al_kaplan1 Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 Interesting statistic considering that it appears that Cosina is "only" going to produce a first run of 10,000 digital Epson M mount bodies, with half slated for the Japanese market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 Al Feng , mar 16, 2004; 12:36 p.m. "Al Feng again rings in with considerable untruth. Leicaflex SL2 will beat anything out there, unless you are looking for bells and whistles. I am certainly not impressed by the F5. It is a monstrosity." Um, sure. So that's the reason why so many top pros today are using the SL2, right? LOL!! The 'top pros'? Hah! What a worthless criterion. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha........ What the pros use is of absolutely no importance whatsoever...... Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglas k. Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 It's surprising that Hans denigrates the "crap" and "bells and whistles" on the Nikon F5. That camera, or any modern camera used with a dedicated flash, would provide automatically-balanced fill-flash, which would dramatically improve the quality of Hans' snapshots -- several of which feature deep shadows on the subjects' faces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_fang Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 <i>"People who buy Leicaflexes are not interested in all the crap that Japanes monstrosities like the F5 have on them."</i> <p>In the interest of objectivity, a concept which Leica users seem to be utterly incapable of grasping, I would rewrite that to say that people who buy Leicaflexes do not necessarily need all the features, reliability, and performance that advanced SLRs like the F5 feature. And that's OK - but unlike well-heeled, equipment-rabid amateurs, professionals use what gets the job done, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that their first choice of tool probably wouldn't be an old and clunky antique. <p>I've seen <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007ka9" target="_blank">your "contributions"</a> on this and other topics, contributions which were so dumb that they were summarily deleted by the moderators. I think it's pretty silly that an amateur would denigrate established and published professionals based on the film they choose or the equipment they use. Even if you're not embarrassed by such stupidity, I certainly am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_fang Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 <i>"What the pros use is of absolutely no importance whatsoever......"</i> <p>Well, of course it's of absolutely no importance whatsoever to you. Your work is nowhere near their level! You need to learn to use your basic tools first, which means a basic, manual SLR such a Nikon FM10, Pentax K1000, or... a Leicaflex. If all you shoot are fairly static and easy subjects such as family, friends, and pets, you may never need to move beyond a simple and basic camera. I certainly qualify - I use Leica M6 and Nikon FM2N and I'm perfectly happy. But if you ever get around to shooting more advanced and difficult subjects such as sports, wildlife, and on-the-spot news, then you will be able to utilize and appreciate more advanced equipment such as a Nikon F5, EOS-1V, and (in this day and age) Nikon D2H and EOS-1D. <p>We have a saying, Hans: "Horses for courses." There is no one "best" camera or one "best" film. The best craftsmen, amateur or pro, use the best tool for the given job. It's the stupid guys who think you can do everything with a #2 Phillips screwdriver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 Al: Most pros could not touch my skills.... I have little if any repsect for 'pros'. If I can produce better pictures with manual equipment than they can with automated crap like the F5, what does that say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 Douglas K. , mar 28, 2004; 03:57 p.m.<i>It's surprising that Hans denigrates the "crap" and "bells and whistles" on the Nikon F5. That camera, or any modern camera used with a dedicated flash, would provide automatically-balanced fill-flash, which would dramatically improve the quality of Hans' snapshots -- several of which feature deep shadows on the subjects' faces.</i><p> You seem to fail to realize that the photos under my name were candids (not portraits) taken at public events (4th of July parades, festivals, etc.), with long lenses. Fill-in flash would be hopelessly inadequate in the first place, and in the second place it would 'spook' these subjects, making the photography impossible. I am particulary good at capturing photos of people without them noticing me. The photos are technically perfect given the conditions under which I was working. Yes, I have a flash, and no, I would not use it for such photos. It destroys the whole effect. Not one of these images would have been 'impoved' by using fill-flash. Also, there is more shadow detail in the Kodachromes than comes through in the scans.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 Al Feng: <i>"I've seen your "contributions" on this and other topics, contributions which were so dumb that they were summarily deleted by the moderators. I think it's pretty silly that an amateur would denigrate established and published professionals based on the film they choose or the equipment they use. Even if you're not embarrassed by such stupidity, I certainly am."</i<p> That sounds like an ad honimem attack, Al...Moderator!<p> I have been published, and I have worked as a 'pro'. Never again.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_fang Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 <i>"Most pros could not touch my skills.... "</i> <p>LOL! Wow, the ego inflates as we speak. From what I've seen, I beg to differ. Besides, the best photographers are never found on the internet talking about cameras. They're too busy making pictures. <P><i>"I have little if any repsect for 'pros'."</i> <p>That certainly explains a lot of things... and says a lot about you, as well. <p><i>"If I can produce better pictures with manual equipment than they can with automated crap like the F5, what does that say?"</i> <p>The operative word is: "if." <p><i>"You seem to fail to realize that the photos under my name were candids (not portraits) taken at public events (4th of July parades, festivals, etc.), with long lenses...(snip) I am particulary good at capturing photos of people without them noticing me."</i> <p>Wow, Hans Beckert, you are an absolute genius. I should never have doubted you! Candids with long lenses, and he can even do it without them noticing! Imagine that! <p><i>"I have been published, and I have worked as a 'pro'. Never again...."</i> <p>Photo.net doesn't count, Hans, although technically speaking, anyone who posts a photo on the internet can be considered "published." By "pro," I'm talking mainstream newspaper, magazines, and books. I am talking about people like Alexandra Boulat, James Nachtwey, Christopher Morris, Carolyn Cole, Eugene Richards, etc. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if you have no idea who they are. It's apparent to me that you live in your own little world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_fang Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 </i></i>Oh, and if you're going to try to be smart and use italics, at least have the decency to turn them OFF when you're done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglas k. Posted March 29, 2004 Share Posted March 29, 2004 If you really believe that this photo is "technically perfect" and would not be improved by fill-flash, then I think we may reasonably dismiss most of your technical and aesthetic recommendations: http://www.photo.net/photo/2217465 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTC Photography Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 "From 1956 to 1999, Leica made on average 17,000 M Leicas per year<p> Leica R was not far behind, from 1963 to 1996, Leica made average 13,000 R Leicas per years"<p> The Leica M figure included Leica MD/MDa which were medical purpose camera without viewfinder<p> Excluding MD, the average production number for M was around 15,000 units.<p> For every M sold, there was almost one R sold<p> I am wondering what is the production numbers of M lenses and R lenes ? My guess is since there are about twice as many type of R lenses then M lenses, R lenses should outsold M lenses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now