ulrikft wrote:
I by far prefer the crowd over here
You encountered a few elitist a$$holes over there by the looks of things (stumbled upon a couple of your posts). They're more fondlers than photographers over there (the ones arguing with you), so don't lose any sleep over it. A lot of them don't understand the technology nor the reasoning behind the comparisons you made.
Logical thinkers who are a bit tech savvy will agree with you. I'm quite surprised to see the Nikon HS webmaster sticking up for the pompous individuals though
ooo I hope you can! There is a lot to be said for the teaching power of digital when coming to a different focusing system though. As 'bad' as chimping is, it's a great teacher.
agnius wrote:
Then it hit me: Leica or not - digital cameras are just consumer electronics with a very limited life span. Depreciation of electronics is legendary - nobody wants to be stuck with "last year's snow".
If it's good enough, it's good enough. I've had my D700 for one year now, and there is nothing with it that bothers me more than when I bought it. I have no lust for better IQ, better lenses, lower noise, more functions, nothing. Just a smaller, lighter and less obtrusive camera, that's all. And I wanted the same thing when I got the D700, but there was no such camera available.
Makten wrote:
If it's good enough, it's good enough. I've had my D700 for one year now, and there is nothing with it that bothers me more than when I bought it. I have no lust for better IQ, better lenses, lower noise, more functions, nothing. Just a smaller, lighter and less obtrusive camera, that's all. And I wanted the same thing when I got the D700, but there was no such camera available.
My sentiments exactly. I use MF for lot of what i do, and have done for pretty much 80-90% of my shots the last 2-3 years. I have yearned for a smaller package to do it with. The only thing I'll lack with a M9 is the capability to do 70-200 2.8 + d700 sports shows, I guess I have to do m9 + 90 2.8 zone focus instead.. :P
My latest travels have made me realize that I can walk around all day with a 20 1.8, 35 1.4, 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 + d700. But my shoulders/neck would by far prefer M9 + 21/4, 35/1.4, 50/1.1 and 75 2.5 or 90 2.0 pre-asph... :P
ulrikft wrote:
My latest travels have made me realize that I can walk around all day with a 20 1.8, 35 1.4, 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 + d700. But my shoulders/neck would by far prefer M9 + 21/4, 35/1.4, 50/1.1 and 75 2.5 or 90 2.0 pre-asph... :P
Oh, my travels told me I can do with a 1Ds and a 28/2.0, but I would still think my nack would prefer a M9 with a 28/2.8 - it's less than half of the Canon/CZ combo.
Kit Laughlin wrote:
Reminds me of the Guy Mancuso days...
You guyz better bleive this is teH dooooooom!!! for all other cameras. Believe me I no cos i am teh pro - i use this stuff - when you got as much sperience as me an my buddiez - you'll understand, but only then. This camera outresolves anything coz the no AA filter gices it at least liek 30 more pegapixelz trust me, cos i hav been to solms they flu me over the lenzis the lenzis the lenzis aaaaaghh doom to canon nikon jap crap. SELL EVERYTHING TO GET A TIME SHARE IN THIS CAMERA IF YOU WANNA STAY IN THE BIZNESS AND BE A GURU LIKE ME!! And if you don't agree you're wrong stop persecuting me and I'm gonna sue you now where's the thread delete button? Sorry - I'm just an emotional kind of guy. I'll kill you if you contradict me yore a moron.
Seriously, discussions about this M9 camera are way more balanced and less hysterical than the stuff that used to go on back then. People are looking at M9 output, and talking honestly about its strengths and weaknesses without fear of being abused in a most childish way. I call that progress, and I think the M9 looks like a great camera, notwithstanding the VFM question.
kleinssz69 wrote:
...the thing that I like most about Guy is his lack of political correctness
I like that too and he has lots of redeeming qualities. I was abused enough times to be able to take the mickey a bit, I think. The litigation threats by email were weird though.
If he ever reads this, I doff my hat to him and hope he can take these comments in good humour, even though he is an emotional kind of guy.
I liked Guy, even with the tantrums.
For some odd reason we got along well in our conversations and I think I never got a mouthful out of him and I was going to catch up with him on the other forum but it was a long time ago and now I don't even know what forum he lurks in.
On topic again:
Brainiac, I agree that for some reason this thread is saturated - not with faithful Leicaphilic tantrums with a blind eye to the shortcomings of the M9 - but with unusually sober expectations and reflections on the camera.
The M8 was never attractive to me, I was disappointed by all the shortcomings and I was hoping they would get it right eventually. Now, with the M9 I feel that Leica might actually have contributed with a milestone camera; the first full frame digital rangefinder and one that might actually deliver the goods with (hopefully) a minimum of quirks.
After the input in this thread my ship is listing perilously towards the maelstrom of Leica M: where men are sucked down the abyss clutching their wallets. I think the 50/1.4 and the 28/2.8 would be my ticket though the admission is fairly steep. Anyone want to buy a kidney?
kosmoskatten wrote:
After the input in this thread my ship is listing perilously towards the maelstrom of Leica M: where men are sucked down the abyss clutching their wallets.
Me too. I caught myself looking at Voigtlander, Zeiss ZM, and Leica M lens prices on B&H yesterday. Yikes. Yet I still cling to the hope of a Canon 3D.
kosmoskatten wrote:
I liked Guy, even with the tantrums.
For some odd reason we got along well in our conversations and I think I never got a mouthful out of him and I was going to catch up with him on the other forum but it was a long time ago and now I don't even know what forum he lurks in.
Yup, I liked him, too. He is now one of the moderaters/instructors on that forum, which is pretty well visited lately. Just FYI.
