boris_chan1

Obviously, Leica are free to charge whatever they like for their

products. Having said that, the "a la carte" fiasco seems to

suggest that Leica have given up on any pretence of being a

serious player as a supplier of cameras to photographers as

opposed to collectors. The most ridiculous move by Leica in

recent years was to cripple the M6 by removing the rewind crank,

giving it a dodgy paint job, renaming it as the MP, and then

charging 50% more for a less efficient camera. They've now

added absolute insult to injury by allowing you to re-configure

your a la carte MP just like an M6 for something like triple the

price.........

Peter, what exactly am i bsing about? I think your detector must

be in need of a service, it seems faulty right now. Rather than

casting slurs and innuendo expose my bullsh*t.

"I'd like to discover that there are still a few younger people using

something other than digital."

Al, I find it really sad that you seemingly have a policy of judging

people according to the type of camera they use. What do you

gain from being so narrow minded? You constantly refer to your

age as if it's somehow inevitable that a 60 year old photographer

will still be trapped in the 60s, but this clashes with my

experience of active photographers in the same age group as

you - every one of them is open minded. Digital isn't a threat, it's

just another option. Rather than waste any more time moaning

about current technology why don't you tell us a bit more about

the images and photographers you respect. I know all about your

likes and dislikes when it comes to hardware, but virtually

nothing about your feelings regarding images. For such an

opinionated guy you're strangely reluctant to point us in the

direction of strong photographers........

Nothing's wrong with html, but if you're presenting an online

gallery there's no need to limit yourself. The magazine itself is

staggeringly well produced, and they're giving space to some of

the most interesting photographers around.

Ellis: "If you know anything.......you know how respected Imacon

is - they are at the top of the heap - and better at doing digital

imaging than Nikon, Canon, Olympus or any other small format

digital camer manufacturer"

Your logic is flawed if you're implying that Imacon is in a stronger

position than Canon/Nikon to come up with a viable digital

solution for Leica. Imacon is a really interesting company, but it

has zero experience in the "small format" area. They make great

scanners and digi backs, but this is totally different territory to

producing a viable 35mm equivalent digital camera. The limiting

factor isn't Imacons knowhow, it's that they're having to work

around a really unimpressive camera in the form of the Leica

R8/9. It would have been much better to start from scratch and

produce an all new/all digital camera, but neither Leica or

Imacon have the resources to do that in the short term. If you

really must use Leica lenses then you'd be way better off sticking

with your Ms and film, and buying an Imacon 343 or 646 scanner

instead of an R9 digi back.

"It's always entertaining.........Hilarious."

The really hilarious thing is that some people on the thread took

him seriously........

Trevor, I'm not sure why people are saying that the Summilux is

less sharp until F8/11, maybe they're going by MTF charts. In real

world use you'd struggle to tell the lenses apart at f2. If you want

an extra stop go for the faster lens, if you want a slightly smaller

lens go for the slower.

Matt, if you're still reading (and i'm sure you are) this is my

absolute favorite line from you: "im never rude, always charming

and always make sure there happy." You've certainly made me

happy........

Oh yeah, one more thing. You and "Dylan" are the same strange

guy, aren't you????????

Sorry to side with El fang on this, but.......

matt:"no digital - no goddam way"

Why?

Oh, this is why:

"flash cards are delicate"

Sure they are, but way less so than film.

"their bad in low light"

This is just plain wrong. Low light is exactly where a modern digi

camera pullls ahead of film.

"bad to pan with"

????????????

"colour management ALWAYS causes problems"

And presumably color management with film NEVER causes

problems?

"i couldnt care less what the format is"

Eh? Just a few lines ago it was "digital - no goddam way"..........

"natchtwey (who iv shot with......."

You want kudos for having stood next to Jim Nachtwey? It's a

shame he didn't tell you how to spell his name.

"natchtwey.......struggles with digital"

Sure he does. He's a guy of nearly 60 who has spent a lifetime

working with film, but he's certainly managed to overcome those

struggles with the help of his younger colleagues.

"natchtwey.......has the same probs ive mentioned"

What? He's having to shoot weddings at the weekend to pay his

bills? What's the world coming to? His editors at Time should be

ashamed.

"brides..i have a hard time not telling them how moronic they are"

I'm having the same trouble not telling you this.

