m9 the working mans version?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thought for the day. Which of these three are tools; a Nikon Camera, a Canon Camera, and a Leica Camera.

Here is a clue... All three are. Use the right tool for the right job.
 
"But they were always luxury cameras to most people; they didn't sell on fantasies of being a war correspondent."

i don't know about that Roger. no facts to back it up but most of the folks i know shooting them bought them as tough, reliable tools with a hint of romance.
 
healyzh said:
Thought for the day. Which of these three are tools; a Nikon Camera, a Canon Camera, and a Leica Camera.

Here is a clue... All three are. Use the right tool for the right job.
Click to expand...

jeez man. can we all skip the yoda routine and read the thread.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Creative? Pull the other one. Name a few Spartan philosophers, sculptors or architects. I don't know enough about Samurai art but I've never heard of any. Not sure what you mean by Sadus, but if you're talking about Indian holy men, no, I don't think they're noted for theor strength, just for their stoicism. As for the Society of Jesus, damn' few of them starve.

In other words, if you're too stupid, or too obsessive, to eat well, but concentrate instead on killing people (Spartans and Samurai), or on peddling your particular variety of religion (saddhus and Jesuits) I don't really care what you eat.

As for starving artists, that's a romantic fantasy that I trace back to Goethe. Before that, it was a way of earning a living like any other. Since then, there've been plenty of rich, successful artists too: Alma-Tadema springs to mind. It's just that starving artists have a particular appeal for people who aren't very good. "Look at van Gogh," they say, "Never sold a painting in his life!" Logically, this the classic omitted middle. Sure, it's possible never to sell a painting because you're a misunderstood genius and way ahead of your time. It's also possible that you're just not very good; or lazy; or bad at marketing yourself; or....

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Spartans and Samurai were more an example of physical and mental endurance which I believe any PJ needs. You can't expect to walk for miles in all sorts of condition and when need be run for cover and duck if you lack the fitness or your joints are too painful from gout.

But one of the most recent example is Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who ate one meal a day, despite running every morning for five miles and being commander of the US forces in Afghanistan. He also slept for four hours only.

So, going back to the OP. What one needs for a month of PJ work in Sahara is a fit body and mind, the bare minimum necessary equipment that will do the job and the good old fashioned Kantian "good will".
 
what i need in the sahara wasn't the OP. i thankfully have the wisdom and experience to figure out what i need for such a trip.
 
The nice thing about my film Leicas (and Nikon) is that if one of them packs up from something or other, I can take it up the street to my local Leica repair person Mr.Wenzel, and in most cases he'll get me back up and running.

The nice thing about my Apple computers is that I bring it to a tech in town.

It would be nice if there were camera specific programmers/techs that could tend to Leica's digital cameras.
 
emraphoto said:
"But they were always luxury cameras to most people; they didn't sell on fantasies of being a war correspondent."

i don't know about that Roger. no facts to back it up but most of the folks i know shooting them bought them as tough, reliable tools with a hint of romance.
Click to expand...

Yeah I dont think Leicas were marketed to any sector Roger they were used pretty broadly across the spectrum. They were tough cameras that could withstand hard use for many years.

And I know you seem to have a certain distain for people who use their cmaeras in hard working areas, but there are some of us who need that level of protection, without having any fantasies of anything, its reliability thats the question, the same reason I drive a Land Cruiser, I drive in hard to access places that I have seen other vehicles fall apart on, its not about romanticizing anything its about having a reliable tool for a job.
 
GSNfan said:
Spartans and Samurai were more an example of physical and mental endurance which I believe any PJ needs. You can't expect to walk for miles in all sorts of condition and when need be run for cover and duck if you lack the fitness or your joints are too painful from gout.

But one of the most recent example is Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who ate one meal a day, despite running every morning for five miles and being commander of the US forces in Afghanistan. He also slept for four hours only.

So, going back to the OP. What one needs for a month of PJ work in Sahara is a fit body and mind, the bare minimum necessary equipment that will do the job and the good old fashioned Kantian "good will".
Click to expand...

No what one needs is training and reliable tools, have you ever been in the Sahara by any chance? I think you'll find that without reliable tools across the specturm its a lethal place that doesnt care about your fit body ,mind and good will, it cares about killing you as quick as possible.
 
JayGannon said:
No what one needs is training and reliable tools, have you ever been in the Sahara by any chance? I think you'll find that without reliable tools across the specturm its a lethal place that doesnt care about your fit body ,mind and good will, it cares about killing you as quick as possible.
Click to expand...

without reliable i don't get what i have been graciously funded to get. coming back empty handed from gear failure would mean my career was sunk.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
emraphoto said:
without reliable i don't get what i have been graciously funded to get. coming back empty handed from gear failure would mean my career was sunk.
Click to expand...

