Mudman
Well-known
Such negative remarks about a photographer that is admirably at an upper level of the profession, and no he is not a native English speaker for whatever the hell that means....tsk, tsk.
Revolutionize black and white photography? Depends on one's point of view, definition and context.
Don't like the Leica M9 Monochrome? Don't buy it.
Don't like the new expensive lens? Don't buy it.
Can't afford it? Don't sweat it.
Others can afford it? So what?
Why spend so much time about being negative when life has so many positive things we can discuss?:angel:
Dave - I was responding to someone's negativity on grammatical and spelling errors - offering a reason why those were there. Don't have a problem with the man or the article. Enjoyed the fact that he was willing to put DNG files out there for me to play with.
FrankS
Registered User
Everything that anyone writes is just their opinion even if it is worded as an absolute truth.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
That's a very postmodern point of view, Frank. In my opinion, of course.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
If I am reading this correctly it almost sounds like you would want to shoot the M9M with exposure compensation permanently set to something like -2 stops, since it seems to blow the highlights quite easily.
If that is true then Leica really placed mid grey in an odd spot. Let's say the camera gets 9 stops of range. It sounds like +3 stops over gray is zone 10 and -6 below is zone 0. Almost like a video camera.
Film has lousy shadow detail, but the highlights go on and on and on and on...
If that is true then Leica really placed mid grey in an odd spot. Let's say the camera gets 9 stops of range. It sounds like +3 stops over gray is zone 10 and -6 below is zone 0. Almost like a video camera.
Film has lousy shadow detail, but the highlights go on and on and on and on...
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Just treat it like slide film. Expose for the highlights, "develop" for the shadows.
horosu
Well-known
I must admit to be moderately interested in the camera. Let's say it is intriguing. The lens, on the other hand, doesn't interest me at all.
It's price is high and I don't know yet, if I can use only a B&W camera for my hobby.
It's price is high and I don't know yet, if I can use only a B&W camera for my hobby.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I think this set of articles is hampered by two things. The first thing is that what I've read from him so far suggests that, photographic talent notwithstanding, Thorsten Overgaard has a propensity for rather esoteric ways of describing the world (not surprising, with him being a scientologist and all) and this is no exception and does not do him a service. The other thing is that being commissioned by Leica, Thorsten Overgaard presumabably has a vested interest in supporting the Leica "party line" and marketing strategy, which in this case means taking those technical advantages that are undoubtedly there and blowing them up using pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo until they end up being labeled with as-big-as-possible numbers that they don't really deserve.
This whole discussion of 18 vs 32 vs 37 vs whatever megapixels seems childish and redundant to me, like a schoolboys' discussion about which car can go faster. It has dubious technical merit to begin with and from the social point of view an air of empty boastfulness which, as you point out, is hardly relevant. It really feels more like there's an inferiority complex; with other camera makers being a generation or two ahead of Leica and actual 36 megapixel sensors in SLRs and 20 megapixels in high-end pocket cameras, this reads as if someone is desperately looking for a way to be part of the big figure club, too.
A pixel on the sensor is never going to be a pixel on paper, because there are no no pixels on the paper to begin with, and because you start throwing away resolution as soon as you print at anything else than 5212x3472 "pixels" (say, restricting yourself strictly to 17.373"x11.573" at 300 dpi). And while I have no doubt that this camera will help some people take some pictures that they think they couldn't have taken with any other camera, I have a hunch that this will be a tiny, tiny minority, while the vast majority of shots, including everything I've seen from it so far on the Web without exception, does not really make it seem to me like the camera warrants the esoteric air of revolution that it gets.
jarski
Mentor
interesting reading, thx for sharing. (though I happily jumped over tech jargon both in article and here)
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Come on, you know what I mean.rxmd said:
There has been no interpolation, so each pixel has not been electronically contaminated by its neighbors. As for not helping take pictures that could not have taken otherwise, that goes for any camera from a Lomo upwards. By that standard we should all stick with an iPhone. Initially I thought the pictures by Jacob Aue Sobol were a very poor choice to showcase the camera. Until I tried to replicate the look he got with M9 files. Completely impossible. And found that over time they were haunting in the starkness he achieved.
I suppose he is one of the very few you mention. But that will not stop me from getting that camera and use it as it was intended - at my level-.
I rather like Edmund Terakopian’s preview:
http://photothisandthat.co.uk/2012/05/17/the-leica-m-monochrom-hands-on-review/
MCTuomey
Mentor
Such negative remarks about a photographer that is admirably at an upper level of the profession, and no he is not a native English speaker for whatever the hell that means....tsk, tsk.
Revolutionize black and white photography? Depends on one's point of view, definition and context.
Don't like the Leica M9 Monochrome? Don't buy it.
Don't like the new expensive lens? Don't buy it.
Can't afford it? Don't sweat it.
Others can afford it? So what?
Why spend so much time about being negative when life has so many positive things we can discuss?:angel:
Thank you, Dave. A breath of fresh air, your post. The tone of some of the criticism is kind of sad, especially when it comes from those with little-to-no professional photographic achievements. I may not like Mr Overgaard's writing. But his photos and work are far better than mine, so I prefer to listen and learn what I can.
I'd add one suggestion to your list:
Don't like a reviewer's article? Don't read it. Make some good photos instead.
zauhar
Mentor
I got curious reading this back-and-forth and started reading Thorsten's article.
The first thing I learned is that the lowest ISO of the camera is 320. If you are shooting in bright light you willing easily get blown highlights, and if you force the camera to pull to a lower ISO you will destroy the dynamic range. The optimal solution is to use a filter in bright light.
