Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Mmmm. No. Still a GTN. Monkeys are easily convinced and amused by superficial changes, but us homo sapiens know that a red dot doesn't do anything.
On the other hand, those who use Red Dots on things that don't have them show how much respect they have for things that shouldn't have them as well as those that legally have them.
Slap those who slap red dots on things, and watch the world change...
NickTrop
Veteran
So monkeys bought (and paid considerably more for) those Leica digicams with the red dot.
And "homosapiens" bought the exactical digicam sans red dot (for a lot less money) that rolled off the same Panasonic assembly line in Japan.
Gotchya
Is a CL a Leica or just a Minolta? Is the Minolta a Leica? Or vice versa in reverse? And which one would a homosapien buy?
|
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
No, that's the Neanderthal view: anything with a red dot must be bad, because they dislike anything that has a red dot. It's the "you're with us or you're against us" mentality.
Besides, no digicam has fillum, so it's crap anyway, according to the Holey Church of Fillum.
Juno
Rangefinder shooter
I love Ken's site. Yes, he makes sweeping statements but theyre usually correct. He cuts through all the bull**** about which lens is ever so marginally sharper (supposedly) than another. Within the limitations of its auto only metering, the pics the Yashica takes will be as good as anything else of a similar focal length because the quality of the lens is such that any benefits from, say, a Leica lens will be almost theoretical - i.e. not readily apparent in practice.
I think Ken's attitude can be summed up by saying that he doesnt care what lens test charts say: if you cant see it in the biggest print youre likely to make, then, for all practical purposes, it doesnt exist.
I think Ken's attitude can be summed up by saying that he doesnt care what lens test charts say: if you cant see it in the biggest print youre likely to make, then, for all practical purposes, it doesnt exist.
Graham Line
Well-known
The bone I have to pick with that approach -- and Ken isn't the only person and photography isn't the only field -- is that it doesn't encourage people to strive for improvements to their craft. A 'good enough' approach, or accepting the limitations of a medium, condemns the user to traveling in a circle instead of extending their abilities.
I work sometimes with high-school age writers -- most are stretching the envelope in every way possible
but there is a distinct subset which firmly believes that their first drafts are fine and the remainder of the world is at fault for not always understanding exactly what they have to say.Telling someone who is trying to develop a skill "what you're doing is plenty" is not doing them a favor.
Last edited:
Juno
Rangefinder shooter
Joe,
You've completely misunderstood what Ken is saying - its the exact opposite of what you think he's saying. Pushing the envelope isnt about what gear you use. Kens saying that there are lots of cameras that are perfectly capable of photographing whatever you want to photograph. The gear should be secondary to the photograph.
You dont strive for improvements to your craft by buying another camera. He isn't advocating a "good enough approach" except where the equipment is concerned. If your equipment is good enough - and most photographers arent as good as their gear -forget it and get on with the picture taking process.
You've completely misunderstood what Ken is saying - its the exact opposite of what you think he's saying. Pushing the envelope isnt about what gear you use. Kens saying that there are lots of cameras that are perfectly capable of photographing whatever you want to photograph. The gear should be secondary to the photograph.
You dont strive for improvements to your craft by buying another camera. He isn't advocating a "good enough approach" except where the equipment is concerned. If your equipment is good enough - and most photographers arent as good as their gear -forget it and get on with the picture taking process.
The bone I have to pick with that approach -- and Ken isn't the only person and photography isn't the only field -- is that it doesn't encourage people to strive for improvements to their craft. A 'good enough' approach, or accepting the limitations of a medium, condemns the user to traveling in a circle instead of extending their abilities.
I work sometimes with high-school age writers -- most are stretching the envelope in every way possible
Telling someone who is trying to develop a skill "what you're doing is plenty" is not doing them a favor.
R
ruben
Guest
Ok, perhaps we go back to the issue itself, although I would be very much pleased if our friend Joe Brugger could do some effort to express himself in a more simple English.
Basically what Mr Rockwell does is the work of an illusionist on the stage, or sophism in the field of arguments.
This is specially sound nowadays when the amount of good working Electros is so meagre
Yes indeed, if the owner of an Electro and another owner of a Leica will get to the street at mid-day, once a year, and fill a single roll at f/8 or f/11 - the will arrive at similar results during the first three decades.
But this is not what it is about. It is possible that Leicas are over-estimated, and over-priced,
but dear folks, rationally comparing the capabilities, the potential, the quality of both - it is quite below our common sense.
Cheers,
Ruben
Basically what Mr Rockwell does is the work of an illusionist on the stage, or sophism in the field of arguments.
This is specially sound nowadays when the amount of good working Electros is so meagre
Yes indeed, if the owner of an Electro and another owner of a Leica will get to the street at mid-day, once a year, and fill a single roll at f/8 or f/11 - the will arrive at similar results during the first three decades.
But this is not what it is about. It is possible that Leicas are over-estimated, and over-priced,
but dear folks, rationally comparing the capabilities, the potential, the quality of both - it is quite below our common sense.
Cheers,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator:
V
varjag
Guest
If all you say is sweeping generalizations and truisms (peace is good, war is bad, water is wet, better rich and healthy than poor and sick), your opinion isn't worth a dime.
Juno
Rangefinder shooter
Eugene, I dont think your opinion is worth a dime in this case. Generalisations exist because they serve a purpose. It is demonstrably wrong to dismiss them all as you do. In general, prime lenses are better than zooms, Leicas are more reliable than Zorkis, men are stronger than women, Americans are fatter than Vietnamese people.
