A question.. [Archive] - Rangefinderforum.com

View Full Version : A question..

italy74

12-19-2007, 02:12

Hi guys

I've just read an article which can be interesting at its own way.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/leica-m8-revisited.shtml

what I find strange (but maybe it's my ignorance or my misunderstanding) is the fact he says he doesn't get in focus what he wants... Is this just a learning curve or what?
Thanks

nikonhswebmaster

12-19-2007, 03:40

I think this article is written in too much American slang to be easily understood, unless you are a native English speaker. It would be a difficult read for anyone who is not used to US speech patterns.

However, it is a most clear statement about why to use a simple machine I have ever read.

mfogiel

12-19-2007, 04:05

I believe a part of the good focus problem is related to the M8's short EBL, and the rest to a certain difficulty to know intuitively which f stop you have to use with each lens if you recompose the image after the patch alignement - this comes with a lot of practice. As for the rest, obviously this guy has seen the "rangefinder effect": simplicity, clear vision, mechanical quality. I would not agree entirely with the judgement on the lenses - I find the CV 35/1.2 to be a first rate lens with a lot of character, and generally I find Zeiss glass better than anything else, but I think this is a bit of a hair splitting discussion - most of today's RF lenses from any of these manufacturers are optically far more sexy than the auto everything zooms for the DSLR's.

italy74

12-19-2007, 04:13

Oh, well,

so I guess it should be commoner having such problems in portraits (due to the reframing of the face) / set portraits? (the ones with the people aside in foreground and beside him / her a landscape) ?

pvdhaar

12-19-2007, 04:59

I think this article is written in too much American slang to be easily understood, unless you are a native English speaker. It would be a difficult read for anyone who is not used to US speech patterns.
If you're used to US speach patterns, you can't claim being a native English speaker either..

mr_phillip

12-19-2007, 06:04

I think part of his issue with the focusing is maybe partly a general complaint about the lack of autofocus and partly getting used to the lack of DoF preview, although he doesn't say so in as many words. I can't think of any other aspect of rangefinder focusing that's likely to be in any way challenging to a professional photographer.

I have to agree that it's not a very well written article, and I'd sure as hell like to know where he got his "Voigtlander 50 1.2 and 35mm 1.4" (seeing that they've never made lenses of those lengths at those speeds).

shadowfox

12-19-2007, 07:30

From the article:

"A friend of mine says that buying a Leica and putting Voigtlanders on it is like buying a Porsche and dropping in a Chevrolet engine and he's right."

So? it'll still get you from A to B if you *know* how to drive ;)

This guy seems to just found the Leica kool-aid fountain and just want to talk about it.

digitalintrigue

12-19-2007, 07:35

I think I get the idea of what he's trying to get across. At least, the conclusion.

It could have probably been done in a more clear manner.

It's definitely positive, but sort of in a back-handed way.

Focus? He's probably looking thru the viewfinder like one does with an SLR. His mind is saying 'hey, everything in the frame is sharp!' so he takes the picture. Then he finds out there is a focus problem. User error. :)

digitalintrigue

12-19-2007, 07:38

As far as CV lenses, I have two -- 28/1.9 Ultron and 21/4 Skopar. I think they are fine lenses. They offer what, 95% of the performance of the Leica glass for 20% of the price, or something along those lines?

For the same reason, I don't have Pirellis on my Porsche. I have Kumhos that offer 95% of the performance for about 50% of the price. :)

NB23

12-19-2007, 08:09

I just read what you write:

"but, hey, it's a Leica. Who cares what the photos look like."

I just don't see the world the way you do -- not much else to say, no way to prove it.

I think you just want to argue in a passively and nonchalantly but deeprd down, I'm sure you understood what he wanted to say.

I understood sistemistic very well and I agree with what he said. Can't be more clear.

JNewell

12-19-2007, 08:10

I think this kind of set the tone there:

I'm not a range finder guy.

