 |  |  |  |  |  |
| The inspiration for the Reverend Awdry's Isle of Sodor by cjf2 from My Best Photo of the Fortnight | Into the night by TokyoRohan from Streets of the World - with People! | Purple Evening Hues by punman from Velvia Landscapes | Z62_3868_2-DeNoiseAI-clear by archerscreek from Rabbits and Hares Unlimited | Custom Hotrod by Mitchmeister from Yellow & Green | Albert Dock by PhilRogersPhoto from The city by night (full color only) |
Northrup just gave this a thumbs down except for Fuji X-trans sensors.
https://youtu.be/fPpUGInf50A
Most of us *think* we know Ansel Adams work, but until you see a gelatin silver print in a gallery like Photography West in Monterey CA, believe me, no calendar, poster or screenshot does them justice.
keolisho56: Leica Q2 Monochrom makes sense as an art camera for specialist professionals. Many more "shades of grey" on Leica Q2 Monochrome as the deciding factor; more than any colour sensor.
Higher than expected sales may prove everyone wrong on this gamble. Funny how black and white movies like Dr.Strangelove 1964 became classics. Barry Lyndon 1975 in colour a commercial flop. Art needs to show things in grey like life itself.
IMHO Barry Lyndon is the most beautiful cinematography in the history of movies. Kubrick deliberately cast the worst actors in the worst story he could find to showcase this visual masterpiece. Art is not judged by commercial success.
snapa: There is a reason B&W ( Monochrom ) TV's, cameras, video camera (only) and theaters have gone out of business. Stripping out one of the most important and interesting aspects of a picture, it the stupidest thing any company could possibly do. Especailly for $10K body only! It's probably much less expensive to produce a monocrom camera, I would think. Therefore, even more profits for Leica for that .01% of people who would even consider a camera like this with more money than sense.
PS, I wonder how much a few good primes and a zoom lens would cost to go with it?
I also wonder if it even has any video capabilities, or IBIS, since I didn't read any in the article.
I agree. Moonrise over Halfdome could benefit with a splash of lime green.
Oleg Ivanovskiy: Leica has stepped in the Rollex zone long ago. It's as much a camera, as Rollex are watches. Technicaly - yes, they both are. Do you need them for any other purpose beside showing off your wealth and status? No, you don't.
100 years from no, your grand kids will see that Leica up on the shelf and remember you. The Seiko you have, not so much.
The phone rings, it's your editor sending you into a shooting war...right now. No time to think, you've got to get those shots, failure is not an option. Running out the door there are 2 cameras on the table, a Leica and a Sony. The taxi horn is blaring. Which do you grab?
Doesn't anyone remember 18% grey?
Artem Sarafanov: Personally, I respect (some) people and (some of their) rules rather than places or "memories". And I don't go to places, where I feel uncomfortable. I see no point in visiting Auschwitz. I believe people that decided to go there may take any pictures the want, unless they don't make any measurable damage. Staying on a rail harms nobody. All this stuff is a matter of taste. (Asking for "respect" is also OK. Just don't insist too much or at least don't harm anyone while insisting, please.)
Give this a little more thought. There are visitors there who are survivors and the families of survivors. They are there to mourn. Should tourists be disrespectful of the living? Try taking selfies at Arlington national cemetery and see what happens.
Every time I read some comment about how Leica is an over priced, obsolete backwater whose primary purpose is to fulfill the desires of posers, I look at the major turning points in the history of photography, and once again there they are. This time FFM.
califleftyb: 17 mpx and no IBIS? I don't see how they can justify a price more than $599.
Re: your comment (above). When you can discern the difference between optical stabilization and IBIS, I'll stop considering you a troll.
All these compromises between compatibility, size, weight.... I will stick with a DSLR and be done with it. I have lumix mirrorless for when I want a small walk around and don't rely on a Frankenstein system. Why spend all that money just to complicate your life?
17 mpx and no IBIS? I don't see how they can justify a price more than $599.
absentaneous: If I was Google I would simply block Getty from search results and Getty would not have the case anymore. This copyright thing is really getting absurd. On one hand they are crying because Google is supposedly "stealing" their copyright material on other hand they want to be part of their search results. They behave like Google was a "common good" charity company and everyone is supposed to have the right to tell them how to run their business. You don't like how they run their business? Then don't do business with them. Simple as that.
So if I understand stand your argument, if I walk through the door of a bookstore, I can steal any book I see because the author chose to make it available to search?
Because I have software and a computer in a dedicated refrigerated room that can handle processing that amount of data I am so ready! Of course my printer will have to downsize it all but what the heck.
Didn't Kootek used to make.... film? And by the way, hey model, EAT SOMETHING.
April fools everyone.
No love here for Adobe. I purchased the entire suite of CS2, cost around $1,400 if I recall. I wanted to buy the update of photoshop cs4 to refresh my software and was told to go spin - I had to buy the entire suite update at another 800 or so. Really? No thank you, sheer greed. Wasn't surprised they went to the CC format. I've migrated to other software since then, and use my old CS2 if convenient. Congratulation Mr. Knoll and Adobe on your business model. It's strictly business.
If Hassie wants to do something radical then make a camera that is contax g zeiss lens compatible. Instant market.
I don't trust Adobe (and neither should you). There is breaking news (10/7) That Adobe's Digital Editions e-book and PDF reader—an application used by thousands of libraries to give patrons access to electronic lending libraries—actively logs and reports every document readers add to their local “library” along with what users do with those files.
The logs are transmitted without any encoding whatsoever over the Internet - in the clear - allowing Internet service providers and cable companies, or anyone sharing a public Wi-Fi network to follow along over the readers’ shoulders.
How can a company like Adobe be so blatantly ignorant of the customer's privacy needs? This news is being reported at sites like "Ars Technica".
Too much manual control, can't they make a plane like today's cameras with a single selector; takeoff-fly-land?
califleftyb: "Copyright law states that works not originated by a human author can't support a copyright claim...'
This would make sense IF is could be demonstrated that there was no human intervention at some point, either in pre or post, because until the point of completion it simply is not yet a "work". I assert that is impossible without human intervention. Since only a human can have legal standing the right to register the work falls to Mr. Slater.
That's the problem... the copyright office INCORRECTLY considers the monkey to be the author - which is an impossibility.