peter_yankin

Another thing you need to know is that there's a certain individual who was "banned" from the forum some time back, who keeps reappearing under false names, and is usual modus operandi is to start a thread with a detailed biography (fictional of course)of his "character", and asking ingenuous, newbie-type questions. People responding on the level are then made to feel like fools for not seeing through the troll. In fact, I can't shake the nagging feeling you're him and sitting back right now having a good laugh. So as a result, every newcomer is treated with suspicion and ridicule by enough others to guarantee they won't be back. In a perverse sort of way, it's almost genius how the guy single-handedly undermined this forum and got revenge.

"It is painful to take a grinder to a $10 screwdriver"

 

Not as painful as taking the wrong size screwdriver to a $2000 Leica.

Sherry and DAG are both in their low fifties, about 20 years younger than the average age of their customers. It's them who should be worrying.

Is it uniformly stiff or just at one point? If the latter it could be bent, if the former, I'd try working it back and forth a few hundred times before rushing to throw money at it. A lot of times just normal use will loosen it up, but "normal" use for a lot of Leica lenses is once or twice a year.

"Peter Yankin, your English is perfect!"

 

Naw. Just good enough to fool non-native-speakers into thinking it's perfect.

"Who wants to be stuck with the same digital sensor (keeping in mind, this is an evolving technology) for more than 3-4 years?"

 

Er, ummm, someone who isn't a volume-shooting pro and doesn't have a trust fund, a money tree, or a sugar daddy?

Thanks, Bob's-a-troll, but I'm a Leica kind of guy. My TV's got tubes on the inside and dials on the outside. Rabbit-ears too, and it's strictly black 'n white. None of this HD digital cable satellite crap for me. Wally and Beav just don't have the same glow.

"it's obvious that a lot (not all) of the people on this message board are very judgemental."

 

I think that's being much too harsh. Many of the people on this message board are incapable of judgment.

 

 

"It seems that some are more concerned with making witty comments and handing out old adages rather than helping or having a friendly, civilized debate."

 

A forum is what the majority of people want it to be. Except when incompetent and/or unfair moderating allows a few thugs to run all the decent folk off. Your choice which you think is the case here. I wouldn't want to appear judgmental.

Try Castle Depot or Lowe's of London.

Is that pronounced "Bob's A Troll"? My what a clever boy!

For many of you the best car of all time was probably a Packard, but like Kodachrome II disappeared off the face of the earth when the rest of us were toddlers.

First of all, you seem to not understand what a troll is. A troll is someone who starts a thread designed to stir up controversy. He might not already know the answer to his question, or he might (and would, had he bothered to search the archives), or even really care. I just gave your question an answer that I happen to believe in, from having read this forum and others quite a bit.

 

Furthermore I'm not the only one who called you a troll on the other forum, and in fact I didn't call you one, I just listed it as one possibility, for someone who claims to have extensive experience as a professional photographer but is asking a bunch of largely amateurs for guidance choosing cameras and lenses, and of course just coincidentally, in this case a question which is certain to arouse controversy.

 

Everything of substance has been asked, answered, contradicted, opined, speculated, discussed, argued and flamed over an open pit multiple times and can be found easily and quickly by searching the archives. It's all fun and games from here on in, at least until the Digial M comes by, at which time there might be something that hasn't been hashed out before, and even then the banter is predictable: someone will use it and love it, someone will use it and hate it, and most people will either love it or hate it without ever using it.

"I read his arguments and I can totally adhere to that, wherever I go I take my 2 bodies, a 21, 28, 35, two 50-ties and a 90. I lug around a huge bag, spend more time changing lenses or bodies than I actuall have time to take pictures.So as a sort of new-years resolution I am going to shoot for 6 months only using one single lens"

 

Leaving all but one lens home is one way of dealing with indecisiveness. Another would be to develop a sense of style and composition and a feel for what different focal lengths look like, so you'd know intuitively which one to choose for a shot. Of course that would take time and practice and effort, so by all means go for the quick fix.

I'd rather watch Dave Chapelle.

"The story centers about a 15 years old boy who runs away and lives in Manhatten in whatever shelter he can find. His passion is photography using a camera given to him by his deceased mother. It appears to be a Leica M4."

 

Awfully expensive hobby for a homeless 15 yr old, isn't it?

ASPH lenses have Erwin Putz's stamp of approval and if you want to be accepted into the exclusive clique of forumers that crap on everyone unless they own the latest and most expensive Leica equipment, then you simply have to own the ASPH, APO and APO-ASPH lenses, and you must testify publicly that you can see an obvious and startling difference that anyone who claims to be a photographer will also see.

 

OTOH, non-ASPH lenses have the anti-Erwin stamp of approval and if you want to be accepted into the exclusive clique of forumers that crap on everyone in the first group, then you simply have to own the non-ASPH, and in particular the 4th-generation 35 Summicron and/or a non-ASPH 35 Summilux, and/or the "tabbed" 50 Summicron and/or a "DR" Summicron. And you must testify publicly that you despise the ASPH lenses for being "too sharp" or "clinical", and pepper your posts with buzzwords like "bokeh", "glow", "roundness" and "plasticity".

 

So you see, within the context of internet Leica forums it really has little to do with optics and much to do with social acceptance.

Sorry my lips are too chapped from kissing all my real friends on New Year's, and Michael seems to have done a bangup job anyway, so I'll just say Happy New year to everyone, including the cast of thousands that are all really Frank.

Damn those digital sushi machines!

""The infinity lock is not a burden." I agree with that, Stephen. I've had lenses with infinity locks ever since my 35mm Summaron, then my 35mm Summicron I, and my 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH. My fingers expect it to be there. With my later lenses that lack a lock, something feels missing. I use it as the default position. When shooting a distant subject, I can pick up the camera and shoot, knowing that the lens won't accidently have been moved off infinity."

 

Leica (and others) put the infinity locks on lenses for one reason only, which was so the focus didn't turn when the lens was being screwed on of off the body. Further proof of that are the Nikkors that didn't have locks in Nikon RF mount but the LTM versions do. The early 21 and 35 lenses in M mount had them because at first they were screw mount lenses, with (semi)permanently attached M flanges. After the screw mount cameras were stopped, so were the infinity locks, and no other brand lens has ever had them since. Like many of the quirks and idiosyncracies of Leicas, fans come up with elaborate "reasons" why Leica did so-and-so and why it was brilliant and genius. Leica stopped with the infinity locks and no other manufacturer uses them, which is probably an indication of how many photographers agree with me rather than you, though probably you will just think you're smarter/better than all the rest of us.

"Let me start out by saying I am a professional photographer...I will be selling my digital gear to buy some Leica equipment"

 

A pro today buying some Leica equipment to use along with digital, OK, that's plausible. A pro selling ALL his digital gear to buy Leica equipment, that's either insanity, stupidity, or this is a troll.

New MP I bought last month for $3300, which will cost $4000 in a few more days, vs the Canon 5D I almost bought for $3300 last month which is now selling for $2800.

"The first version of the 35/2 Summicron (8-element) is the best made, most elegant, and most ergonomic of all of Leica's 35/2 lenses. It has the infinity lock/thumb rest"

 

Spoken like a true collector who rarely shoots. Nobody else could use "most ergonomic" and "infinity lock" in the same sentence.

Jim Brick (used to hang out on the LUG)said it's the bee's knees. Erwin Putz says it's just so-so, very close to the second 250/4 in design only a little worse performer. So there you go. Take a poll and go with the majority vote, or try it for yourself. Up to you.

The same genius wrote: "Maybe you should consider not making assumptions about people you don't know, it really looks stupid. I shoot sports professionally. I use two dSLRs to shoot and I have my photos out by 3AM after an evening shoot (boxing matches.)

 

Given that you signed up today under a fake name, I find it very odd that you make these comments about people you don't know. Given that people laud someone who signed up today under a fake name, I find it funny."

 

1. You stated that for you the biggest issues were what the media is paying for images, and getting a media permit to shoot in San Francisco. That suggested to me that you are a freelancer working alone. Hardly representative of the majority of "professional" photographers in the USA or the world. Was I wrong? Yet you speak, completely off base I might add, for the majority of professionals.

 

2. Excuse me? Signed up yesterday? I've lurked for more than a year, signed up on the 16th, 2 days before this thread was born. Fake name???!!! I won't even grace that bit of insanity with an answer.

 

In light of the comments and behavior that are tolerated here, it's no wonder why people with something valuable to offer (like Marc Williams for just one example, who actually uses a Leica in addition to digital)and are willing to share what they know, don't stay on this forum.

 

Pete

Some genius wrote: ".I've never noticed any successful pros getting worked up over this whole "film vs. digital" debate. Only non-photographers with lots of money sunk into film cameras seem to do all the hand-wringing.

 

Right. As usual, Mr. K makes the most important point, although I confess to having skimmed most of the silly arguments above.

 

There are much more important "battles" for photographers, such as the declining rates for publication in newspapers and magazines and the increasing difficulty of getting an offical media pass in San Francisco."

 

Well, I'm a "successful pro" if you count that as someone who has been doing it for 37 years, fifteen doing fashion in NY, now has a portrait studio with in-house film lab and digital workflow, four full-time shooters and six assistants doing weddings, corporate and product shoots. Nobody I call a colleague (or a competitor) "debates" film vs. digital. We all have had to accept it because many clients have been brainwashed by the hype (put out by the manufacturers) into thinking that if a pro isn't shooting digital he's a has-been. At first blush, yeah, it looks like we save a ton of money on film and darkroom. But in reality, we have had to hire experienced Photoshop operators (not so commonplace yet, so they practically name their own ticket) to handle the digital post-processing, and although we charge a premium for digital, we're just about breaking even with film/darkroom. We've had to practically give away gear that could've worked another 4-5 years, and paid six to ten times as much for digital gear that does nothing better. We will not "catch even" on film and processing cost for at least two years. So while "successful pros" might not debate film vs. digital, we're not all jumping for joy over digital either.

 

Maybe in this little dog and pony show you define a "successful pro" as someone who roams the streets with a $900 dSLR looking to capture a few magic shots and become the next Garry Winogrand, and for that individual maybe the price they pay for shots or getting a permit to shoot in San Fran is a big worry. But the majority of "successful pros" are guys like me, who've got to pay for 3 $30,000 digital backs, eight Canon 1DS-II's and a quarter million in scanning, computing, archiving and printing equipment plus backups, the staff to run it, and training for them every time a new version or an upgrade comes along. All because the camera manufacturers have convinced John Q. Public that digital is "in" and film is "out". All of you wisecrackers should consider yourselves lucky that you have the luxury of debating film vs digital.