"as a press its all low res, flash images"

Well it might have been for you, but that isn't the case for all

photographers working in that field. It's certainly not true for your

buddy "natchtwey"

"u talk about my ignorance..thats extraordinary"

It sure is. How could anybody sense ignorance in what you

say.....

"iv shot combat stuff"

Congratulations.

"i only shoot 1000 images over 2 days (and thats a war zone....."

Oh dear, I'm sensing ignorance myself now. You're using this to

illustrate the overshooting of wedding photographers, but, if

there's one area of photography where you're likely to work fairly

sparingly then it's in conflict areas. Typically it's long periods of

total unproductivity punctuated by brief but frantic activity.

"I'm definately aiming for a certain market.......find a niche an

exploit it"

I think you'll find a niche of one: "Matt Pierce - the photographer

who has nothing but contempt for the bride". I'm sure the cash is

going to roll in...........

Sorry Matt, but Fang sounds a lot more credible than you.

Scott: "Not sure why you people MUST have zooms, but it's your

monely to waste......."

Because they really are sharp enough to make compelling

pictures. Why the abuse?

ps I love the cheesecore self portraits. MUST have been taken on

a quality prime lens.........

".....the 28/1.8.......is simply too small to really perform

well........You can compare sizes to the optically superb 24/1.4L"

This thread seems to be metamorphasising into an episode of

the Twilight Zone. People meaningfully reading bokeh from MTF

curves and judging the performance of lenses from their

size..........Utterly bizarre.

Yakim: "......28/2.8. Optically better than the 28/1.8........"

Well, you keep suggesting this, while others, who actually use

the lens, keep saying how good the 1.8 is.........

Josh: "And as you may have gleaned from the MTF charts, the

bokeh on the 35 is great."

Are you going to back this statement up? Do you really believe

you can "read" the bokeh from an MTF chart?

Gerald, you seem to have made a thousand tedious posts about

gear and the single one, above, regarding images. You're a truly

sad act.......

Adrian: "www.eyemazing.com wins the award for the most

annoying website in history."

So send them $125 and they'll give you a years subscription and

you won't need to look at their website. What don't you like about

it?

"I want the longest possible."

Wouldn't you rather be able to see through the viewfinder?

"how do you know so much about brit things......"

I've had a number of Brit girlfriends, and I lived there for a while.

"and agencies......"

Two of those girlfriends worked at Brit agencies. Plus, some of

the agencies I've worked thru in the past had sister agencies in

London.

"what is it you do......"

I take pictures.......

Another (youngish) director who'll give you some hope is the

Canadian/Armenian Atom Egoyan. Voyeurism is a central theme

to his work, so it's perfect viewing for a photographer. He's made

some of the most moving films of recent years - the only one you

should give a miss to is Felicia's Journey (destroyed by a dismal

performance from Bob Hoskins). www.egofilmarts.com

Keith from Nuts in May metamorphasises into Johnny from

Naked.........If you do like Leigh then I think you'd like the film

Wonderland a lot.

Interesting, I really did see you as all beard, corduroys, and

hiking boots........But, seeing as you like your music loud, you

really should check out 24 Hour Party People - it starts with the

birth of punk, and ends with the rave scene of the late 80s.

Be a good chap Trevor and check out Wonderland and 24 Hour

party People, you won't be disappointed.

ps my mental image of you corresponds almost exactly with

Keith (?) from Nuts in May........

Brian, have you ever seen strong work from Gary Knight? He's a

talismanic schmoozer for 7 more than a photographer, but

without his schmoozing they wouldn't exist - the other, more

talented, photographers are too busy working to devote time to

running an agency. You're right about the Brit agencies being in

trouble, but they've largely brought that trouble on themselves -

not bothering to make their work available online, hiring directors

who don't know the international market.........While at the same

time a number of French and US agencies have been adeptly

evolving to make sense of the current market.

John: "My neg scanner is dying......."

If it's a Nikon it just needs cleaning. When they get dusty they

halo really badly.

"All picture agencies suck, as far as I can tell......"

You're telling it right, but sadly they're a necessary evil. In the UK

you have a problem, because they suck in every respect,

particularly in relation to news coverage. In Paris one or two are

OK, but they suck like no others when it comes to paying you. In

New York there are a couple that only suck marginally, and, if you

want to cover news, they have access to the assigning editors

who count..........