terence_mahoney1

"Heard anything from Tony Senzaorbi or Terrence Mahoney lately?"

 

Can't speak for Tony but I've better things to do than feed someone's psychoses.

<i>If that's the sort of question that makes me a "bully" Terence/Tony/Jay, then I confess.</i></p>No, that's the sort of question that makes you a goat's bollocks for imagining that a local wedding photographer must have an internet display. You're only a bully to one who can be bullied. Perhaps your simian howling scared Tony and Jay into beating a retreat but to me you're about as intimidating as a day-old kitten.

<i>Is that why you brought it here instead Terence?</i></p>I <i>found</i> it here.

Sure the world owes you a debt of gratitude for making it more imperfect.

<i>As for Leica's opinion, a good few years ago at photokina, they looked very disaprovingly at the (Leica) UV filter that lives on my 35 Summilux and said, "Why do you think we make lens caps?"</i></p>Are you quite certain it was the filter they were looking at and not your photography?

<i> One of my reasons for tying up an absurd amount of money in Leica gear is the wish for breathtaking 16x20s that are knockouts from about 6" to 20"viewing distance,</i></p>Utter folly. The laws of physics are immutable.</p><i>As a designer, one of my jobs is to inveigle the viewer into seeing the work as I'd like him to...Optimal viewing distance can be found by multiplying the original lens focal length by the degree of magnification needed to make the print.</i></p>Utter rubbish. You evidently endeavour to inveigle everyone to see reality as you'd like them to.

And that inspired you to dedicate your life to whacking it, eh. Tinkerbelle is calling...

<i>People who don't understand collecting, enquire. Those who can't understand, mock..</i></p>Indeed. Many is the time I've chided the local street-sweeper for mocking my manure collection.

<i>Have Leica gone mad or just lost the plot?</i?</p>Yes.

As opposed to harranguing the weak and timid and giving air to fixations and delusions, eh bully-boy... ; )

<i>A sculptor could produce a more technically-perfect bust of a person in a fraction of the time with a fraction of the effort by scanning their photo into a CAD-CAM milling apparatus than by using a hammer and chisel, but not all of them have gone that way.</i></p>You people seem to think that all photographers aspire to create some masterwork of art. In fact, a lot of professional photography is quite perfunctory. We shoot what the client wants and best not to presume we know better tha they what those wants are, if we want repeat and referred business. To that end, the camera is a tool and the process is a cost, nothing more.

<i>Piotr Panne , apr 28, 2006; 09:07 p.m.

Knowing I\'ll be revered as a photographer without ever having to actually snap a sharp, well-exposed frame.</i></p>Or making an intelligent comment. Do bid hello to Captain Hook, won't you?

<i>The photo mags chided their readers about using "never-ready" cases. Dings and dents and scuff marks were a sign that you were indeed a photographer.</i></p>So <i>that's</i> where that inane stereotype camre from. It certainly wasn't from professional photographers, who always took good care of the equipment that brought them their livelihood. The best way for a pro to discourage a sale is to present before the client with shabby kit. It says "unsuccessful" more convincingly than a flashing neon sign.

Wait until after the M Digital is available. The prices of all but rare or mint collectors' models will collapse like a tower of toothpicks in a stiff wind.

<i>Eliot Rosen Photo.net Patron, apr 24, 2006; 06:18 p.m.

Depreciation of an M digital in an industry that is still experiencing rapid changes in technology is an issue. However, if history is guide, Leica still made and sold film cameras despite the advancement in film camera technology, addition of AF, built-in motors, multi-pattern metering, etc. etc.</i></p>

 

Exactly. Leica has not paid any heed to the specifications of other marques, has not given a whistle that technology has passed them by. The loyal fanciers continue to line up with cash in hand for each successive product introduction and maintain staunchly if not rabidly that Leica is irrefutably superior.

 

</p><i>Wealthy doctors, dentists, and collectors are the only Leica users who could possibly be interested in a digital M. Well, maybe a chiropractor here and there. Or possibly a veterinarian. No one else.</i></p>Perhaps in the states, but over here with socialised medicine I doubt the average practitioner can be quite so cavalier.

<i>Even the occasional bit of salt spray hasn't stopped my M bodies from working.</i></p>Pity it's taken such a toll on your own body, eh?

I'd do it to sanitise my hand after I were to shake yours.

<i>Terence has lost his mind.</i></p>You're the one who posted the non-sequitur reply, not I.

Whilst reading all these replies encouraging you to take your MP to the beach, remember once again: No-one here is going to pay to sort out your MP.

I've got it figured: Huw's waiting to unveil his project after Photokina, so as not to give Leica the chance to plagiarise any of his technology.

<i>Oh... ooops. I thought you said 'old fools'!</i></p>Sorry, your group meets across the hallway.

I agree. If you need a better grip just spit in your hand.

Leicas are poorly-sealed against dust and moisture, if at all. Taking one near the sea and sand is unquestionably putting it at risk. Whether you are willing to risk it or not is a decision betwixt you and your finances. No-one here is going to pay to sort out your MP, if they even give a toss. The notion that because you bought it you should use it regardless of the peril is simply daft. If you bought a 1500GBP suit no-one would expect you to wear it to the beach.

<i>"The specifications of Nikons and Canons has not had any effect on Leica previously, why would you suspect it would have any now?"

 

are you kidding Terrance? or do you mean "Nikons and Canons has not had any effect on Leica since the mid '70's"?</i></p>Put another way: Leica has not paid any heed to the specifications of other marques, has not given a whistle that technology has passed them by, and why would anyone expect them to start now, sinc the loyal fanciers continue to line up with cash in hand for each successive product introduction and maintain staunchly that Leica is irrefutably superior.

The specifications of Nikons and Canons has not had any effect on Leica previously, why would you suspect it would have any now? Purchasers of the DMR, though having a crop-factor and approximately 2/3 the resolution of the 1DS-MKII, claim it is far superior and froth at the mouth at the faintest challenge to that assertion. So it will be with the M Digital, regardless of how its specifications compare to Nikon and Canon, and in fact, regardeless of how its performance compares to legions of photographers. They will simply be dismissed as incompentent to judge image quality. Tis an old tale.