ray . Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 There is a point with technology where you have to say enough is enough. Incremental "advancements" are not improving my experience or the end result one iota. End of short rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luis_rives Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 Still unaffordable. I own an M-2, M-3, M-4, M4-2 (my first Leica purchased new in 1983) and an M6TTL and would never trade them in for a digital Leica. Recently traded an A7r for an A7rii (this is a camera that Leica should have built, but then it would probably cost over 10K) and paid a fraction of what this new Leica would cost. Sadly, the folks at Leica lost their way a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 <p>Ray, incremental advances in lets say, EVF to those of us that like them, are huge. Incremental improvement in high ISO photography is also Its a big difference compared to a couple of generations back. I know what you mean though, just adding "features" to one-up the other makers doesn't really impress me that much either. But it depends on what it is AND the way its implemented. To me its important for the camera designers really think about how access and use the features. Some are much better at it than others.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pensacolaphoto Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 <p>Can you use non-Leica SLR lenses without Live View?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karim Ghantous Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 <blockquote> <p>Can you use non-Leica SLR lenses without Live View?</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, and there are two types of SLR lens adapters for that. One type is RF coupled - you focus the adapter (not the SLR lens) and then match the adapter's reading to the lens. The other type is non-coupled and is usually recommended only for wide-angle lenses.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Williams Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 <p>It's an interesting bit of marketing. Probably only the aluminium top plate actually saves them significant production costs. Removing live view/video is just about 'product differentiation', like artificially limiting the maximum aperture of the 50mm Summarit-M to f/2.5 for no good reason except justifying the higher price of a Summicron. At the same time they can make a missing feature into a positive by playing up the 'purist' credentials of the camera.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_elwing Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 <p>There are so many different models. Live view is a benefit that makes a camera a platform for so many other applications, but do we need this versatility. Honestly my habits haven't changed from film to digital; a modern SLR and M camera(s). Once one had an M3 and kilograms of accessories like Visoflex, adaptors etc or a Pentax Spotmatic.<br> I always want a viewfinder, even with cheap little Canon compact A590, but with that, use live view quite a lot of the time.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumpton Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 <blockquote> <p>'....my habits haven't changed from film to digital"</p> </blockquote> <p>That is fine and even commendable. In my case, however, as a continuous user of both film (mainly MF) and digital, I have changed my photography considerable, simply by having the added potential of digital photography to revise in the field my perception and framing of a subject, of modifying exposure and lighting without having to bracket and wait for the result. My Visoflex occasionally is used, even with the digital Leica, but much less frequently. My M9 is fine but limited in ISO performance and lack of live view. The M262 may meet the needs of certain users who have not changed their manner of photography from film to digital, but others may well need what advancing technology has provided as options. And we can still make beautiful prints in a darkroom, which is perhaps one definition of traditional photography. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_r._fulton_jr. Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 <p>Arthur, you are right about making prints in a darkroom. I guess soon we'll have a generation of photographers who won't know about making "real" prints. I was thinking the other day I could walk in a darkroom and not have to think twice about making a print. I no longer have a darkroom set up but I have the sink, cabinets, enlarger and all I need for a darkroom except the space. I am always excited to speak to a young person who was fortunate enough to go to a school where they still teach the "wet" darkroom. And I always see in their eyes that they get the thrill of printmaking.</p> 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