V
varjag
Guest
Juno, I never dismissed generalizations, and I hope you don't really think I deny that water is wet. However one should be able to say something more substantial than that to be considered expert.
I think we all here heard that "it's photographer that takes pictures and not camera", "great photographer can make a masterpiece with a tin can", "right tool for the job" and other catchphrases that make one sound important and knowledgable without much effort.
However, there is only so much novelty in rephrasing common knowledge with prophetic attitude, and it quickly wears off. Beyond that, Mr. Rockwell isn't doing terribly well. Great example is his extoiling of 18-200 VR, which if judged by his own samples, can be trumped with an Industar assembled 50 years ago by half-blind worker in a bad mood.
(And "you" in my earlier post was figurative, referring to the subject quoted, no need to be so jumpy)
Juno
Rangefinder shooter
Must have been the caffeine, Eugene. Twitch, twitch...
NickTrop
Veteran
You assessment is spot on. Owners of expensive camera gear don't like hearing that a camera that can be had for $50 is a better (yes, "better") photographic tool than their expensive prestige brand, so they become defensive. The Yash is better for - like Rockwell or not, exactly what he states in essence, which is similar to what I said in a tread from a few months agos...
... its design is such that (according to Rockwell) "nothing gets in the way." I said it's the fastest in operation which affords the most creative control required - the aperture. Ergo, it's "the best camera for RF-style photography" and best able to capture that "decisive moment".
This attribute of the Yashica, in conjunction with its overall value proposition, trumps the truly marginal differences in lens quality between a Yashica Electro and a Leica. The Electro gave you what you needed to take a photograph well (or at least improved your odds). Yash gave you useful meaningful innovation (at least in its era) in fast aperture priority, a kick-arse lense, combined for an outstanding value proposition. Leica gave you "a buttery smooth focusing ring" (rolls eyes) that you paid beyond a premium for. If this was a movie, the Yashica would be that low budget sleeper where every dollar was on the screen and was entertaining (if, perhaps, mixed reviews, critically). The Leica would be that big budget, big name pseudo art-house "independent" flick...
Leica was/is always about the "4 Ps"..
- Product
- Price
- Placement
- Promotion
... the 4 Ps of "marketing", that is....
Yashica was about the 1 "P"...
... photography
|
Last edited:
Thardy
Veteran
Well, he can't be all bad. Look how he got under the skin of mr uber.
(click on the red link on the left)
(click on the red link on the left)
oscroft
Veteran
Nope, "geriatric" (no "s") is an adjective (though it does also have a noun usage), but "geriatrics" is a noun. See...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/geriatrics
My Webster's agrees too.
There's no entry for "geriatry" at dictionary.com (or in Webster's), and most of the references I can find with Google seem to redirect to "geriatrics".
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
So, Leica is not about photography. To those that can only bash Leica, that is. I guess.
You came about this inside information, Oh Enlightened One, with which irrefutable logic?
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
No. It is your rabid bashing of something that you don't like, which is what owners and nonowners of expensive and cheap things don't like to hear.
One thing is to state an opinion based on observation. Another is to spew vitriol based on a feeling of inferiority.
If you had a spoon, you'd deride a jackhammer that would have a "red dot" on it, just because you hate it and all you perceive it stands for. And then you'd rant and justify your view with juvenile statements such as "the rich jackhammer owners don't like to hear that a spoon is better".
Once you shed your opinions from any evident bias (to say the least), they may become plausible.
It is to you that Ken's "reviews" caters to.
And it works. Just like Faux News (heh, speaking of bias, mine and theirs), "reviewers" of this kind can only make money by exploiting base hatreds.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Thanks!
It appears Mr. Uber doesn't like Mr. Rockwelll very much. I forgot how funny Chris can be at times. I'll have to add his blog to my blog links.
R
ruben
Guest
Nick,
I hardly can believe you are serious, and I assume you are not. Nevertheless, just in case you want to follow the game, let's start from the begining, the ABC.
While the Electros were fixed lens cameras, enabling the manufacturer to enjoy the many advantages of this situation, Leicas were and are system cameras, enabling lens exchange plus a numerous high quality devices, up to the simple diopter, lacking in the Yashicas.
By this sole factor, the Electros stand below not only Leicas but FSU Kievs, Feds and every other system cameras. And here the main issues of the discussion end, to my humble opinion. Of course that in case you overskip this fact, you start jocking and I welcome your sense of humour.
There are and have been top photographers working with fixed lens cameras, but this doesn't contradict the fact that a fixed lens camera is an amateur one.
On behalf of the Electros and against the Leicas you can say that the former were highly innovative while the latter highly conservative with almost no limit here, but Leicas offered a package of the most basic operations at a much higher built quality.
In contrast, the Electros, clearly are not cameras to stand high levels of banging or shutter firings.
Now I could detail furthermore why the Electrros are amateur purposed cameras while Leicas are pro, but the list is long and I am not sure you are serious.
The problem is as well that you mix correct criticisms about Leica users, manufaturers etx, and hide much of the Yashica weaknesses, even if we were to accept that a fixed lens camera can be compared to a system one.
Cheers,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator:
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
Kemo-sabe it is not the arrow that flies straight is the indian behind the bow that makes it go straight
richreidjr
Rich in TX
trade, anyone?
trade, anyone?
would anyone like to trade an inferior Leica for my "superior" Electro 35 GSM?
trade, anyone?
would anyone like to trade an inferior Leica for my "superior" Electro 35 GSM?
Last edited: