jack_myovski

Actually it was a sophomoric pun for which I am deeply embarassed, as no doubt you must be for having just destroyed any vestige of your credibility by posting flagrant misinformation.

Actually the row was started by a plebian colonial shop clerk who was unable to restrain himself from making personal insults when he was unable to support his wreckless opinion with fact. Good that his identity has been deleted. Now if the same fate were to befall a certain insufferable faschist wrapped in the American flag, this forum might be on the road back to civilisation.

John, you really ought to get out more, and see what's actually happening outside the US, rather than posting conjecture based on complete ignorance. Fax and hand-held mobile phones were ubiquitous here in the UK and Europe well before they were in the US. Digital photography has eclipsed film photography everywhere the latter was formerly in use. Impoverished countries haven't embraced digital but neither were they ever a market for film.

I was about to recommend my grand-mother's palliative remedy for piles.

Shame on whichever of you chaps brought your grand-daughter along, though in fairness she doesn't appear as inebriated as the lot of you. I do fancy her Leica holdall though, quite discreet.

<b>Some took ok pics, some average.</b></p>As I recall reading here, the pristine ones give the better account.

Why limit yourself to second-hand M6 versus new M7? What about a second-hand M7, which would afford you its features (well, <i>feature</i> as AE is basically the only addition) at a cost far, far below that of a new one and not that much more than the M6. Or perhaps consider this Zeiss Icon contraption which seems to be similar in function to the M7 and is keenly priced quite near that of the second-hand M7.

<b>Why they feel compelled to come here and offer nothing in the way of useful information</b></p>Such as diatribes against digital photography rife with misinformation based entirely upon conjecture and zero personal experience, and repetitive regurgitation of forty year-old Leica price lists?

<b>Nothing like quoting someone out of context to make your point...</b></p> This from someone who, to make his point, has no compunction about saying someone else keeps their prints at the bottom of the cat box.

<b> Monkey C Photo.net Patron, dec 19, 2005; 10:28 a.m.

Jack, how does one pronounce your name?

 

Is it Jack Me-Off-ski?</b></p> I've never heard a monkey pronounce my name before but if one were to, I'd be rather surprised if he'd exhibit your level of illiteracy.

Good lord, you mean there were even worse arrogant boors here in the past?

My point was the "good doctor" saying that those of us not spending ca. 10,000 American to go digital are "<b>postponing the inevitable for sundry silly reasons</b>" which to me is disgustingly arrogant.

I see excessive contrast and either poor exposure or the desperate need for synchro-sun flash in the Leica shots, versus the D2X shots. My opinion/guess is it has the least to do with the lens.

<b>what kind of caulk is being used to seal the finder window to a Leica's top plate?</b></p>

 

A Leica needs caulk to seal the finder window? Most appalling.

<b> My two year old son the other day managed to get a hold of my M4 and threw it to the ground on a tiled floor.

 

Fortunately ( and amazingly ) no cosmetic damage</b></p> You are to be commended for your restraint. Those chaps a few threads back who got teary-eyed and felt the acquisition of their Leica to be the pinnacle of their existence might've pummelled the poor lad unrecognisable.

<b> I am told one way to avoid the scratching is to black tape the area on the top plate which the meter is going to cover to protect it against meter rub marks.</b></p> Seems a tad like placing the horse aft of the wagon as you yanks say. Why not tape the under-side of the meter, where it won't be seen?

Roger: Splendid to make your acquaintance, so-to-speak! What I perceive in each of the shots you posted is obvious and significant darkening in the left of the frame. It's only not clear whether it involves only the upper left or the entire left. I'd always been led to believe that light fall-off was a symmetric occurance. Could this be a sample defect of the lens in question, or perhaps even one of the shutter? As to your question of what do people want to see in a lens test, in my case it would have to be a print-out from optical testing apparatus, only because anything which requires visual interpretation would be affected by the myriad variables in the process of digitisation and limited by the quality of display on the internet or in a disposable publication such as AP. </p>

 

Vick said "<b>One does not need to know anything about photography to be a client. What matters to them is the final outcome.</b>"</p> That <i>does</i> seem obvious, which makes it so absurd and laughable whevever someone's opinion on the forum is countered with "let's see your photos" as if it's customary for a seller of photographs or a professional photographer to demand the customer or client present his own portfolio before being allowed to exercise his choice.

<b>As I design imaging systems which organizations commit multiple millions of dollars to have built, I probably know at least as much about the aberrations of imaging systems as the average PN reader, but in the interest of learning new things, I'll bite. Regardless of the lens in question, how do YOU discern aberrations from defocus.</b></p> I'm not the chap who started the thread, is deliberating exchanging lenses, and said <b> It always could be a focussing problem </b> in the conditional, implying that you were not sure. My point was simply that until and unless you could definitively pinpoint your unhappiness to characteristics of lens design/performance, you would be nothing if not premature in spending additional money for the APO lens.

Indeed it's perfectly normal to find and admire beauty in the form of something created by the design and hand of man, be it a sculpture, an automobile or a camera. If one takes (and Daniel concedes)that his remarks were to an extent enthusiastic hyperbole then it's all quite ordinary. However at face-value, "<b> I got teary eyed and nearly started crying from happiness. This camera has given me joy in my life that I have never felt before.</b>" to anyone with normal sensibility might be said regarding the acceptance of a marriage proposal or the birth of a child, but applied to the purchase of a consumer object it's rather sad and pathetic. What's even moreso than one such individual, is the shocking number of people on this forum who found it perfectly in-line with their own manner of thinking.

<b> I have been using the latest pre-APO 90mm summicron and am not exactly pleased with the image quality wide open or even at f=2.8. It always could be a focussing problem</b></p> If you can't discern lens aberrations from poor focus, I can't fathom what use would be spending money on a new lens, however in the interest of saving Leica from receivership, I encourage you and all like you to speed off to your Leica stockist with cheque in hand.

<b>>>> When I first opened the box and took the camera out I got teary eyed and nearly started crying from happiness. This camera has given me joy in my life that I have never felt before.<<<

 

If this is true, you got some deep problems, mate. It's just a camera!

 

--Mitch/Bangkok</b></p> I'm thankful I'm not the only one overcome with a wave of nausea whilst reading that pathetic testimony.

I shouldn't think it would be necessary or advantageous to dis-able the DX coding in order to do away with the light. Even if the circuitry prohibits dis-connecting the LED, one would think a mechanic could simply place a drop of black enamel on the LED so as to block the light emission. Leica might be reluctant or even prohibited from makeing such an unauthorised modification but I would think an unaffiliated mechanic would have no qualms.

Couldn't one simply leave off the lenscap and let the sun make its own pinhole?

I was too ashamed of my despicable Digilux to deign to encroach upon your gathering, lest I be soundly thrashed and my lifeless body heaved from the pub. Perhaps by this time next year I will have secured a proper Leica for myself, and join you for a pint.

<b>For that kind of money you could get a Canon 5D AND two "L" lenses (and still have money left over for a 2 gig card).</b></p> One could always have got a Canon EOS (film body) and two L lenses and a boot-full of film for the cost of a Leica M body. If such practical economic analyses played in-to everyone's decision-making process, Leica would have ceased to exist ages ago. There is a group of individuals who are able and willing to pay whatever Leica asks for the Digital M, regardless of how its price and specifications compare with those of other brands, and my belief is it must undoubtedly be that group, and that group exclusively, about whom Leica cares.