I guess he is not a scientist, so he may have stuff about the effect of a Bayer filter on interpolated resolution wrong, but that nugget of information is something I missed looking at RFF posts about the camera, many of which criticized the lack of highlight detail. Furthermore, he provides some beautiful sample images taken using the camera, better than I have seen on at least one review site where i got the impression the "reviewers" took the camera to the parking lot to collect a couple of images.
I know and hate marketing literature, and this does not read as such. I get the sense of a long-time Leica user who is enthusiastic about the camera, which is why Leica gave him one to work with.
Randy
The first thing I learned is that the lowest ISO of the camera is 320. If you are shooting in bright light you willing easily get blown highlights, and if you force the camera to pull to a lower ISO you will destroy the dynamic range. The optimal solution is to use a filter in bright light.
I guess he is not a scientist, so he may have stuff about the effect of a Bayer filter on interpolated resolution wrong, but that nugget of information is something I missed looking at RFF posts about the camera, many of which criticized the lack of highlight detail. Furthermore, he provides some beautiful sample images taken using the camera, better than I have seen on at least one review site where i got the impression the "reviewers" took the camera to the parking lot to collect a couple of images.
I know and hate marketing literature, and this does not read as such. I get the sense of a long-time Leica user who is enthusiastic about the camera, which is why Leica gave him one to work with.
Randy
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Sure, but that's pretty much true for most digital cameras.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Perhaps you refer to my comments.
Please note that I made no criticism of Overgaard's photography, and I did not take issue with his assessment of the operational qualities of the camera. I objected solely -- and strenuously -- to his discussion of the camera's resolution. That is not an artistic issue. It is a technical issue that falls squarely within my own area of professional competence.
Spider67
Well-known
"Don't like a reviewer's article? Don't read it. Make some good photos instead"
He writes an article, it should be allowed to criticise it
The are to many "Do`s" for my taste in some answers.
Thats my`opinion and
that's my real name Dessislaw Pajakoff
He writes an article, it should be allowed to criticise it
The are to many "Do`s" for my taste in some answers.
Thats my`opinion and
that's my real name Dessislaw Pajakoff
segedi
RFicianado
It appears I have ruffled some feathers...
I should have mentioned that I did enjoy the photographs. And if he had simply had a gallery of photos, for me, it would have been more enjoyable. He is clearly a high-caliber photographer. I wasn’t insulting his intelligence or his photos, but expressing my dismay at trying to get through the article.
Perhaps, if there would have been just a couple of typos I would have overlooked them. Even I make a couple of mistakes writing replies back to forum posts! But, a simple run through using MS Word and I count at least 19 spelling errors. All which should not have been there if he had taken the time to compose his article in any word processing program with an English dictionary or used a browser plugin for spell checking.
Being a native or non-native English speaker (or writer) is irrelevant; He chooses to write in English. And I do think someone that advertises himself as a writer should be held to a higher standard. His Web site title indicates he is a “Danish feature writer and photographer”. If I am advertising myself as a writer, it is a wise investment to showcase my skill as such. In the MM article, he clearly does not.
Why is this important?
To the majority, with all of the poorly written materials spread across the Web, perhaps it isn’t important at all. The content of the article and the supporting photos are most important. But, if I am advertising multiple seminars and workshops alongside an article, I would want to take the care that is needed to convey professionalism.
But back to topic, I find the MM a very interesting camera. The cost, of course, is the least attractive part. I wouldn’t mind at all owning a very nice monochrome only camera and Overgaard’s article encourages that idea. Maybe in a couple of years when my B&W film stock is depleted I will more seriously consider it.
MCTuomey
Mentor
No, I wasn't, and didn't want to single any post out. I was speaking generally of the tone of some of the posts, in connection with Dave L's post, hoping for a bit more civility in responses to TO's article.
Re-reading your post specifically, I guess my reaction would be to the use of the word "asinine" which, among several meanings, suggests something is "of or relating to an ass." Which is often re-inforced by the alliteration between "asinine" and "ass" when the word is spoken, as fluent English speakers are well aware.
Fwiw, I would have had no such reaction to the use of a word or phrase like "uninformed" or "unconvincing" or "flat-out naive from a technical point of view."
A small point, I admit. My skin may be too thin or my ear too delicate for this board.
Back to topic: I find TO's comments about highlight recoverability interesting. I was playing with a couple of files from the Monochrom obtained from a thread at getdpi and had difficulty with highlights (LR4.1). Shadows, on the other hand, seemed to pull up pretty well. I wish the camera were affordable. I'd like to work with one.
Joe AC
Well-known
I don't think that anyone is criticizing his work or his talent. The critsisim is directed at the misinformation he gives about the MM that he claims as being scientific but is in fact clearly opinion.
Joe
MCTuomey
Mentor
Joe, I sure don't have any problem with criticism. It's the tone of the criticism I find disheartening.
loquax ludens
Well-known
Perhaps in a couple of years, Fuji or Samsung or another innovative manufacturer will market a camera equipped with a monochrome sensor. If Fuji were to tackle this, I'd expect the result to be a far more affordable camera than the M9M, with output rivaling or exceeding that of the M9M. Overall fit and finish and durability may not approach the Leica standard, but at least it would expand the market for such cameras.
I thought Mr. Overgaard's photos were outstanding, by the way. I very much enjoyed viewing them. I didn't bother with the article, as I'm not so much interested in the M9M as I am in viewing excellent photography.
jarski
Mentor
dave lackey and MCTuomey, IMO valid criticism. not just this thread, but generic tone in some tech threads in RFF recently.