Typical Leica photos, typical Leica look

[Brad_]

"Brad, you are comparing apples to oranges. My point is that without a power source a DSLR

is useless. "

 

Hardly apples to oranges. Just as without film, a film camera is useless. With a closed and

atrophied mind you never will see the similarity...

 

But, then you say you enlist your wife and kids to carry all your extra film and extra bodies

for all the different ISO possibilities. OK, so that's what leica photography is about...

[ray .]

<center><img

src="http://chaospress.com/images/pre_2002_03.jpg"></center

>

[belledeux diana]

<a href="http://leica-users.org/leica-users/v27/msg07907.html">http://leica-users.org/leica-users/v27/msg07907.html"</a>

<P>

You'll love this, and it addresses the subject.......very nicely...

[patricks]

i really tried to read/follow this thread...

 

1) thanks for sharing the link/gallergy, Jeremy.

 

2) Leica, Nikon, Canon - who cares? There is no perfect camera for every occation. Just use the tool that helps you capture the image you had envisioned. There is nothing more to say about that really.

 

3) I agree with Ray. Dumping $4K+ into Leica gear is getting harder to motivate. No news there. There is a reason why Leica Camera is in financial trouble and Nikon is selling 90K+ D70/s per month...

[jeremy_tok]

That ode to Leica is hillarious!

[ray .]

yeah, but not two L's worth.

[ray .]

DSLR's are descendants of Leica rangefinders. 35mm cams

were a revolutionary photographic development, allowing for

more convenience, flexibility, and efficient picture gathering

capability at the expense of supposed image degradation.

Sound familiar?

[o._i.]

Brad, your personal attacks are childish, rude and uncalled for, like when a toddler throws a tantrum when he has loses an argument. I was making a joke about the wife and kids which I can see you weren't smart enough to get. Sorry. I'll speak slowly and use small words. Your digitoy will not work without a memory card/chip AND a battery. My M3 WILL work without a battery. Remember that when you go on vacation and forget your charger, or it breaks and you don't have a backup. Even pros who use the Hasselblad H1 have backups. Any cop who has been on the force awhile will carry a backup gun. Or is your DSLR so expensive you can't afford a backup? NO camera is any good without a medium for recording the photos, be it film or a memory card, so yes, you were comparing apples to oranges to obscure the facts. Dishonesty is not a very becoming trait. The less complex any machine is, the more reliable it is. Adding printed circuits, computers, memory chips, auto focus motors and bells and whistles amy give it a "gee whiz!" factor, but doesn't make it more robust or reliable. It's just more stuff to break further down the road. You come here with some kind of chip on you shoulder about film cameras, proclaiming that new technology is superior to old technology. It is not. It's just different, that's all. Different does not always mean better. In the 1970's auto makers started going to all digital dash readouts. They forgot humans are not digital, silicon-based life forms but carbon-based analog ones. the digital dashes failed and they went back to analog readouts. The point is that new isn't always better. You have provided no proof that you have a Leica or ever had one. You cop an attitude that Leica owners are elitist, then prove yourself to be super elitist by bragging that your new toy can do things our beat up old toys can't. Who cares? Nobody here is trying to sell you a M class rengefinder, and you sure haven't convinced me to buy a DSLR. (though if I did it would be a Leica because of the lens, not the techno wizardry.) I contribute for a local magazine where the editor prefers digital. I still shoot film but I have the photos developed and put on CD which I give to her.

[Brad_]

<I>Brad, your personal attacks are childish, rude and uncalled for, like when a toddler

throws a tantrum when he has loses an argument. I was making a joke about the wife and

kids which I can see you weren't smart enough to get. Sorry. I'll speak slowly and use small

words</I><P>

 

Jeez, talk about personal attacks and a tantrum - just read the remainder of your above

post... But then that's what you're about when you can't acknowledge the obvious. Once

more: A dSLR without a battery is useless. And a film camera without film is similarly

useless. In the end you have a tool that cannot make photographs.

 

Any particular reason you refuse to acknowledge this? Or by not doing so, do you feel

empowered to act out with a juvenile personal insult?<P>

 

I carry a spare battery (about the volume of a roll of film), which potentially lets me shoot

2000 - 2500 shots, even though I've never shot anywhere close to that in a day - it's a

backup. You carry around an equivalent amount of film, two bodies, lens, etc. Different

strokes for different folks. Why do you get so angry, or even care, about the way I like to

shoot? No need to get nasty.<P>

 

You clearly have an axe to grind with exaggerations and lies, and I do feel sorry for you. I

won't bother to address the tangents you seem to enjoy going on when you get angry. I'm

very sorry I caused you to get so emotional and act the way you do. In any event, peace,

and have fun with your photography.

[travis1]

I always thought asking another photog what medium he uses is just to break the ice.

 

Nice thread.

[o._i.]

" But then that's what you're about when you can't acknowledge the obvious."

What, that you are delibedrately trying to cloud the issue by fixating on the battery issue you keep bring up? The point is that manular SLRs don't need an artificial power source. It has nothing to do with an image capture medium, be that film or a card.

"Once more: A dSLR without a battery is useless. And a film camera without film is similarly useless."

I'm glad you finally realize that and admit that you can't play with your toy without a battery. When your toy gets bumped or dies from heat, cracked PC board, or just plain becomes obsolete, our M3's will still be working. I'm glad you have the foresight to carry a spare battery, though it will do no good if your camera ever breaks. That is why you carry a back up, to insure that you get the picture. I have a few DSLRs that people gave me to play with after they broke, said if I could fix 'em I could have 'em and use 'em. Haven't had the time to get into them yet. They're already dinosaurs in electronic terms anyway. One thing I don't think you've realized is that the new DSLRs aren't designed to be fixed if they're broken. The camera companies don't want to have to fix old cameras. they want to sell you new ones. It used to be called planned obsolescence, now it's forced obsolescence.

I'm not being nasty, just treating you the way any petualnt child should be treated. After all, it was you who decided to come on the Leica forum and critisize us for not seeing the light and jumping on board the newest digital fad. It is you who seems to have an axe to grind with Leica users.

 

"Why do you get so angry, or even care, about the way I like to shoot? No need to get nasty."

I don't care, until some self styled know-it-all starts preaching about something he obviously knows next to nothing about. Again I challenge you: Have you ever had or used a Leia, either M or SLR? If not, what are you doing here knocking Leicas???

 

"You clearly have an axe to grind with exaggerations and lies,"

Typical Marxist/Leftist defeated rhetoric. Now you're calling me a liar. Please be good enough to point out specific instances where I lied. You can't because you know I'm not lying.

"I won't bother to address the tangents you seem to enjoy going on when you get angry." Yes, when you can't mount a logical defense, retreat.

I'm not angry, though I could rightly be. In some parts of the world if you insult a man's family and call him a liar you'll get your face punched in or shot. I am mature enough to recognize the ingorance and arrogance of youth that has been educated beyond its' capacity and forgive you.

 

"I'm very sorry I caused you to get so emotional and act the way you do. In any event, peace, and have fun with your photography."

 

LOL! Kid, you haven't seen me emotional. You are just an amusing distraction between work and play, nothing more. I have acted in a rational, civilized manner. I did not go into a digital forum and start pontificating and running everybody else down as you have here.

[Brad_]

Man, you got me again, Owl. Touche!

 

BTW, I clicked on your name. Those three photos there - very classy - and very classic leica!

[belledeux diana]

battery = battery<br>

card = film

[claudia__]

man...i have to sort of align myself with Brad. i clicked on Owl and was appalled at his cheesy nudie photos. what is he thinking? these things are like amazing. don't get me started.

 

but i also want to pick on Brad. i do not think he is malevolent. i just think he has no sense of humor or irony. i am not sure about his age but i think he has been caught up in the kind of depressed pessimism that masquerades as irony. and very quick to be insulted whatever that means.

 

but the Owl's stuff is really HughHefneresque owlpucky in my opinion. part of me thinks he is putting us on and it is really something like a conceptual art piece (pardon the pun.) Yech! oh well, what do i know?

[Brad_]

<I>man...i have to sort of align myself with Brad.</I><P>

 

That's gotta hurt bigtime, huh? I'm 74, BTW.<P>

 

 

<I>oh well, what do i know? </I><P>

 

Is that rhetorical? Or are you seeking an answer?

[claudia__]

what disaligns me from Brad is that i am willing...nay happey...to admit that i don't know. no self, no problem. believing you know, big problem. that is all the zen i have to spit. too bad grant is banned forever...i am sure he could be more profound. subtext....Brad is trying to fill in for grant. the reviews are not good.

[Brad_]

nice bs....

[mike dixon]

<i>I have acted in a rational, civilized manner.</i><P>

You're fooling yourself. Nonsensical tirades full of personal insults aimed at anyone who says things you don't like are exactly the sort of thing that are turning this forum into a sick parody of what it used to be. In the past, there were a lot of folks who at least had a sense of humor and some perspective about their gear obsessions--it made for a civil and amusing forum. Now, even though I use Leica cameras, I'm reluctant to say much of anything here because I don't want to deal with some belligerent jackass going off because he thinks I haven't been enthusiastic enough about the superiority of a particular camera brand.

[travis1]

got camera, no film= F*ed

 

got card, no batt= F*ed

 

got everything, can't shoot=F*ed

 

Nice thread.

[Brad_]

Adding to what Mike said, one of the forums' Ayatollahs here once remarked how Ray had

lost his compass with respect to being a leica photographer (paraphrased). Apparently,

everyone here is supposed to have the same views. Would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

[mike dixon]

<i>but the Owl's stuff is really HughHefneresque owlpucky in my opinion</i><P>

I think you're being very unfair to Hugh Hefner. While I don't really care for Playboy-style images (boring and trite for the most part), the work is usually quite skillful. Other than showing skin, they have almost nothing in common with the shots in Owl Ink's portfolio.

[EricM]

"but the Owl's stuff is really..."

 

just yuck. can't even read another post of his after seeing those.

[dennis_couvillion]

"...I'm reluctant to say much of anything here because I don't want to deal with some belligerent jackass going off because he thinks I haven't been enthusiastic enough about the superiority of a particular camera brand."

 

What's the matter, Mike, you can't take it? You big ninny... <just kidding> ;>)

 

When things got rough a few times around here in the past and I complained I was told, mostly derisively, that perhaps this forum simply wasn't suited for me and that I should find a forum for sentive guys. My advice to people now is the same... find another forum if you can't tolerate the abusiveness.

 

Personally, I agree with you that the forum used to be a much friendlier and funnier place where people had more respect for each other and, god forbid, there was a sense that people actually liked each other. But nowadays don't come here looking for love.

 

There are two sides to every situation, so let me give you a glimpse at the other side. A few months ago I got e-mails from a couple of newbies asking me basic Leica gear-related qustions. Each one said he was reluctant to ask these qustions on the forum out of fear of being ridiculed and/or causing an uproar. An uproar over a lens qustion...! On a Leica-based forum...! (Ask Al Kaplan... I think he's had similar e-mails.)

 

The fact is that there has been a growing and intense divide between different camps and in my observation it was started by people with no interest in Leicas or Leica-related matters who come here simply to yank other people's chains.

 

You know me, and you know that in the past my participation was all about posting pictures, making jokes, and amusing myself and others. In my opinion, the ugliness started with others who simply come here to antagonize (or, rather, to put the unwashed misinformed masses in their place). Screw'em... What you're seeing now is that some people who come here just to see what trouble they can start are getting it right back at them in spades (and then they whine about it). Call it "Revenge of the Nerds".

 

What is causing this place to become boring, though, is actually the predicatability. Someone can make an innocent statement and you can predict who will say "Oh, yea...". And then someone else will predictably chime in with something else... and so on. Boring...!

 

But, hey... I'm not complaining. ;>)

 

P.S. When are coming back to New Orleans? The dwarf asks about you... ;>)

[dennis_couvillion]

"...a forum for sentive guys"

 

That shoud read "sensitive guys". (Sorry... I'm very sensitive about my inability to proof-read.)

[Brad_]

<I>The fact is that there has been a growing and intense divide between different

camps and in my observation it was started by people with no interest in Leicas

or Leica-related matters who come here simply to yank other people's chains.</I><P>

 

The fact is that there has been a growing and intense divide between different

camps and in my observation it was started by people who feel they have a moral

obligation and duty to act as the forum cops as to what appropriate discussion is, and

even going so far as to define what leica photography should be about. <P>

 

 

This thread is an excellent example. I made the assertion that the "look" of the above leica

photograph was more driven by digital post processing rather than the camera used. The

discussion with Jonathan was actually going very well, he said so himself. But then,

predictably, the forum Ayatollahs felt compelled to weigh in, to quash those thoughts -

first Dennis, then Al, claudia - and now there's Owl with his classy photos to join their elite

group.