"Classic" Digital

It may be elegant, but it is as "professional", as my wife's Prada bag:)

Leica left professional market long time ago and moved to luxury department where your pay for "experience", just like Sunday driver.

If you can't afford a Leica, that's fine, as Leicas are currently out of my budget, too (I should never, ever have sold mine!). But you cannot assume that all professionals have the same tastes, limits or needs.

BTW Prada bags are indeed sold to professionals as well as wealthy retirees, widows or housewives. My manager at my old job bought herself a Louis Vuitton handbag, despite not having a stellar salary. She had her priorities, and knew exactly what she wanted. I must admit that some of those fashion items are very nice.

I have a decision to make to either first upgrade my commercially used camera (a Nikon D7100 with a 10-20mm Sigma) to a Nikon D850 with a Sigma 14-24mm Art lens (specifically for architecture and interior photography) or to buy a Leica M10-D first for my more personal "non-commercial" work now mostly done with a Nikon D700 (though the M10-D too will be just another business expense). My mind says the former, but my heart is with the latter.

Solution is easy: buy an M10-P. The D850 does have a tilting screen, though. You can adapt the Sigma lens to the M10, or just buy a bunch of primes (CV lenses are awesome, for the most part). And I'm leaning towards never again using shift lenses for digital cameras, as they often don't work properly, and there's plenty of resolution to work with, even at 16Mpx, if your image is clean. Sorry for going too far OT!

An actual professional will use the tool that does and pays for the job irrespective of any “market” the tool is perceived to be in.

Absolutely, but please specify what kind of advantage LeicaM10 offering to professional photographer? From your own statement "or to buy a Leica M10-D first for my more personal "non-commercial" work", pretty much saying that any camera can do it, but Leica will let me have my Prada "experience".

If you can't afford a Leica, that's fine, as Leicas are currently out of my budget, too (I should never, ever have sold mine!). But you cannot assume that all professionals have the same tastes, limits or needs.

 

BTW Prada bags are indeed sold to professionals as well as wealthy retirees, widows or housewives. My manager at my old job bought herself a Louis Vuitton handbag, despite not having a stellar salary. She had her priorities, and knew exactly what she . I must admit that some of those fashion items are very nice.

When Leica will have "Pulitzer prize guaranteed" mod, I will buy it, until that, I can't see how it will improve my photography.

Yes, anybody can have Prada bag, but I never heard someone calling it professional tool:)

Uhm, I’m speaking for myself and not for some generic image that you’d like to portray. A Leica isn’t at all suitable for my specific commercial work which is architecture and interior photography. If my business work were documentary and reportage, a Leica would be perfectly adequate. Instead, a Leica which I've always used and specifically the Leica M10-D as a close approximation to the film experience of shooting but now in digital form is perfect for my non-commercial work and as a personal camera.

 

The difference between you and me is that I’m talking about photography, while you’re going on and are all hung up about Prada bags, lol.

OK, speaking of photography , I asked you specific question "what kind of advantage LeicaM10 offering to professional photographer?" to justify hefty price tag?

"Yes, anybody can have Prada bag, but I never heard someone calling it professional tool:)

Depends on what profession you're in. :cool:

You are taking a bit of a battering, Phil. Folks are thinking you are a fondler, who just wants to parade in public with designer labels, and a Leica camera and Prada handbag. For those who have glimpsed the very odd moments of your photography; well, we know that is not true.

The reality is we choose tools which work for us. If it is a expensive so what.

To answer another question D850 or Leica for your personal pleasure. The answer is simple, will the Nikon D850 enable you to be more profitable in your business? if so the way to go, with the extra profits buy your Leica. If not, buy the Leica....what is all this work for ?

I have a big bad Jaguar which scares the life out of me when I put my foot down. I also have a Audi TT convertible which from A to B on English roads is nearly untouchable.

But then, some little lad shouted out "gay man" when I was driving pass.

Truly, we are a sad lot.

Does it matter .

Not a monkeys.

(specifically for architecture and interior photography)

While we're at it (and now we're on a tangent so OT, we're completely off the circle), what do you think of my philosophy of never using shift lenses on digital cameras? I have done it, but it's much easier to correct keystoning in the RAW converter and accept a slight loss of resolution.

