stay open as long as it needed, seconds or minutes. The results were perfect.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 02:39 UTC
On article Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (413 comments in total)
In reply to:

Prognathous: Images look good, but don't justify the $1200 price tag unless one insists on using m43 to get this look.

Why does it not justify the price?

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2017 at 00:13 UTC
On article Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (413 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mateus1: Pricely, big glass with f2.4 depth of field and paired with tiny sensor in big (almost FF) body... Too many reasons to not buy it.

Oh, no, that equivalence crap rears its head once again. It must be like the swamp in Washington, never quite drained.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2017 at 00:12 UTC
In reply to:

JochenIs: "As a consequence of the larger covering circle, Meyer Optik claims smaller formats will enjoy added contrast across the frame."

How? I would think any additional stray light inside the camera would reduce the contrast.

Karroly, "Problem is that, in digital photography, "micro contrast" means" the writer did not know what he was talking about. Not a rare phenomenon....

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2017 at 15:18 UTC
In reply to:

BBQue: Wanna bet that once she builds a reputation, she is going to use a - ahem - real camera?

Oh, you mean she will buy a Leica 135 film camera, or maybe a Rolleiflex or a Hasselblad for 120 film?

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2017 at 00:05 UTC
On article These are the best cameras you can buy right now (480 comments in total)
In reply to:

wasTF: With these Lists DPReview is weird in my opinion...

Best Cameras up to 2017 with good Lens-Options:

SLR:
Nikon D850
Canon 5D IV

FF Mirrorless:
Sony A9
....well anybody else want to step into the market?

APS-C:
Nikon D5600
Canon 80D (still very good)

MFT:
Panasonic GH5 (still the best)
Oly OMD EM1 Mark II

Smaller Sensors:
Not touching that ;-)

FF mirrorless: you missed the Leica options. The M has plenty of lens options.

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2017 at 14:55 UTC
In reply to:

Hypoxic: The hypocrisy here is stunning.

"Oh, I only spend $2500 on a camera, anything more and you're a snob carrying jewelry."

Sony a9 comes out.

"Oh, I only spend $4500 on a camera, anything more and you're a snob carrying jewelry."

Income inequality? If you own a camera, are typing on a computer, and have running water and a toilet, you're in the wealthy group. Hypocrites.

Eric, the Inevitable Leica putdown almost totally comes from the frauds (OK, " photographers") on sites like Dpreview. Out in the real world at tourist sites, cities, etc., If anyone even notices a Leica, it is to comment on what a nice camera it is or how they or their dad had one once. And when you explain that the company is thriving and now makes digital cameras that fit their historic lenses, they are very interested. And they like to look through the viewfinder if you are carrying an M camera. So let the haters spew and froth while the real photographers are out and about using whatever tool suits their needs best.

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2017 at 16:31 UTC
In reply to:

io_bg: Leica is a luxury brand whose products have huge margins. Most of their customers buy Leica because they want to flaunt their financial and status or to feel 'special'... ;)

"want to flaunt their financial and status". Where do you get that feces? The few Leica photographers I see in public areas or tourist sites (and I admit Leicas are rare) are clearly serious about what they are doing. Every hobby has it's poseurs and dilitantes, but you have no knowledge about how it applies to Leica versus other brands.

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2017 at 01:44 UTC
In reply to:

User3997598970: Funny! Retro? Nope! It used to have a scale on the side so one could design the picture to be sharp from this point to this point and everything else was pout of focus.

I miss that on modern lenses.

Do you mean a depth of field scale? The first picture above shows one with lines extending from 2 to 16 down to the focus helical. And remember, there is only one " true" focus. Objects in front or behind that distance are progressively less sharp greater circle of confusion).

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2017 at 21:40 UTC
Total: 386, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »