aizan
Veteran
not a very big part of the attraction to me. as far as lenses go, all i want is a small widish prime. not interested in zooms or adapter rings.
too bad the x1 doesn't have a built in viewfinder or image stabilization from the looks of it. if the autofocus is slow, it's doa for me.
too bad the x1 doesn't have a built in viewfinder or image stabilization from the looks of it. if the autofocus is slow, it's doa for me.
Tuolumne
Veteran
So, is it full frame or not?
/T
/T
Samsam
Established
yes, it is
KM-25
Well-known
I wager it's $6,500 list price. Whoever is closest without going over gets a chance at the Price is Right showcase.![]()
Sold!
You want to buy back that M3 in my avatar we painted black?
Just kidding, that thing rocks, the paint is going to last forever.
TomN
Established
35mp! i hope that the latest G11 will be the beginning of the end of the pixel war. 18mp sounds like a pretty nice number for the M9.
ulrikft
Established
I think he's being ok. He's just voicing an opinion and not being disrespectful about it.
He is stating that a) Us that shoot digitally are not taking photographs, b) he is making statements he knows is false.
To me that is disrespectfull and trollish. He knows that you can manipulate analoge as well as digital files, he knows that file formats like "jpg" and most likely most of the raw-formats will have support, if not in vanilla systems, then in emulators, for decades to come. His arguments are just going trough the motions. And it has no place in this thread.
kemal_mumcu
Well-known
Did anyone notice that in reference to the 135mm 3.4 Leica recommends to stop down a couple stops when in use with the M9. I wonder what this is all about?
larmarv916
Well-known
Viewfinder Mag. is a .68 !! Not even a .72 Also I do not see that the viewfinder comes in anyother type..like a .85 or a .58 !! This I see as a big mistake! The .72 mag viewfinder was created as a imporvement . Not to mention that anyone using a 90 or 135 is not going to get the perfromance of accuracy in focus they get now with a 72 or 85.
jfujita
Established
Yeah, my understanding is that the .68 rf was made to match the M8's crop. A .68 rf on a full frame body doesn't make much sense especially if its supposed to be used with the new noctilux. .72 would make me happy.
leicashot
Well-known
He is stating that a) Us that shoot digitally are not taking photographs, b) he is making statements he knows is false.
To me that is disrespectfull and trollish. He knows that you can manipulate analoge as well as digital files, he knows that file formats like "jpg" and most likely most of the raw-formats will have support, if not in vanilla systems, then in emulators, for decades to come. His arguments are just going trough the motions. And it has no place in this thread.
I have to disagree. I think that it was just a wrong choice of words, and not words we need to be offended about. He's just a firm believer in the film medium, and has probably had little experience or negative experience with digital....or just love the look of film. Can you really blame him? People on forums are always sooking about how they want a camera to emulate film.
I think those that are quick to attack film advocates are just as bad as those quick to dismiss digital as a viable and quality medium for taking still photographs. I also think that a lot of 'radical' digital advocates are inexperienced in photography (due to little use of film) and therefor have little empathy or understanding of why people have an attachment to film.
Remember the days of taking an image, and looking for the next...rather than taking a picture, then NEEDING to look at the LCD just to 'be sure' you 'got it?' Digital has made photographers, including myself feel somewhat more insecure at times, and less patient. I can't count the pictures I've missed (not including the ones I don't know I missed) by looking at the LCD when I should be concentrating on finding the next picture.
There's no need to be offended by his comments, and if you are, you're probably just feeling a little insecure by the fact that someone has a different opinion to yours, and you just don't like it. So back to topic....whether or not there is an M9 and it's awesome/bad, there is always going to be those that believe in film, a medium that has been used for years by many people on this forum, so their opinions, though different mean just as much on this forum than on any other forum, film or digital.
From a converted digital guy who hasn't forgotten where he came from.
aizan
Veteran
i think it's an improvement. better visibility of 28mm and 35mm framelines. the magnifier covers the use of longer, faster lenses, which are not as important all things considered.
Rogier
Rogier Willems
Good link for download free of JUNK
Good link for download free of JUNK
I attempted to download the Leica M9 PDF from some of the links provided in the previous posts but got overwhelmed by the junk pushed to me by all these “free” download sites.
Here it is from my Mobile me account, clean and simple.
edit rover
Smiles across the wires,
Rogier
Good link for download free of JUNK
I attempted to download the Leica M9 PDF from some of the links provided in the previous posts but got overwhelmed by the junk pushed to me by all these “free” download sites.
Here it is from my Mobile me account, clean and simple.
edit rover
Smiles across the wires,
Rogier
KM-25
Well-known
Well put.
I don't understand why people have to get so heated over what others say, but I admit I do too at times. I have used digital in my profession for 16 years now, I have seen it change a bunch and to be honest, it only became appealing to me when it stopped looking like video and emerged full frame, everything else just sucked raw eggs in my opinion.
But....I still put film at the forefront of my work, it is my style, it is something I personally bond well with and if someone were to ask me which is more appealing for business and for pleasure, I am going to have to say film.
So in some ways, digital is *not* photography to me, it is simply a necessary evil in the business of gathering and distributing imagery for press ready applications. I don't get any more keepers with either medium, I don't think film limits me in low light, I know how to make images happen, I am a photographer, not a digital fanatic.
I use each medium for it's strengths and try not to find fault in it's downfalls. The introduction of a proper format Leica M digital body that does not need corrective IR filtration makes my M system a LOT more valuable to me. I can now pack a "Oskar's One Day Bag" with an M6, M9, 28 Summicron, 35 Summilux, 50 Summilux, 90 Tele-Elmarit, extra M9 battery, Gossen Digisix meter, two extra SD cards, 12 rolls of Kodachrome and a cable release and go to town, literally!
That F___ing ROCKS, end of story!
I don't understand why people have to get so heated over what others say, but I admit I do too at times. I have used digital in my profession for 16 years now, I have seen it change a bunch and to be honest, it only became appealing to me when it stopped looking like video and emerged full frame, everything else just sucked raw eggs in my opinion.
But....I still put film at the forefront of my work, it is my style, it is something I personally bond well with and if someone were to ask me which is more appealing for business and for pleasure, I am going to have to say film.
So in some ways, digital is *not* photography to me, it is simply a necessary evil in the business of gathering and distributing imagery for press ready applications. I don't get any more keepers with either medium, I don't think film limits me in low light, I know how to make images happen, I am a photographer, not a digital fanatic.
I use each medium for it's strengths and try not to find fault in it's downfalls. The introduction of a proper format Leica M digital body that does not need corrective IR filtration makes my M system a LOT more valuable to me. I can now pack a "Oskar's One Day Bag" with an M6, M9, 28 Summicron, 35 Summilux, 50 Summilux, 90 Tele-Elmarit, extra M9 battery, Gossen Digisix meter, two extra SD cards, 12 rolls of Kodachrome and a cable release and go to town, literally!
That F___ing ROCKS, end of story!
I have to disagree. I think that it was just a wrong choice of words, and not words we need to be offended about. He's just a firm believer in the film medium, and has probably had little experience or negative experience with digital....or just love the look of film. Can you really blame him? People on forums are always sooking about how they want a camera to emulate film.
I think those that are quick to attack film advocates are just as bad as those quick to dismiss digital as a viable and quality medium for taking still photographs. I also think that a lot of 'radical' digital advocates are inexperienced in photography (due to little use of film) and therefor have little empathy or understanding of why people have an attachment to film.
Remember the days of taking an image, and looking for the next...rather than taking a picture, then NEEDING to look at the LCD just to 'be sure' you 'got it?' Digital has made photographers, including myself feel somewhat more insecure at times, and less patient. I can't count the pictures I've missed (not including the ones I don't know I missed) by looking at the LCD when I should be concentrating on finding the next picture.
There's no need to be offended by his comments, and if you are, you're probably just feeling a little insecure by the fact that someone has a different opinion to yours, and you just don't like it. So back to topic....whether or not there is an M9 and it's awesome/bad, there is always going to be those that believe in film, a medium that has been used for years by many people on this forum, so their opinions, though different mean just as much on this forum than on any other forum, film or digital.
From a converted digital guy who hasn't forgotten where he came from.
leicashot
Well-known
I attempted to download the Leica M9 PDF from some of the links provided in the previous posts but got overwhelmed by the junk pushed to me by all these “free” download sites.
Here it is from my Mobile me account, clean and simple.
http://public.me.com/pa1zz
Smiles across the wires,
Rogier
Thanks very much
ulrikft
Established
I run a student darkroom, I think I have enough experience both shooting film and digital to say that "digital is not photography" is a term coined to provoke. You don't have to be a radical digital advocate to find "what you do, in this entire subforum, which I'm posting in, is not photography, you just manipulate data files, it is not worthy" a bit.. on the provocative side. Almost as provocative, are your condecending "if you find this provocative, you are just insecure"... seriously? Are you even reading what you are writing before posting it? As I said above, I have used and I use film on an almost daily basis, and I'm quite secure in what i do both with film and digital, and that does not mean that I do _not_ find "what you do half of the time does not count as photography" provocative. I'm all for people liking film people liking digital and people liking both, what I'm not for, is people saying "Well, I like nikon cameras, leicas are not even photographic tools, just jewlery for people that doesen't know what they are doing". Which is analogoues to what he is saying and you are supporting. I really don't think his post is usefull, constructive or anything but random drivel.
