Leica LTM Mr. Puts writes about Barnack

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
I don't think he is too far off the mark with his comments on consumerism as we know it today. There are plenty of solutions out there in search of a problem to solve. There is plenty of confusion between needs and wants.

Bob
 
OMG, That's is 5 minutes of reading I will never get back!

His stuff on photography is interesting, but IMHO he is going way out side of the area where he is best.

B2 (;->
 
To properly comment would be outside the guidelines of this forum.

I guess he'd rather decide what the peasants need-we don't know what's good for us!
 
Too much angst over the evolution of consumer photography. I say let the average person have his or her fun.
 
Last edited:
Dibble

Dibble

Finder said:
What meaningless dibble.
Click to expand...

Don't shake it twice or you're playing with it if it dribbles.

Drivel, the past tense of drool? Let's see, today I drool, yesterday I driveled, no that can't be right......
 
Putz sez:

Putz sez:

Putz sez:

"We had the Hasselblad for serious editorial and fashion photography, the Nikon F for high quality documentary and illustration work, the Canon F1 for the more scientific kind of photography, the Pentax for reportage coverage and the Leica M for the high profile artistic snapshot. The photographer made a choice and knew the limits of every camera type."

Huh? this is ridiculous. You made/make your choice and use it for whatever you like....
 
Thank you for all your comments, as I can not waste the time reading it.

That said, I have lots of thoughts about marketing-driven consumerism. But I shan't delve into that here.
 
Solinar said:
Too much angst over the evolution of consumer photography. I say let the average person have his or her fun.
Click to expand...

As Puts reminds us, it was so different a long time ago. What was the line, "you press the button, we will do the rest."
 
How come Leica takes all the credit / blame - Contax and others were all out there too ?
Some of it I can recognise , but it's all too '' certain '' , black and white , ignoring other/ perceptions . A bit hecktoring for me - makes me uncomfortable .
dee
 
I tried to read this, but I lasted about a paragraph. Maybe I'll try again before bedtime to make sure I can sleep tonight.
 
payasam said:
Rather mild and reasonably argued, I thought.
Click to expand...

I agree with you Mukul. His comments about consumerism are on point and reasonable. His complaints about digital photography are with the build quality of lenses for digital bodies not so much the bodies or digital photography per se.

...a modestly equipped manual camera with lenses with really good built-quality and outstanding optical design that require the photographer to think and feel about his photography above a camera that shields the photographer from the basics of the craft by introducing chance as the main principle for creating good pictures
Click to expand...

The above quote from the article may be overly wrought, with some tortured syntax, but the sentiment is one that I have seen posted may times here.

In all I found the article short and easy to read. Some minor typos, and only a bit of hyperbole. I really do not see what is so objectionable about his arguments.
 
"the E-3 does away with the whole concept of a eye-level finder"

says Mr. Puts... well, actually, the E-3 has the largest viewfinder and viewfinder magnification of all the E-series cameras. It's 100% and 1.15x mag.

Olympus put the live-view on an articulated display for those who can use it and are willing to use it creatively. Nothing wrong with it. But to conclude that they don't care about eye-level finder, it's a bit of a stretch.

Other than that, I think it's an ok article about the state of consumerism in photography these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom