Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Dude, give it a rest already. Overparsing like this is a sure sign of someone who is just looking to raise a forum's collective fur.
Who were you before you registered as Hunter S Thompson?
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
burancap
Mentor
I think you took the words right out of the collective RFf mouth with that one.
Sparrow
Mentor
... Hunter S Thompson, was an interesting choice of persona I thought ...
Michael Markey
Mentor
Couldn`t agree more ... its getting boring now.
I wonder who he was before the name change too and has he any shots to show.
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
Hunter,
Perhaps this will help: You don't have to buy the camera.
You can use whatever you want. Honestly.
From a friend:
"You should never use camera to make your pictures.
You use yourself, your experience, to make the pictures with the camera.
Not the other way around."
— Antonin Kratochvil
Now go inside and take some pictures. Take them. And really, don't worry about Leica.
Okay?
Perhaps this will help: You don't have to buy the camera.
You can use whatever you want. Honestly.
From a friend:
"You should never use camera to make your pictures.
You use yourself, your experience, to make the pictures with the camera.
Not the other way around."
— Antonin Kratochvil
Now go inside and take some pictures. Take them. And really, don't worry about Leica.
Okay?
Bill Clark
Mentor
Looks like a thread from photonet.
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
English is not my first language, but I really like the usage of overparsing here. Nicely done.
It strikes me that the answer Mr. Thompson is looking for (inasmuch as it can be called answers - the question is hopelessly egocentric) is already provided in the thread. Several times over, it would seem.
But perhaps I'm stating the obvious.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Good point, if an ugly one
I guess I hoped or expected that the 'RFF sensibility' might kick in. But it didn't - and I suppose I contributed to that. For which I can only apologise ...Mike
I'm ok with the corrections I've decided. Haha.
Aristophanes
Well-known
Certain purists are not, but cannot explain why.
Sparrow
Mentor
... yes, that happens with purists it seems, myself ... I find it tricky to sort out the purists from the fundamentalists
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Hunter,
When Nikon made and sold the Noct-Nikkor it sold for $1.7K which was a lot of money back then.
I own an AIS version of this lens.
As far as modern day equivelents there is an autofocus Nikon 58/1.4 that is currently being sold for about $1.7K in today's dollars that due to inflation is a lot lower cost than the original Noct-Nikkor. This modern 58/1.4 is specifically designed to be low coma and the rendering is very much like my Noct-Nikkor.
Just trying to remove distortions in your writing. I would think you would want to mirror your objections to lens distortions to include the distortions in your writing.
If someone wants to buy a modern lens that is like/similar to a Noct-Nikkor, but lower in cost which matches performance one does not need to exaggerate and create a cheap $400.00 lens and use lens correction to make a point. To me this is a distortion.
Cal
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Stewart,
Am I being a purist by calling distortion distortion weather it is in optics or writing, or is it apples and say lemons to add my own flavor of distortion.
On one hand I guess I don't mind the distortions in the Leica "Q"glass because it is corrected. But in some writing that offers mucho distortion there is/are no correction(s).
Fundamentally am I correct?
Cal
nongfuspring
Well-known
Hunter, I respect the fact that you disapprove of this camera based on lens performance, but you also need to understand that for some people this is a very suitable tool that they find a good balance of features for their personal use. We should judge a tool by its cumulative merits not some checklist of axioms; this isn't rangefinderfacists.com, most people here are interested in actually taking photos not the "philosophical" purity of the gear we use.
Sparrow
Mentor
... I don't know, in fact I understand very little of this sort of thing ... I occasionally post an odd attempt at humour, often that self-deprecating humour that's really tricky to spot outside the salon-bar of the Duke William ... as seems to be the case here
regards
PS .. are you Aristophanes too? ... as I replied to him or just answering on his behalf
PPS ... him, her or it, that is as appropriate
David_Manning
Well-known
Warning: an opinion follows
Firmware/software corrections are a fact of life for digital cameras. I'm happy for them...they enable photographers to shoot existing-light images that film photography dreams about. This same argument was going on regarding software or firmware suppression of noise in the imaging chain, including RAW images. It's part of the "miracle" of digital photography. The nice thing is, there are other options out there at different price points.
Myself, I don't get caught up in the marketing hype ("Summilux lens"). I'm astonished with the output of the Ricoh GR, which through software and firmware corrections, will give any 28mm a run for its money...for about $600. I can't seriously imagine why I'd be looking for bokeh from a 28mm lens, anyway...it's a moderate-wide...not a portrait lens.
So, enjoy the Leica Q...it's a computer, like the rest of them. My suggestion for everyone on RFF (myself included)...go out and make an image, using whatever, and get it printed. THAT'S photography
Firmware/software corrections are a fact of life for digital cameras. I'm happy for them...they enable photographers to shoot existing-light images that film photography dreams about. This same argument was going on regarding software or firmware suppression of noise in the imaging chain, including RAW images. It's part of the "miracle" of digital photography. The nice thing is, there are other options out there at different price points.
Myself, I don't get caught up in the marketing hype ("Summilux lens"). I'm astonished with the output of the Ricoh GR, which through software and firmware corrections, will give any 28mm a run for its money...for about $600. I can't seriously imagine why I'd be looking for bokeh from a 28mm lens, anyway...it's a moderate-wide...not a portrait lens.
So, enjoy the Leica Q...it's a computer, like the rest of them. My suggestion for everyone on RFF (myself included)...go out and make an image, using whatever, and get it printed. THAT'S photography
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
... I don't know, in fact I understand very little of this sort of thing ... I occasionally post an odd attempt at humour, often that self-deprecating humour that's really tricky to spot outside the salon-bar of the Duke William ... as seems to be the case here
regards
PS .. are you Aristophanes too? ... as I replied to him or just answering on his behalf
PPS ... him, her or it, that is as appropriate
Stewart,
Your odd attempts at humour really work, and I think they are both thoughful and entertaining.
I am a he, and I am not Aristophanes.
Cal
Sparrow
Mentor
... that's good to know, then maybe Aristophanes is the late Hunter S whateveritwas?
uhoh7
Mentor
While Hunter may have been a bit shrill and made a awful lot of posts his basic points stand, whether you share his distaste for distortion or not.
The messenger, annoying fellow, has been shot.
The many comments that "all digital cameras correct distortion" is very quaint, like "all cars emit CO2"
as if....prius or F150, it's all the same.
The messenger, annoying fellow, has been shot.
The many comments that "all digital cameras correct distortion" is very quaint, like "all cars emit CO2"
as if....prius or F150, it's all the same.