Probably the majority of my non-human images after 1971 were taken with the PC-Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 lens. They were 'shift' because that lens had no tilt.

Since 2011 or so, both tilt and shift are in my scene (Canon TS-E 17mm).

If you don't have the lenses needed, fixing it in post-processing is necessary, but the image-quality cost is not trivial if you look more closely. A lot works, sort of, at less than 1000 pixels on each side.

Probably the majority of my non-human images after 1971 were taken with the PC-Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 lens. They were 'shift' because that lens had no tilt.

 

Since 2011 or so, both tilt and shift are in my scene (Canon TS-E 17mm).

 

If you don't have the lenses needed, fixing it in post-processing is necessary, but the image-quality cost is not trivial if you look more closely. A lot works, sort of, at less than 1000 pixels on each side.

Also, with a wide enough angle lens, you can aim such that the important part of the image is in frame, and also

corrected, as it would be with a shift. That is, aim at where the line perpendicular to the film would be after shift.

That isn't quite the same as tilt, though.

I think I have done this with a 24mm lens, though mostly I don't shoot the pictures where it matters so much.

I do remember using a 24mm lens with Sequoia trees that wouldn't fit otherwise, but in that case, I

think I aimed up enough to get the whole tree in.

Nikon: 35mm (3.5cm) f2.8 PC-Nikkor Lens Price Guide: estimate your lens value

says about $270 for average condition PC 35/2.8.

The non-shift AI 35/2.0 was the first lens I bought for my FM, and only one I had for some time.

Though as I understand, the PC 35/2.8 is manual meter, and manual stop down for exposure.

That could get tiring after a while, and also easy to forget. (I suppose after some years, you

get used to it.)

Though as I understand, the PC 35/2.8 is manual meter, and manual stop down for exposure.

That could get tiring after a while, and also easy to forget. (I suppose after some years, you

get used to it.)

It is a pre-set, so the" difficulty" is minimal. It works just fine on any camera it can be mounted to in aperture-preferred mode. I have used it for a long time and it has continued to 'inform' my selection of camera bodies.

Is there such a thing? Has the new tech been around long enough to start calling some early stuff classic? This is my 12 year old Nikon D300 photographing my 1982 Casio DW1000. Both classics in my opinion.

[ATTACH=full]1290604[/ATTACH]

IMO, anything, technology or whatever, that grows old enough, eventually becomes "classic" to somebody.

That said, there are now and have been trends where folks are "returning" to original forms:

vinyl records "came back"

analog recordings for music "came back"

film & film cameras "came back"

to name a few that come easily to mind. The truth of much modern technology (digital or otherwise) is that it emulates some original source or form. in some ways, better than than others- but there rarely is an adequate substitute for original analog source material or devices or.....

Think McDonald's "apple pie" versus your grandma's apple pie, among other aforementioned things.

IS McD's "apple pie" now a "classic"? :confused:

probably, to someone somewhere.

So yes, I'd say there IS such a thing as "classic digital".

I got my D700, with about 15000 shutter count, three years ago for $800.

(I bought it from a store that would check the shutter count before I bought it.)

I have had a few different lenses on it, but now it mostly has the Nikon 24-120 AF-D.

I set the file prefix different on different cameras to make it easier to keep files separate.

The D200 has TWO for its prefix, and the D700 has DCC. That is, 700 in Roman numerals.

I would not think twice about using a D700 as my only camera, although admittedly mine has fallen into the role of quick studio/Ebay camera. I don't necessarily need a ton of resolution for that application, especially since I'm often resizing for the web and the smaller starting files are easier to handle, although I find the base ISO of 200 a bit of a handicap(it's the only camera I have where I ever use the "lo" setting). I've actually dropped down as low as 4mp for this particular application(D2h) but don't anymore just because the subjects I photograph often benefit from a higher DR sensor-the Finepix S5 has actually served me well.

My D800 and D600 are my main "real world" cameras, but like I said if I got rid of them and "had" to use a D700, I'd not lose any sleep over it. Part of me says that I'd choose the D3s over the D700 for its better high ISO performance(a full stop vs. the D3/D700 in my experience), although I wouldn't necessarily want to tote that big/heavy of a camera around everywhere.

I've recently acquired a Kodak DCS 760, which I think is also definitely in the "classic digital" category. I need to really work on getting some good images from it worked up and posted.