There's no obligation for people to find RF cameras easy, pleasant or productive. Even as a booster, I'd say they are somewhat limited in their overall usefulness and pretty idiosyncratic. If I could only have one camera...it would probably not be an RF. If someone doesn't find RF use works for them, don't expect a great review...and don't let it bother you at all.

crawdiddy

12-19-2007, 08:18

200 years ago native English was spoken in Great Britain, but now native English is US English.

Times change...

I concur. North America has done more to propagate the English language, of late.

digitalintrigue

12-19-2007, 08:19

It appears the idiosyncracies are with the author and not necessarily with the M8.

steverett

12-19-2007, 08:32

"It's just a surprise at anything more open than 5.6"

I think this guy is totally clueless, or his camera is miscalibrated. I can shoot a whole roll at f/2 and 90% will be focused just where I want. Same goes for framing.

Anyway, the opening sentences indicate that he was biased against rangefinders from the start, and was looking for confirmation in his belief that shooting with a RF gives "probably not near the composition you intended." It's evident he was trying, either consciously or subconsciously, to prove his hypothesis.

Paul C. Perkins, MD

12-19-2007, 12:07

He states in the first sentence that he is not a rangefinder guy . . . Somebody explain to me why I should give a rats' tail what he has to say about an M8 - which by no possible stretch of the imagination represents the best that the rangefinder genre has to offer.

Paul
Pulling the sheet-metal over the top of my hooch and hunkering down for inevitable incoming...

rich815

12-19-2007, 12:26

rich815

12-19-2007, 12:32

FPjohn

12-19-2007, 14:44

Hello:

I have modest pretensions as a rangefinder guy which are consistently affirmed whenever I use a low shutter speed and a handheld camera. Combine this with use of wider apertures and my modesty is fully justified.

A successful pro probably has both assistants and a tripod mounted/image stabilized camera. Given his background he probably was doing well in % of acceptable shots. He simply was not used to working without a safety net.

yours
Frank

NB23

12-19-2007, 14:46

No actually I do not -- I feel the negativity, but don't know why it is there. You can't really get by with putting words in my mouth, or head.

"I think this guy is totally clueless"
I do find it amazing how James and Ann are being dismissed as just not knowing much about photography... I should be so incompetent.

You're just snipping quotes out of their context and making them work the way you want.

nikonhswebmaster

12-19-2007, 16:01

You're just snipping quotes out of their context and making them work the way you want.

I want to be as polite as possible, I don't know if it is a language issue, but I simply have no idea what you trying to say to me, sorry.

;)

nikonhswebmaster

12-19-2007, 16:23

JNewell

12-19-2007, 16:27

It appears the idiosyncracies are with the author and not necessarily with the M8.

Let those among us...cast the first stone... ;)

digitalintrigue

12-19-2007, 16:34

Dammit, now everyone will want Kumhos and they'll be back ordered next time.

digitalintrigue

12-19-2007, 16:35

Let those among us...cast the first stone... ;)

I didn't write idio-sin-cracies. :)

mr_phillip

12-19-2007, 23:36

As a socio-linguist I feel obliged to point out that technically 'native' English is the version of the language spoken where-ever you are, whatever version that is. The country with the largest number of 'native' English speakers in the world right now is neither the UK or USA, it's India :)

200 years ago native English was spoken in Great Britain, but now native English is US English.

Times change...

Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote
And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;

Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,
And smale foweles maken melodye,

That slepen al the nyght with open eye-
(So priketh hem Nature in hir corages);

Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages
And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes
To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;

And specially from every shires ende
Of Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende,
The hooly blisful martir for to seke
That hem hath holpen, whan that they were seeke.

varjag

12-20-2007, 01:44

I don't think the author really means "who cares what the photos look like". The piece is illustrated with fairly good photos.

He finds some drawbacks of M8 to him, but goes to say that Leica's lure and mode of operation outweigh that.

From the article it sounds like I can focus a Leica way better than him, but it is irrelevant to the point of his writing. There are other very objective drawbacks and limitations of every RF (e.g. tele, closeup range), none of those stopping aficionados however.

nikonhswebmaster

12-20-2007, 03:15

You really ought to check what it says under pompous in a dictionary..

Anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of English would have extracted the essence out of the article.. something that sitemistic summed up pretty well:

You really cannot use "kindest regards" in a signature when you make this kind of really nasty remark...

Frankly the article in question is a really upbeat article on discovering greatness in something that is difficult to master.

I have never seen so much negativity. I am not sure where is it all coming from. I just keep wondering if there is some feeling this photographer should not be able to casually buy an M8 and 5 lenses on a day he was just stopping by the Leica Gallery?

There is something really bizarre going on here about this article, something I am just beginning to get a feel for.

JNewell

12-20-2007, 03:51

I love cameras that are strange and force me to see the world just a little bit differently than I did yesterday, because that’s what photography is all about, seeing the world just a little bit differently."

Fred, thank you for bringing that quote to the top. A great thought for photography, which really involves vision, and renewing our vision.

pvdhaar

12-20-2007, 03:58

There is something really bizarre going on here about this article, something I am just beginning to get a feel for.
It went downhill the moment you disqualified anyone else's take on this article based on their supposed lack of skills in English. And quoting prose from the Canterbury tales to show off only fortifies that impression.

I'm willing to self reflect on bold statements I make, and the one you refered to as 'nasty' is one. I should have been wiser, and not have written that.

digitalintrigue

12-20-2007, 05:56

The original article is not sufficiently worthy of such bickering. ;)

crawdiddy

12-20-2007, 06:27

As a socio-linguist I feel obliged to point out that technically 'native' English is the version of the language spoken where-ever you are, whatever version that is. The country with the largest number of 'native' English speakers in the world right now is neither the UK or USA, it's India :)

India has the most native English speakers?

Well, I'm no socio-linguist, but I believe the term "native English" implies speakers who are born into, or grow up in a culture where English is spoken as the primary language, or at least one of the primary languages, and that the language is spoken with fluency by a significant percentage of the population.

While there are many persons in India with English skills, of various degrees of mastery, English is not the primary language, and I certainly don't think a significant percentage of Indians speak fluent English. You said the country with the largest number of native English speakers is India. There are about a billion people in India (that's a thousand million, if you're from the U.K.) There are approximately 350 million people in the U.S. and Canada (remember them? I said North America in my original post, not the USA.) Some of them may speak Spanish or French or Mandarin, etc. as a primary language. But let's say there are 330 million native English speakers in North America. Are you saying that more than 330 million Indians speak English fluently, as their native language? One third of the population? I seriously doubt it.

J J Kapsberger

12-20-2007, 06:46

The original article is not sufficiently worthy of such bickering.

That about says it. The article's a waste of server space. The guy might be a good photographer (provided he's not using a rangefinder it seems) but he doesn't write a good online article.

Avotius

12-20-2007, 07:39

I think that if I cant shoot a 50mm at 2-2.8 on a r2a out on the streets and have perfect focus I would tend to think its just a learning curve thing. After looking at that article its easy for someone who is not used to a rf to ask why in the hell would anyone bother, but yeah, learning curve, either it works or it doesnt.

That said I would still buy one.

nikonhswebmaster

12-20-2007, 08:18

It went downhill the moment you disqualified anyone else's take on this article based on their supposed lack of skills in English. And quoting prose from the Canterbury tales to show off only fortifies that impression.

I'm willing to self reflect on bold statements I make, and the one you refered to as 'nasty' is one. I should have been wiser, and not have written that.

It had nothing to do with "anyone else's" (e.g. not yours) English skills, it had to do with US English, how the article was written and my perception of the misunderstanding a Italian might have understanding the casual way in which it was written.

I have a lot of experience with Italians in Italy never getting my jokes having lived with a Milanese woman for many years. My speech patterns just seemed to be totally elusive to everyone around me. Although with US readers quoting words that are not even in the article, it would appear [mis]reading skill may be the issue.