I have to disagree. I think that it was just a wrong choice of words, and not words we need to be offended about. He's just a firm believer in the film medium, and has probably had little experience or negative experience with digital....or just love the look of film. Can you really blame him? People on forums are always sooking about how they want a camera to emulate film.
I think those that are quick to attack film advocates are just as bad as those quick to dismiss digital as a viable and quality medium for taking still photographs. I also think that a lot of 'radical' digital advocates are inexperienced in photography (due to little use of film) and therefor have little empathy or understanding of why people have an attachment to film.
Remember the days of taking an image, and looking for the next...rather than taking a picture, then NEEDING to look at the LCD just to 'be sure' you 'got it?' Digital has made photographers, including myself feel somewhat more insecure at times, and less patient. I can't count the pictures I've missed (not including the ones I don't know I missed) by looking at the LCD when I should be concentrating on finding the next picture.
There's no need to be offended by his comments, and if you are, you're probably just feeling a little insecure by the fact that someone has a different opinion to yours, and you just don't like it. So back to topic....whether or not there is an M9 and it's awesome/bad, there is always going to be those that believe in film, a medium that has been used for years by many people on this forum, so their opinions, though different mean just as much on this forum than on any other forum, film or digital.
From a converted digital guy who hasn't forgotten where he came from.
KM-25
Well-known
what I'm not for, is people saying "Well, I like nikon cameras, leicas are not even photographic tools, just jewlery for people that doesen't know what they are doing". Which is analogoues to what he is saying and you are supporting. I really don't think his post is usefull, constructive or anything but random drivel.
Well you have to make a choice now then, don't you:
1. You get all wrapped up in what is an opinion that no one is "GOD" enough to change in the case of the person you are referring to.
2. You accept that passion comes in many forms, including opinions, agreed with or not, well received or not and go on with your life and live out what is important to you.
Overall, I think that digital and the internet age is just about the worst thing to take over civilized humanity ever and the damage is just beginning really, and not just in photography. I also think that nothing about digital imaging has improved upon the finest, most powerful photographs in history in any way.
But I have also come to realize that I just don't give a crap about what people think of what I do or how I do it, as long as it is not hurting anyone.
The choice is up to you, just like it is for any of us....
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
The extremists of photography, just as in politics, are destroying the culture.
They're tools, all of them, to be used for creative ends. If a person finds one's self philosophically at enmity to an inanimate tool because of its peculiar attributes being out of phase with one's needs, then you have lost the ability to be a creative art-maker. Plain and simple, you are an unskilled tool user. Your prehensile thumb does you no good; return to the jungle from whence you crawled from millenia ago.
Art and craft, in their most pure element, are inseparable; this has been true for most of human history; only within recent memory have we purposefully made artificial distinctions between art and craft. And in so doing we also categorize our art-making tools into artificially distinct classifications that have no bearing on the reality of how those tools actually function in the creation of art. Man, the Tool Maker, is supposed to master control over his implements, not the other way around; fostering fear of the new, or disdain for the traditional, is mere ignorance, and has no place in the truly creative.
~Joe
They're tools, all of them, to be used for creative ends. If a person finds one's self philosophically at enmity to an inanimate tool because of its peculiar attributes being out of phase with one's needs, then you have lost the ability to be a creative art-maker. Plain and simple, you are an unskilled tool user. Your prehensile thumb does you no good; return to the jungle from whence you crawled from millenia ago.
Art and craft, in their most pure element, are inseparable; this has been true for most of human history; only within recent memory have we purposefully made artificial distinctions between art and craft. And in so doing we also categorize our art-making tools into artificially distinct classifications that have no bearing on the reality of how those tools actually function in the creation of art. Man, the Tool Maker, is supposed to master control over his implements, not the other way around; fostering fear of the new, or disdain for the traditional, is mere ignorance, and has no place in the truly creative.
~Joe
Ken Shipman
Well-known
A 1.25 magnifier on the .68 will give you effectively a .85 viewfinder. A 1.4 magnifier will give you a .95 viewfinder. That should handle everything from 50mm on up.
Last edited:
jfujita
Established
Do those magnifiers work with the M8/M9 eyepieces? Can you still see the metering info with them? That would be sweet.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
I own many perfect negatives on glass from about 1903 that are perfectly conserved.
Well processed b+w negatives on film are chemically very stable.
Computer systems tend to change. In about 20 years no system will be able to read files that are made now.
Erik.
Photoshop still opens image formats from the early 1980s (like Amiga), so I think this prediction is wrong. TIFF has already been around for 20 years, and JPEG what, 15? The safer bet is that in 20 years, no mainstream company will be making film, commercial processing will be impossibly expensive, and the EU will have banned silver halide processing as environmentally destructive.
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.