|
orange lime posted:I think that anyone who was told they'd blown up a van full of kids would make some pretty crazy mental leaps to try and justify it to themselves. Anyone other than sociopathic murderers.
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:56 |
|
|
This thread just got really depressing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2010 23:41
|
|
|
This isn't the thread to debate this stuff. Move on or go to D&D.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 01:57
|
|
|
Fists Up posted:This isn't the thread to debate this stuff. Move on or go to D&D. Pretty much. This tragedy may have been averted had he shot Leica or of course something more unobtrusive. Too bad according to another Iraq war photographer, Leica has pretty much dropped the ball on everything. Rated PG-34 fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Apr 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 02:10
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:Pretty much. Well, the guy was also shooting with a 70-200 -- I don't know if the far end of that length is even available on a Leica, and it certainly isn't with the internal framelines and finder. Not to mention what a pain it would be to focus a long lens with a fixed-length rangefinder. Also, I like that page, but I'd hardly call his ASA 2500 noise "unusable". I guess I have lower standards. [e]: Never mind, my screen brightness was down lower than it should have been. That's pretty bad for daylight, even at ASA 2500. My 5DII (admittedly one of the best high-ISO cameras on the market right now) is worlds better and cost half as much. [e] It's phenomenal that using a Leica lens apparently renders a green-cyan color cast, while using a Zeiss one gives you a properly balanced image. What the hell would cause that? 
orange lime fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Apr 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 02:59
|
|
|
well this thread grew and i'll withhold my kill the troops comments. That Leica review's pretty pathetic. As a counterpoint, wasn't there a photo of a Leica that got shot and stopped a bullet? e: ^ i hate to judge by a few low res examples, but my pentax k7 does better at high iso in daylight if i were to look at a thumbnail that large guidoanselmi fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Apr 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 03:01
|
|
|
i tried to read the review till I got to the $10,000 with one lens part. If I had that kind of money I'd rather spend it on an airplane.
Haggins fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Apr 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 03:12
|
|
|
Haggins posted:i tried to read the review till I got to the $10,000 with one lens part. If I had that kind of money I'd rather spend it on an airplane. http://idleicarefundplease.blogspot.com/ Makes you think....
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 03:31
|
|
|
spog posted:http://idleicarefundplease.blogspot.com/ Hipster cred: priceless 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 03:37
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Ken Rockwell is that uncle you have that's into photography but likes talking more about it than taking pictures. Somehow he managed to be read by millions. Ken Rockwell's not a terrible photographer, he's actually okay and has taken some nice pictures. (I am not referring to his excessive self-portraits and family photos). But he is also -- as everyone knows -- the biggest hypocrit out there. He bashes gear heads who obsess over equipment, but that's all he does. His whole site is a dedication to camera gear. torgeaux posted:Brian May used a cheap rear end electric guitar for years, because it had a unique sound, but it wasn't better than a more expensive, more tonally accurate guitar, just the tool suited his purpose. I hope you're not talking about the Red Special, buddy! (Hand-carved out of a 19th century fireplace when he was 16).  spf3million posted:Whatever happened to Friendship Waffle anyway? He vowed to never come back and stuck to his promise. (Too bad, I think he had some good ideas). He still has the custom avatar we gave him.  Edit Rated PG-34 posted:Hipster cred: priceless 
Mannequin fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Apr 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 04:00
|
|
|
orange lime posted:Well, the guy was also shooting with a 70-200 -- I don't know if the far end of that length is even available on a Leica, and it certainly isn't with the internal framelines and finder. Not to mention what a pain it would be to focus a long lens with a fixed-length rangefinder. AFAIK the longest RF-coupled lens is 135mm (and even those are seldom used due to the tiny frame size and increased parallax problems) unless you want to get all Leicaflex and turn it into an SLR. The M8 is pretty much universally condemned above ISO 640 or so, at least on RFF. It's a pretty terrible camera for what you pay for, really. spog posted:http://idleicarefundplease.blogspot.com/ I'm not one for gimmicky shirts but I would probably buy at least one of those posts in t-shirt form.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 04:14
