Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/11/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Mark, If only you had hands on experience on what you prattle on about, I would take you a lot more seriously. As it is, as far as I am concerned, you are a humorous aside on the list, considering the fact that you have not even lifted any camera that you are so eager to expound on, nor seen any output on which to base your flights of fancy, whether for the positive or the negative. Who can ever take you seriously, except at their own risk? Of course you suffer from Confirmation Bias, you talk yourself into believing your own mythical positions! I suggest you give this book a good read and ruminate on it for a bit for your own good: http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374275637/ref=la_B001ILFNQG_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1352734206&sr=1-1 Cheers Jayanand On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > Actually Jayanand and Gerry the fact that photography is output defined is > not really my little quirky opinion here that I came up with after two cups > of coffee but a basic piece of photo teaching and technique since day one > and has been discused on the lug for a decade as a starting point of fact > that no ones ever thought to contest as to do so would be pure idiocy. > You sit down in your first photo class put your smart phones away the > teacher takes attendance and then says "first of all photography is an > output dependent thing". > " Confirmation Bias" is an exciting bit of rhetoric you've dug up it simply > has nothing at all do do with my post which I doubt you'd even read. > > > Mark William Rabiner > Photography > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > > > > From: Gerry Walden <gerry.walden at me.com> > > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > > Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 06:26:39 +0000 > > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > > Subject: Re: [Leica] Review of Fuji's new X-E1 with zoom lens. > > > > Absolutely! > > > > Gerry Walden > > +44 (0)23 8046 3076 or > > +44 (0)797 287 7932 > > www.gwpics.com > > > > On 12 Nov 2012, at 02:48, Jayanand Govindaraj <jayanand at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> I am amazed at the amount of Confirmation Bias rampant on the list! (-: > >> It is an exceedingly dangerous mindset.... > >> Cheers > >> Jayanand > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> Your whole photo deal is output defined. > >>> If all you're doing is uploading jpegs which are a few hundred pixies > >>> across > >>> then its not really worth it to spend a lot of money on good camera > bodies > >>> with larger sensors and glass. You can use a point and shoot with a > smaller > >>> sensor than 1.5 or 2x crop. If you are somehow making it so people can > >>> download large files from your work then its up a notch. And Printing > >>> brings > >>> out the worst and best about your gear. So if you have a print > portfolio, > >>> you hang shows or otherwise you print a lot its worth it to be very > >>> selective about your gear. > >>> And I doubt there's going to be a better way to go then with a Leica M > no > >>> number afterward and farily current Leica glass. > >>> Leica S though is going to be a big notch up from that. > >>> Would love to see direct comparisons between the same subject matter > shot > >>> with both systems. > >>> S and M. ( get it!?) > >>> And Leica M against canon and Nikon DSLR'S that everyone else is > shooting. > >>> > >>> I cant wait to see my first Leica M movie. Shot with Summicrons. > >>> Reminds me of the taste of wild hickory nuts.... > >>> > >>> Mark William Rabiner > >>> Photography > >>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > >>> > >>> > >>>> From: Bob Adler <rgacpa at gmail.com> > >>>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > >>>> Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:18:41 -0800 > >>>> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > >>>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Review of Fuji's new X-E1 with zoom lens. > >>>> > >>>> We should bring our Leicas and Fuji's to the burning and then compare > >>> prints!! > >>>> > >>>> Bob Adler > >>>> > >>>> On Nov 11, 2012, at 10:39 AM, Nathan Wajsman <photo at frozenlight.eu> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> You are a heretic, to be burned at the stake. > >>>>> > >>>>> Cheers, > >>>>> Nathan (who owns an M8 and an X100) > >>>>> > >>>>> Nathan Wajsman > >>>>> Alicante, Spain > >>>>> http://www.frozenlight.eu > >>>>> http://www.greatpix.eu > >>>>> PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws > >>>>> Blog: http://nathansmusings.wordpress.com/ > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> YNWA > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Nov 11, 2012, at 7:24 PM, jon.streeter wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Is this why X100 images compare favorably with those from digital M > >>> when > >>>>>> seen on line, or is it because images viewed on line really can't be > >>> seen in > >>>>>> enough detail to-be judged? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ----- Reply message ----- > >>>>>> From: "Aram Langhans" <leica_r8 at hotmail.com> > >>>>>> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org> > >>>>>> Subject: [Leica] Review of Fuji's new X-E1 with zoom lens. > >>>>>> Date: Sun, Nov 11, 2012 10:12 am > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Mark. Back in film days, the Leica quality was always with the > lens. > >>> All > >>>>>> cameras could shoot the same film and vary the exposure the same > way. > >>> The > >>>>>> lenses made the difference. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Now, with digital, there is one more variable between cameras. The > >>> sensor > >>>>>> and firmware replace the universally available film. Leica has to > get > >>> that > >>>>>> part at least as good as the competition for the lenses to make the > >>>>>> difference again. Hope they can do it with the M and CMOS. They > are > >>>>>> competing with the big boys who have big bucks and lots of years of > >>>>>> experience. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Aram > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>>> On 11 Nov, 2012, at 00:47, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I don't think any of them will really come close though. > >>>>>>>> They'll be smaller and lighter then an M. But the image quality > will > >>> of >> > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> M will be plainly visible. > >>>>>>>> Glaringly visible up from an APS- C camera. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Mark William Rabiner > >>>>>>>> Photography > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> Leica Users Group. > >>>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more > information > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> Leica Users Group. > >>>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more > information > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Leica Users Group. > >>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Leica Users Group. > >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Leica Users Group. > >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Leica Users Group. > >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >