ed_skibeki Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/digital-view.shtml It sure reads like a sales campaign calculated to placate a furious wife! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monochrome11 Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 bah, a 10K word essay about a $25K camera and just one photo to show for it... he's a measurebator! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_philcox2 Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Jesus what a wank. Does this guy have any human contact or does his obsessive compulsive equipment fetish keep him pretty much occupied 24 hours a day?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy_keller Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 This is fascinating, but also sobering as a microcosmic explanation of why the world's financial system is teetering on the abyss... I will be faced with a stark choice as I load my backpack for the next trip up Demirkazik, Ida, or Olympus: Averting my face with shame, I can pack my 1950s folder with its pathetic, $30 three-element triotar, or I can plunk down $30k for the amalgam of techno-hysteria described above. Yes, spending $29,970 more will give me marginally better image quality and erase my shame at still using film. However, I may not remember this as I produce perfectly decent 11" x 14s" with my pathetically obsolete enlarger. "You cannot afford NOT to buy..." Beware the voice of the marketer, leading the Gadarene consumer ever closer to the precipice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaius1 Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 LOL, he sure shoots lots of pictures of his fancy equipment doesn't he? Wonder what camera he uses for that? :-P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_henderson Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I don't spend a much time on Reichmann's site but he displays no more of an equipment fetish than the editors of the average photo magazine - or I'd guess the people that read them. Reichman has simply identified what a lot of people already know- that for a huge chunk of the market equipment is at least as important as making photographs. Its equipment reviews that keep Reichmann in the public eye- something that his photography alone wouldn't do I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Why all this hostility toward Michael Reichmann? He assembled a "dream machine" studio camera. As to the quality of his photography - he makes a living from it when most people on Photo.Net don't even value their time. I think this is, in part, jealousy that someone could spend upwards of $60 on a camera when others ponder over a used Kiev. But there's more. The main part of this resentment comes from the content of this review. What, what! A 16MP DSLR as good as medium format? A 39MP back as good as 4x5? HERESY! No, it is the sweet smell of Sacred Cows being roasted that raises the ire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I'm a bit surprised at the tone of this thread. Michael Reichmann has been doing equipment reviews on his website for a long time, and he has his own individual take on things which not everybody likes, but it's only information, you can take it or leave it. I don't see that all this abuse is really called-for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_the_builder1 Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Perhaps all those critcising Reichmann would like to provide us with a website where they will provide reviews free of charge? I thought not. Now shut the Fxxx up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skygzr Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I certainly don't advocate equipment lust, but I'm not sure I understand the tenor of the comments here. It seems to me that Reichmann is pretty much how he describes himself: a working pro that uses lots of gear and likes writing about it. He's pretty up front about his prejudices (as stated in the opening paragraph). He states clearly several times that this isn't for everyone. He uses this stuff because it works for him. Why all the sneering? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_landry Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I don't know if what you're seeing here is genuine animosity towards Reichmann, I thinks it's more a lack of respect. People tend to respect those who display genuine talent, especially when they choose to speak with authority on a topic. Any time you have an individual that parades around with this amount of fancy gear that does not appear to have the results to go along with said gear, you're going to get a certain amount of disrespect. If this review had of come from the likes of David Meunch, Carr Clifton, Christopher Burkett, Franz Lanting etc., I highly doubt the reaction would have been the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaius1 Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Bjorn Rorslett writes a lot about Nikon equipment, but he gets respect because he has plenty of great photos on his website. Reichmann has photos of his equipment, and boring shots of the Toronto skyline. SO WHAT IF HE IS A PROFESSIONAL? A cab driver is a professional driver just as much as a Formula 1 Grand Prix winner is... The kid flipping burgers in your local McDonalds is just as much a professional as a Michelin-starred chef, they both earn their living from the preparation of food! I don't get this "worship the pro" attitude some people have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Guy said, "Reichmann has photos of his equipment, and boring shots of the Toronto skyline." You have a lot to learn. You can start by browsing Reichmann's gallery - https://www.luminous-landscape.com/galleries/. He conveys a remarkable sense of place in his recent images from China and Bangladesh. Toronto skylines indeed! You have an odd idea of professionalism. Not to denigrate (that means "put-down") cab drivers, but I wouldn't bet on one in the Indy 500. Reichmann's work is consistently good, occasionally outstanding and always technically on the mark. That spells professionalism to me, and apparently to his customers. Keep in mind that I don't care much for gritty street shots with lot's of nose hair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_landry Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Well, just got done viewing his entire gallery. I guess I must not be a fan of extremely low contrast, pastel/muted landscape images. Did not see any really striking compositions either. Nothing really here that strikes me in any way or that would keep me coming back. Certainly nothing that would do justice to thousands of dollars of the best gear on earth. To each his own I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 <i> I don't get this "worship the pro" attitude some people have.</i><p> People who shoot professionally are dependent on their equipment. As a result, they have a different attitude towards it, and tend to evaluate certain characteristics more closely. Also, most of them shoot far more than the random happy snapper around here.<p> <i>If this review had of come from the likes of David Meunch, Carr Clifton, Christopher Burkett, Franz Lanting etc., I highly doubt the reaction would have been the same.