As for the Canterbury tales, show off, you have to be kidding? Every kid reads it and if you are in an anywhere decent grade school you memorize at least the following:
The Prologue of the Canterbury Tales
Mark Anthony's funeral oration (you know that other show off guy Shakespeare)
The Gettysburg Address
The Declaration of Independence

Of course now kids probably memorize rap lyrics (Verschil Moet er Zijn where you are), but really the point was obvious, English changes, and shifts over time. I mean good old Geoffrey was writing in his native English.

But all this has made me think, after seeing what Bill Pierce has done, about taking my football home, and just going back to my little coffee area where I am the boss, and can moderate toward a more cheerful outlook.

I grow weary of bashing guys like the writer of the article, when many of the bashers just do not have the creds to back it up.

Way too much bickering

MikeL

12-20-2007, 10:32

I think it's interesting how everyone sees what they want in the article. I saw he enjoyed using the camera, the experience and images were different and special to him, it's a nice change from his other gear. Others saw all the negative stuff.

ferider

12-20-2007, 11:09

The key to the article is the phrase about Pamela Anderson.

Not any different than many Leica threads on RFF, check out
"Leica and Ferrari" for instance.

Roland.

nikonhswebmaster

12-20-2007, 11:49

I checked out his website, and I don't think he needs an M8 or Noctilux to impress his friends. Sitemistic, does it make you feel better about yourself to say stuff like this or something?

I do not know the guy personally but I know of him through friends. He is pretty much like me, if I want [need] a tool, I buy it.

While I remain admittedly fascinated by old Nikons. I have owned, rented, or used just about every imaginable camera or lens combination, so new user equipment holds absolutely no fascination for me.

I have borrowed a Noctilux, I do not do any work that it would be useful for. I would look at it as a tool, too heavy, when a 50 f2 would serve me better. The key word here is me, not you, not the guy over there, but ME.

There should of course be a balance on RFF between amateurs who cannot (and probably should not) spend money on equipment excessively, and pros who buy equipment from dealers they trust, like it is a roll of paper towels.

Buying in excess can be an important tool for an artist. If you buy one or two sheets of $20 watercolor paper, it is just too precious to work with, if you buy 100 sheets, the paper stops intimidating you. You have to think of equipment the same way. You have to respect equipment or it will break, but you cannot constantly think about what you paid for it, or if you are going to damage it in use. Equipment is like any other business expense, spend too much stupidly and you will lose money, but like the photographer in question, sometimes you have to experiment with new ideas.

His article is about seeing, and thinking visually, not about if the camera is easy to focus, that was just the lead in. I did like the Pam A description -- a little too close to home.

I think there is way too much talk of money on the RFF. I think if you love using, repairing, and modifying FSU cameras it is great if you are having fun. But don't do it if you are just trying to save money, and it's not the cameras you like. Many of the world's greatest photographs were taken with cameras you can buy for the price of an evening out. And don't be jealous of cameras owned by others, someone will always own more than you do, unless Bill Gates goes under.

digitalintrigue

12-20-2007, 12:11

Perhaps the article was originarry penned by by Kim Jong Il and then transrated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apyB93-1FHk

I'm So Ronery
So ronery
So ronery and sadry arone

There's no one
Just me onry
Sitting on my rittle throne
I work rearry hard and make up great prans
But nobody ristens, no one understands
Seems like no one takes me serirousry

And so I'm ronery
A rittle ronery
Poor rittle me

There's nobody
I can rerate to
Feel rike a bird in a cage
It's kinda sihry
But not rearry
Because it's fihring my body with rage

I'm the smartest most crever most physicarry fit
But nobody else seems to rearize it
When I change the world maybe they'll notice me
But until then I'rr just be ronery
Rittle ronery, poor rittle me

I'm so ronery

nikonhswebmaster

12-20-2007, 13:00

Perhaps the article was originarry penned by by Kim Jong Il and then transrated.

I'm So Ronery
So ronery
So ronery and sadry arone
I'm so ronery

Delete? :) :) :)