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:The M8 is pretty much universally condemned above ISO 640 or so, at least on RFF. It's a pretty terrible camera for what you pay for, really. The other thing that bugs me about Leica, (and also Nikon), is that the sensors are made by a third party. With Leica it's Kodak and Nikon it's Sony. To me, there is something really sad about that. Leica was always good because it made great cameras, and now the most important component of the camera is not even made by Leica! So sad... (I am probably the only person that cares about this)
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 04:39
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Ken Rockwell's not a terrible photographer, he's actually okay and has taken some nice pictures. (I am not referring to his excessive self-portraits and family photos). But he is also -- as everyone knows -- the biggest hypocrit out there. He bashes gear heads who obsess over equipment, but that's all he does. His whole site is a dedication to camera gear. What really blows my mind about his gallery is that it seems he only had four sets from 2009. I can't imagine being able to do photography every day like he is, and only have four gallery updates in a year. Ultimately Ken Rockwell and his ilk are doing a lot for us who pursue photography more for art and the pleasure in capturing images. Every 5DmkII and D700 sold that ends up taking pictures of a kids' soccer games and boring pictures of pets drives the price down for the people that are taking fantastic photos.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 04:40
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:The other thing that bugs me about Leica, (and also Nikon), is that the sensors are made by a third party. With Leica it's Kodak and Nikon it's Sony. To me, there is something really sad about that. Leica was always good because it made great cameras, and now the most important component of the camera is not even made by Leica! So sad... So, um, what was the most important part of the camera before they invented digital sensors? IMO the lens matters a lot more, and that's what Leica charges for (plus the +500% Leica red-dot tax).
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 04:51
|
|
|
orange lime posted:IMO the lens matters a lot more, and that's what Leica charges for (plus the +500% Leica red-dot tax). That's why you buy a Bessa for a fraction of the cost (assuming you shoot film) and shoot M/LTM lenses all day  Actually, I don't have, or even really want, any Leica glass. The old Russian lenses, Canon LTM lenses, and modern Cosina Voigtlander lenses have nailed pretty much all the sweet spots of quality/cost, IMO. I guess Leica has always been more synonymous with "mystique" than "value", so it shouldn't really come as a surprise. Supposedly Cosina is never going to make a dRF because the president of the company hates digital. The real reason is probably that they can't afford the R&D/don't think it'd be profitable. That Epson rangefinder used a Bessa body, although it was kind of poorly marketed and received an inexplicably humdrum update (kept the same milquetoast 6MP sensor  ) not too long ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 05:04
|
|
|
orange lime posted:So, um, what was the most important part of the camera before they invented digital sensors? My point was that before you were buying a Leica because it was a Leica, and now when you're buying a Leica it's part Kodak. And the part that's Kodak is the most important part.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 05:11
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:My point was that before you were buying a Leica because it was a Leica, and now when you buy a Leica it's part Kodak, which sucks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 05:14
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:One could argue that that part has always been made by Kodak... Indeed. Well played.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 05:15
|
|
|
Doesn't Sony or someone else make Nikon sensors? And I know Coreco makes a bunch of medium format back sensors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 05:30
|
|
|
HPL posted:Doesn't Sony or someone else make Nikon sensors? And I know Coreco makes a bunch of medium format back sensors. Yeah Sony makes the Nikon sensors. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 05:36
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I'm not one for gimmicky shirts but I would probably buy at least one of those posts in t-shirt form. Actually, I think I would too, as long as it were subtle. Unfortuntaly, few people would get the joke so I would have to save it for special, photographer-intensive occasions. HPL posted:Doesn't Sony or someone else make Nikon sensors? And I know Coreco makes a bunch of medium format back sensors. Yes, I believe that is the case. I wouldn't be surprised if all the electronics for Leica actually come from Panasonic and only the chassis and lenses are made by Leica.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 05:38
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Yeah Sony makes the Nikon sensors. Why do you care
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 05:40
|
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:Why do you care In the olden days when you were buying a Nikon or a Leica, you were buying into a brand. You weren't buying something that was half Nikon and half something else. With digital sensors today, that whole concept is ruined for me. (Remember that I said I was the only one who cared about this...)
