Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Different cats - the box one is an animal and the bag one is a whip - Oh- and the bag is red baize, so I don't get your meaning:lecture::ROTFL:He won't let you see it -- he's keeping it in a box guarded by Schrödinger's Cat!
They both exist in an indeterminate state until September 9. At that point, the vapor either condenses into a tangible Leica M9, or it doesn't. Either way, the cat is then out of the box AND out of the bag, if you take my meaning...
No, it's to reinforce that our preferences are exactly that, preferences.What's your purpose here? Is it to tell us that our preferences are wrong?
Yeah, but you have to give them the luxury of changing their minds. Consider that at Photokina the world hadn't yet begun the headlong plunge into recession/depression.He also said at Photokina that the company would still support the R family and they announced that the R10 was for real.
Less than a year later look what has happened vis a vis R products.
Woody
You are of course correct..I hadn t thought about the extra MP would allow a lot more cropping. Hard though to give up the IQ in FF....nothing beats a larger sensor overall. OK Now I want FF right after the ISO.Roger - How do you lose 180mm? Cropping a full-frame image to 1.33x puts you right back where you are with the M8's crop's, so I don't understand how'd you be losing anything compared to what we have with the M8. I totally agree with you regarding some degree of weather sealing. It's scary that a rain drop can roll off the case, under the power button and seep into the camera body.
Overall I like the M8 how it is. I don't want to see it get complicated with EVF's or electronic frame lines. If I want features, buttons and high levels of customization - then I'll buy / use a dSLR. What I like most about the M8 is its simplicity and directness. More MP, maybe full-frame, same sharpness, better ISO, 16-bit DNGs and maybe some other minor tweaks, and I'm happy. A nicely paced evolution into a full-frame M9 is about my pace.
The Micro 4/3's solution is probably a good platform for some of these other ideas - like EVF type framing. A well thought out 4/3's body that can accept M lenses directly could be a very nice addition to the M8/M9 as a second body / back up. I'm not sure if I'd like using a 90 APO cropped to 2X for an effective 180mm FOV, but then again, I might like that option. With sensor stabilization that could be a very intriguing option.
I'm also wondering if we'll see the Visoflex make a return as the R lens solution. That's probably not as slick of a solution as some people would like, but I get a kick out of the Visoflex III. It's a bit frankenstein in its execution, but it amuses me.
No, it's to reinforce that our preferences are exactly that, preferences.
There's a certain tendency in the Leica world to act as if individual preferences were more than that -- more like natural law, or scientific fact, or historical inevitability, or destiny.
But preferences -- I love those. If you want to tell me, "I prefer the look of my DMR images over Nikon D3x images because the colors and details look better to me," or "because my gallery owner finds them more salable," then I'm totally with you. If you want to say, "I prefer my M8 images to DSLR images because customers like them better," I'm on your team. If you want to say, "I don't know why, I just like them better," you have my applause.
In fact, I can't afford NOT to stick up for unadorned individual preference. I'd prefer to watch ballet rather than football, which puts me at odds with 99.99% of the male population; I drive a 1974 Saab that looks like a sunburned aardvark; and my favorite camera/lens combo is an Epson R-D 1 with an adapted Canon 50mm f/0.95!
In other words, my own preferences are so eccentric that I'm certainly not going to attack other people's... as long as we're clear that preferences are what we're talking about!
John I use the newest version the 135/3.4 APO....you can see a number of images on my website under Street shooting/san francisco 09. (This is a work in progress because it helps to see them in context of the website).Roger - which 135mm are you using? I've been think about the 2nd version elmarit w/ goggles (55mm Canadian), but have held off because I thought focusing would be hit or miss.
Why does it need reinforcing? Something about preaching and choirs comes to mind. Are you our messiah?No, it's to reinforce that our preferences are exactly that, preferences.
Obviously you haven't read farther up the thread! Some of the loudest voices in the choir have been contending that hardware antialiasing is Original Sin, and to that crowd I'm a heretic, not a messiah!Why does it need reinforcing? Something about preaching and choirs comes to mind. Are you our messiah?
Of course the ultimate irony is that heretics and messiahs usually end up with the same fate...Obviously you haven't read farther up the thread! Some of the loudest voices in the choir have been contending that hardware antialiasing is Original Sin, and to that crowd I'm a heretic, not a messiah!
Obviously you've suffered the malady you're seeing in others. Did you not read the post where I pointed out the advantages (IMHO) of AA filters?Obviously you haven't read farther up the thread! Some of the loudest voices in the choir have been contending that hardware antialiasing is Original Sin, and to that crowd I'm a heretic, not a messiah!
No (to all three expectations)...Okay, I admit I'm straying off-topic a bit, but I have a question about this.
Given that we accept the proposition that anti-aliasing (AA) filters are bad for color, tonal range, detail, etc., and that consequently less AA filtering is better, and no AA filtering is best of all... then why do Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, etc., etc., insist on including them in so many of their camera designs?
Is it because:
The mystery behind haveing no AA-filter is simply, that this is only possible (and sensefull) with a full-frame CCD, where the active pixels (pixelareas) are almost contiguous.Or is it possibly that AA filters have their place? I know, I shouldn't have said it, but I hang around in the gutters and dark alleys of the photography world, where twisted souls who have turned their back on the Gospel of Solms whisper perverted heresies of this sort... I was going to enumerate a few, but was afraid of shocking the kiddies...
John corrected the URL on my signiture....it does not include www. .. problems just Google my name.Roger, I'll hold off on a 135mm lens until we know whether or not the M9 is real. If the M9 is real, then a 135mm lens is the least of my worries BTW - I tried to look at your site, but the URL doesn't seem to be correct (in your signature).