</i><p> It's an equipment review, not a photo review. Many photographers shoot with the same equipment, or variants on it, year in and year out, and have very little perspective on the broader range of equipment. I don't care much for Reichmann's photography, but I know he does a lot of testing and knows how to use his equipment.<p> What I really wonder about is why so many people accept opinions of random strangers here on photo.net who have no photographs available for viewing anywhere public. I trust Michael Reichmann's reviews far more than the average comments made by unknowns here on photo.net. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed_skibeki Posted March 9, 2006 Author Share Posted March 9, 2006 "People who shoot professionally are dependent on their equipment. As a result, they have a different attitude towards it, and tend to evaluate certain characteristics more closely." I agree completely. By analogy, however, there are plenty of top quality craftsmen that make the best furniture available without the benefit of this brand of hand plane... http://www.thebestthings.com/newtools/karl_holtey.htm Many agree that this brand is plenty good enough... http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?sku=4 The idea that Michael was in ANY REAL way limited by his previous tools (COntax, Zeiss) is what strikes some of us as amusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_taylor Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 "Bjorn Rorslett writes a lot about Nikon equipment, but he gets respect because he has plenty of great photos on his website. Reichmann has photos of his equipment, and boring shots of the Toronto skyline." Thanks for making it clear to everyone here that you've never actually looked at his work. "Well, just got done viewing his entire gallery. I guess I must not be a fan of extremely low contrast, pastel/muted landscape images. Did not see any really striking compositions either. Nothing really here that strikes me in any way or that would keep me coming back. Certainly nothing that would do justice to thousands of dollars of the best gear on earth. To each his own I guess." His images keep a rather large number of people coming back guessing from his "currently visiting" counter which is typically in three digits at any given time of the day. I wonder if any of the people who complain and moan about him on photo.net have such numbers? Still, it is true, to each his own. I look at some of the work presented as stunning by Leica fans on this web site and think "WTF?!?". "The main part of this resentment comes from the content of this review. What, what! A 16MP DSLR as good as medium format? A 39MP back as good as 4x5? HERESY!" Yep. Reichmann has been on the s**t list of many photo.net members ever since he dared to compare a D30 image to 35mm Provia 100F. He bar-b-q's people's favorite sacred cows and eats them with ketchup. I'm surprised some of his articles haven't resulted in fatwa's and jihads among the faithful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaius1 Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 So lots of gear-heads look at a gear-head website. What's your point exactly? As for the D30 thing, well I owned a D30 once, and I could easily compare D30 RAW shots processed in Capture One to Kodachrome scanned on an LS-8000 and make up my own mind - which I did, then got on with my shooting, rather than stop to write a website to "convert" people one way or the other. You'll find on PN I always advocate choosing the photographic medium by the output. B&W hand prints for wall display is mine, right now, so I shoot B&W film. If I was a PJ shooting for the wire, it would be digital all the way. I've no axe to grind in either camp. My only issue is with people who DO have axes to grind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Interesting comments that prove that beauty is in the eye of the viewer. I appreciate Michael's technical expertise and reviews that are based on actually using the equipment. While there may be some Canon bias occasionally, his reviews are much less biased than just about all magazine articles who depend on advertising for practically all their revenue. But I agree his images are not quite as good as his expensive equipment. And he is an equipment junkie, there is no way around that. In the three years that I have subscribed to his journal, he has gone through a complete set (meaning with a full selection of matching lenses) of Rollei 6008, Fuji 617, Hasselblad XPan, Mamiya 7, Pentax 67, Pentax 645, Contax 645, Leica M6 and M7, did I forget something? Oh yes, his Canon DSLRs, starting with D30, D60, 10D, 20D, 1Ds and now finally ending up with 5D and 1DsII. And in between there have been some other cameras as well, like the Noblex, Sony 828, Minolta A2, etc. etc. This is no ordinary pro whose cameras really are tools for making images. The good thing is, we can read and learn about his experiences in using these equipment and make better educated choices for our own use without spending all that money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Michael does know a lot about post-processing, print making etc. which have been useful for me at least. However, his bias towards Canon (and digital capture) is really very strong. With any website, one has to understand that the comments are from that person, and not universally true. I find it somewhat amusing how he talks about really absurdly expensive equipment like it was just some everyday tool. On the other hand, I quite like his nature images. There is some plain simplicity in there which is well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan_james Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Guys, it's about bang for your buck. Why will medium format have a significant (albeit reduced) following for many years to come? Because to reach the digital equivalent of the film costs tens or hundreds of times the price. The results Michael Reichman gets may well be marginally superior to film, but at a huge cost increase. By spending less than $200 on a Koni Omega Rapid, I could get pretty damn close to his quality, assuming I have equivalent talent.<p> The number of people who want that quality of output is far greater than the number who can afford to pay more than a fraction of the outlay needed. The fabulous news for the majority is that digital has so battered residuals on film cameras that they can now get very close to the same quality for less spend than ever before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skygzr Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 First, it's interesting how the word "professional" gets used. I was thinking in the literal sense, where a professional is someone who gets paid for what he does, as opposed to a hobbyist or amateur. In my mind, it's not necessarily a connotation of high quality. Second, "...rather than stop to write a website to "convert" people one way or the other" I'm afraid I have to call you on this one.....is there any indication that he's trying to convert us? Even if he was, would it matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben conover Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Reichman is using digital, so his images will have the digital look. He will not get the deep tonal values and wondederful charactersitics associated with large format film. That's his choice and he can afford it. I prefer film for the small quantities of photos I shoot. Cheers. 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