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 06:17
|
|
|
Did you shoot with nikon brand film?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 06:23
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Ken Rockwell's not a terrible photographer, he's actually okay and has taken some nice pictures.  You see, most blokes are going to be shooting at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your camera, where can you go from there? Nowhere, exactly. What we do when we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do? Eleven. Exactly. One more saturated. Why don't you just make ten more saturated, make that be the top number, and make that a little more saturated? This goes to eleven.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 06:25
|
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:Did you shoot with nikon brand film?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 06:30
|
|
|
He's not talking about picture quality he's talking about the brand. You can buy a Nikon DSLR and you can buy a Nikon film camera the difference is is that the digital camera is going to be in part manufactured and designed by a company other than Nikon where all the components in the film camera are Nikon products. It doesn't really matter much to me becuase I dont use Nikon cameras anyway but I can understand why someone who had invested themselves into the brand before would have mixed feelings about the sensor being designed by a ostensible competitor. Really though if a product is good I'll use it and it doesn't matter who made it, generally though products with a unified brand sell better than ones that don't and its no surprise that Nikon doesn't make pains to advertise their Sony sensor. edit: Obviously not all of the components in a Nikon camera, digital or no, are proprietary Nikon products and my point pertains more to parts of the camera as integral as a sensor where it seems strange from a branding perspective that Nikon wouldn't take ownership of the design. Twenties Superstar fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Apr 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 06:31
|
|
|
Sony manufactures the Nikon sensors but they are designed by Nikon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 06:32
|
|
|
Well whats the problem then
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 06:36
|
|
|
I think the problem is that Nikon didn't invent it. Sony did. YES MY LOGIC HAS FLAWS, LET'S MOVE ON.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 06:41
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:Sony manufactures the Nikon sensors but they are designed by Nikon. I've heard mutterings that it might even go a little bit deeper than that - i.e. that Nikon gets involved with the production to some extent. Of course, we'll probably never know the reality, but I can imagine that if you're designing cutting-edge stuff, you'll want someone on the shop floor to make sure it actually works and to get the best out of the manufacturing equipment. It happens a lot in other relatively specialist industries: I've worked on projects where I am using components/systems from a competitor. And at the same time, they might be competing against us for the same project, using components that were supplied by us to them. So in that regard we are bi-directionally partnering with competitors to work together on projects that are directly competing with each other. You have to have a certain amount of schizophrenia to get your head around it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 07:04
|
|
|
Japanese manufacturers are pretty notorious for doing everything in-house and never sharing any tech. It's only somewhat recently they've started consolidating and specializing as a matter of necessity. At the end of the day, it's probably better for us, the consumers, as they can offer lower prices and well, survive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 07:04
|
|
|
Kyocera made some pretty kickass Contax cameras with Japanese-made Zeiss lenses so it's not like it's anything new. Cosina used to make tons of stuff for all sorts of folks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 07:13
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:The other thing that bugs me about Leica, (and also Nikon), is that the sensors are made by a third party. With Leica it's Kodak and Nikon it's Sony. To me, there is something really sad about that. Leica was always good because it made great cameras, and now the most important component of the camera is not even made by Leica! So sad... It doesn't really matter who makes it when you have collaborations that can produce stuff like this http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09090909leicam9.asp quote:M9 Sensor and Kyocera makes some nice ceramic vegetable peeler
DaNzA fucked around with this message at 09:00 on Apr 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 07:50
|
|
|
heh, my employer invented the digital camera 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 09:12
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:I think the problem is that Nikon didn't invent it. Sony did. I cannot wait till Sony´s back illuminated sensors make it into DSLRs. They have so much more R&D money than Nikon/canon it's not even funny.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 11:13
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:
Ha. that's exactly what I'm talking about, but talking out my rear end, apparently. I had a buddy who was a bigger Queen fan than me (and I'm a fan), and he went on and on about how May used this cheap guitar he liked the sound of. Jesus. I read up on that guitar...sweet. Of course, it's made the other end of the point, that is, the best equipment has it's advantages.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 13:34
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:I cannot wait till Sony´s back illuminated sensors make it into DSLRs.  for people shooting lovely available light it's not funny.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 14:24
|
|
|
My favorite shuttle launch photos are those where the photographer tries to do something no one else has done before. Now I have no idea if some hasn’t tried this before, but these are some of the best I’ve seen: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 16:56 |
|
|
I know some people (middle-aged women mostly, some men) who would pay ridiculous amounts for those photos. If it's Disney, they gotta have it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2010 17:36
|
|