Yup one shoot goes bad its all over, reputation down the drain, no more funding, no more Corporate contracts, no more NGO work, nada, and suddenly your stuck shooting cats and brick walls everyday =)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Roger Hicks said:
Funny: it always used to. We're back to the gorillas.
Click to expand...

Brain f@rt: I meant to say (type, actually) the rangefinder mechanism (the one one focuses with), not the camera itself. It likes to get misaligned with major bumps and falls. Or, rather, it dislikes staying aligned in such cases.
 
Turtle said:
How some Leica M9 owners think that anyone asking for more from the brand has sour grapes because they either can't afford one or have frivolous needs which they should 'snap out of.'
Click to expand...

No, there was no mention of "sour grapes". And keeps on illustrating my point: people miss the proverbial picture (no pun intended). Asking for goat milk from a grape is not a case of sour grapes, but a case of not understanding the grapes. It has nothing to do with needs, frivolous or otherwise. It has to do with understanding that a grape that doesn't provide you with milk, no matter how logical it may seem that crushed grapes give you a liquid, it will never be milk, far less from a goat.

Then turning around that one has something against goats or milk makes the argument(s) far more absurd.

NO: you cannot get something from something else that isn't what you think it ought to be just because you don't understand what it is.
 
come now Gabriel. that's a leap that isn't being made.

toughening up the M line and squeezing milk from grapes? i am sure even you can see the absurdity of this analogy.

we all get it. you are pleased as punch with your M9 they way it is. some folks, folks here who i know are working on the cameras and need to make their decisions dependent on other criterium, aren't so happy. hinting, however thin the veil, that they simply don't get it is not conducive to the OP.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JayGannon said:
Yeah I dont think Leicas were marketed to any sector Roger they were used pretty broadly across the spectrum. They were tough cameras that could withstand hard use for many years.

And I know you seem to have a certain distain for people who use their cmaeras in hard working areas, but there are some of us who need that level of protection, without having any fantasies of anything, its reliability thats the question, the same reason I drive a Land Cruiser, I drive in hard to access places that I have seen other vehicles fall apart on, its not about romanticizing anything its about having a reliable tool for a job.
Click to expand...
Dear Jay,

I seem to have failed completely to make myself clear. I have NO disdain for anyone who shoots in harsh environments, though I do have a very low opinion of those who fantasize about it (but don't do it) or who deliberately mistreat their cameras to show how tough they are (the photographers, not the cameras).

I've not yet broken the Land Rover by crossing rough terrain, and I've not yet broken a Leica through hard use. Yes, both have needed repair, but nothing made by man is perfect. Yes, there are people who can break both, sometimes because they have pushed them beyond their limits, which may sometimes be what you have to do. But with a modicum of care and intelligence, it's amazing what you can get away with without pushing either beyond their limits.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
emraphoto said:
"But they were always luxury cameras to most people; they didn't sell on fantasies of being a war correspondent."

i don't know about that Roger. no facts to back it up but most of the folks i know shooting them bought them as tough, reliable tools with a hint of romance.
Click to expand...

Sure. Leica has always traded on that. But there's a big difference between romance; getting good pictures out of a tough, reliable camera; and beating the crap out of it. Until recently, most people tended to look after their cameras as best they could. Then it became fashionable to see how much abuse they could take. Surprise! There's a limit to how much abuse any camera can take.

Cheers,

R.
 
David_Manning said:
Aside from dust and other reliability questions, how about operating temperatures in the Sahara?

It's obvious from a max-reliability issue, the answer is two film M's and b&w film (color will wilt in the heat).

Or a D700/D3 :)

BTW, I totally agree with the OP...Leica has evolved from a simple, reliable tool known for it's brilliant optics, to a dilletant's luxury item for fair-weather photography. I really love using my M6 and enjoy the unique look of the Tri-X film process, but when the going gets tough, I always reach for my Nikon.
Click to expand...

I suspect the biggest challenge facing a photo scheduled to stay in the Sahara for 30 days will be a source of power to charge batteries (applicable to any digital camera).

Does anyone make a solar powered batter charger that can charge lithium ion batteries that are commonly found in digital cameras?
 
So basically people are telling us that Leica's are the only cameras that fail? I've had quite a few of cameras lock-up when using them. Some just wear, some design flaws.

The Nikon F Photomic "Fly-Away-Syndrome" where the meter head tended to fly off the camera during hard use did not seem to kill its reputation for a tough camera. That's why they added the extra pincers to the FTn head. The meter head is not well sealed against dirt, either.

So which cameras are so tough that no one has had a problem?

Is there a Digital Nikonos around?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom