Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,963   Posts: 1,632,440   Online: 817
      
Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 234567891011121314 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 135
  1. #71
    georg16nik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    820
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    .... You can buy 5 separate cameras that are fixed lens cameras as an example, to encompass a good range of "lenses" and still pay less than te Leica.
    You can also buy 10 fast food burgers instead of eating in decent restaurant.
    Quality of food and service is never going to be the same.

    Leicas are cheap for what they are capable as cameras.

    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    ... And again, the resolving power of the film medium in no way matches the lens quality so all the lens perfection hype means nothing...
    You speak about resolving power of films based on Your scanner capabilities...
    The bottom of Coca-Cola glass bottle got better resolving power than most scanners.
    Regards,
    Georg

  2. #72

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,093
    Images
    228

    Is the Leica an "Investment?"

    Quote Originally Posted by georg16nik View Post
    You can also buy 10 fast food burgers instead of eating in decent restaurant.
    Quality of food and service is never going to be the same.

    Leicas are cheap for what they are capable as cameras.



    You speak about resolving power of films based on Your scanner capabilities...
    The bottom of Coca-Cola glass bottle got better resolving power than most scanners.
    I think burgers is a bad example, since I was talking about how the quality wasn't actually usable in the Leica so it's more like if you added that the proteins in the healthy food weren't digestible by humans..

    Lol I will admit to the scanner part. But who has the money to own an enlarger that will make a 4x5 FOOT print where it would make a difference?

    Scanned negatives from my scanner can print up to about 20x24 at 300dpi before interpolation. So the "optical printing is better" line is just like the Leica's are better line. Sure in optimum NO BUDGET LIMITS circumstances sure, there may be slight advantage but real world application is much different. So you're paint for results you can't even fully take advantage of unless you're a millionaire ...

    Side note, there's a poster in another thread who asked a question and the result answer was instruction on optical printing and how to correct in that process, the STUDENT's reply was that he had planned to get into optical printing someday but since his school only used scanners that's all he had available, this is a school with a photography degree. Some don't even teach film anymore. So again real world application is much different than on paper statistics.


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #73
    georg16nik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    820
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    ...
    Lol I will admit to the scanner part. But who has the money to own an enlarger that will make a 4x5 FOOT print where it would make a difference?

    Scanned negatives from my scanner can print up to about 20x24 at 300dpi before interpolation. So the "optical printing is better" line is just like the Leica's are better line....
    The optical enlarger and materials are the cheapest part of the darkroom magic.
    The skills, experience and time are expensive and where the real fun is.

    When it comes to optical print vs print from scans either you 'get it' or you don't..
    Same with Leica.
    Regards,
    Georg

  4. #74

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,093
    Images
    228

    Is the Leica an "Investment?"

    Quote Originally Posted by georg16nik View Post
    The optical enlarger and materials are the cheapest part of the darkroom magic.
    The skills, experience and time are expensive and where the real fun is.

    When it comes to optical print vs print from scans either you 'get it' or you don't..
    Same with Leica.
    Heh (in a fun non threatening sort of way, just a bit of needling...) I couldn't have said it better myself "you 'get it' or you don't.."

    (EDIT :Spelling)

    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #75
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Quote Originally Posted by JBrunner View Post
    Then he said "Smart people earn interest. Stupid people pay interest." He was right. The only interest that makes any sense at all is on a home, and that should be dispatched as quickly as possible.
    I agree with all the post, and I arrive to say that also regarding houses smart people earn interest instead of paying it.
    I mean that if people knew some financial mathematics they would easily understand that it is much cheaper to rent a house, and save and invest the difference between rent and mortgage, than paying a mortgage.

    I have actually put my house on sale. I will invest the sale proceed in shares, earning dividends (very easy to make 5% after taxes nowadays, I hope I sell my house before the next stock bubble). The dividends will pay for a nice rent on the outskirts of Rome, plus a comfortable "rent" living.

    Mortgages make people poor. Buy a house when you have the money to pay it cash, I say. A mortgage is a way to pay interest on a large capital. Saving is a way to earn interest. A mortgage instalment is much bigger than a rent for the same house if the market is in a normal state. The monthly difference, properly invested for the long term, will buy a house faster than the mortgage.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  6. #76
    EASmithV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,908
    Blog Entries
    4
    Images
    127
    I guess i'm just not a rangefinder guy at heart. I've played with Leicas and wasn't too impressed. My friends M3 just didn't feel as right as any Nikon I've ever used (from the F to the F6). If you're obsessing about raw image quality, you can buy a damn Hasselblad KIT for less than a Leica + lens. If you're obsessing about weight, a smallish SLR or even an Olympus XA are versatile, cheaper, and compact. I can understand paying a premium for a certain "look" but, I find it's easier to get the looks I like on Large format with it's respective lenses, if I am really looking for something non-modern.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    In the jewelry category, try wearing a wide angles Rolleiflex, a normal Rolleiflex, and a telephoto Rolleiflex all at once when taking photographs.
    This is why they invented the Hasselblad
    That being said, TLRs still have a few advantages.
    www.EASmithV.com

    "The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera."— Dorothea Lange
    http://www.flickr.com/easmithv/
    RIP Kodachrome

  7. #77

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by cbphoto View Post
    Strongly disagree. Leicas are extremely durable, last a long time (like, generations) with occasional tune-ups, are available in user condition for non-insane prices, and the lenses are just beyond.
    So are most other cameras. There is absolutely nothing special about Leica durability or longevity. A $39 Argus or $99 Praktica from the same era work just as well with as much, or even less attention. The lenses are great admittedly, but then again Leitz isn't the only great lens maker in the world and certainly other companies have made sharper lenses, sturdier lenses, etc. Frankly there is nothing special about the Leica, the only thing it excels at is being a rangefinder in the post-rangefinder era.

  8. #78

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    667
    Why all the Leica bashing? Walk over to your bookshelf and pull out a few books by photographers that shot 35mm. You'll find quite a lot that used Leicas. They're great tools that a huge number of very talented photographers have found to be the right camera for their use. These people were not stupid, and they also mostly were far from rich.

    What the heck does the "post rangefinder" era have to do with it? This is the post film era. A Nikon F5 is no more up to date today than a Leica M4.

    You can use whatever you prefer - Holga, pinhole, or Argus, but it is obnoxious to bash other peoples camera choices.

  9. #79

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    193
    Don't be silly. Pointing out that lots of old cameras are durable isn't bashing Leica. There really is nothing special about the durability and longevity of Leicas, it's pretty normal. That's not bashing, that's just a simple truth.

    "Post rangefinder" simply points out that as manufacturers switched to SLRs for their system cameras, the Leica basically became the unique excellent rangefinder system. There are however many great systems out there, Leica just happens to be a rangefinder system. That is all.

  10. #80

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    667
    My post was directed more at the "jewelry" comments, etc. I did not dispute your statement about durability; my Nikon F's have been amazingly durable and reliable cameras. But, I do disagree with your comments about there being nothing special about the Leica. I'm sure there are things that are special about an F3, or Aria, or many others too. If they suit your needs use them. The people who do not find a camera to be of interest to them are not really the ones whose opinion of those cameras is very useful.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin