Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/06/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Canon made an EOS verson of the Pellix in the late 80s or early 90s. I forget the model name though. I think it was EOS RT. -- Chris Crawford Fine Art Photography Fort Wayne, Indiana 260-437-8990 http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com My portfolio http://www.facebook.com/pages/Christopher-Crawford/48229272798 Become a fan on Facebook On 6/27/13 5:17 PM, "Mark Rabiner" <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: >And you're right, John, the Pellix as a product of the 60s not 70's. I >thought my long term memory was hanging in there. >My first Popular Photography was 1963. >John I did think the great common denominator is not as with film which >was >just shooting at f8 or 11 and it didn't really matter who made the lens or >what it cost. >With digital its just sticking to the lower iso' s. >Shoot at the bottom iso's and you can be shooting with a point and shoot >and >nobody knows the difference. Get a light or go to the beach or the >Bonneville salt flats and leave your S2 at home. Shoot with a camera >which >looks like a credit card. Post it. Tell them you shot it with a Leica S2. >See if anyone notices. > >The Leica (M) is a camera which in particular needs to be able to shoot >everywhere all the time. Light or dark. In or out. Day or night. >Its really at its core what the camera is all about. Flexibility. Getting >the shot no matter what. Its a street camera. A photojournalist camera. >Sure it can be used for commercial stuff at iso 200 or 100 maybe on a >tripod maybe with a flash and that's just fine its just not its core use >for >most users. Not what Leica is all about. > >So I DO think the M240 is a VERY BIG DEAL as we can now use the camera as >it >was meant to be used. Anywhere any time. >Imagine a Leica M film camera in which you could not shoot Tri x but had >to >shoot Panatomic or maybe Plus x? I think it would kind of go over like a >lead balloon. >This seems to be where we've been at till now. >And now is a very good time to be at. > >I do think the selling price for M9's will remain Bullish. So its not the >end of the world. Your not going to have to unload it on your blind >grandmother to use the cash for your M 240 piggy bank. > >And by the way for someone to say I have to have my own M240 in my hands >clicking away to be able to write this legitimately is nothing short of >nuts. > > >On 6/27/13 4:15 PM, "John McMaster" <john at mcmaster.co.nz> wrote: > >> The Canon Pellix was mid-60s, I owned one a while ago ;-) >> >> The M is like a refined and improved M9, but at standard ASA you are >>unlikely >> to see much difference between them. The M has higher DR and can cope >>with >> contrasty scenes better plus can go to higher ASA, but not the extremes >>of >> some other cameras. I find the add on EVF awkward to work with for >>anything >> handheld, not tried my ultra-wides yet though. >> >> So for many people it is not a worthwhile upgrade to the M9, so why >>spend the >> money? That is assuming you can find one for sale ;-) >> >> john - who has used both >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> I think have have said the M240 in particular is going to be a very >>> successful >>> camera based and my many decade experience in photography. Doing, >>> talking and reading. And on a professional level. >>> >>> >>> My next post may be on the Canon Pellix made in the 1970's with a >>>special >>> pellicle concept which seems to be coming back. >>> After that I may say a thing or two about where I think Sony is >>>heading in >>> the >>> camera department with its Zeiss glass which seem to be really pricy >>>Zeiss >>> glass and use of pellicles in what they call SLT technology. >>> After that I may talk about how I'd rater be shooting with a Leica IIIG >>> instead >>> of the Leica IIIF I have and had dominated my Leica film shooting in >>>the past >>> years well over my M system. >>> >>> Which is really not the point at all its really a red herring what >>>gets in >>> everybody's craw is that I find the Fuji rangefinder to be lacking in >>> comparison for the obvious reasons that it is a Cropped camera format. >>> Two price points away from being the premium camera the Leica M is. >>> A totally unproven thing. (Leica has been making rangefinders for a >>>few more >>> years) >>> And when I express my support on the list for LEICA I get this! >>> >>> >>> On 6/27/13 2:26 PM, "Lottermoser George" <imagist3 at mac.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 27, 2013, at 1:15 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote: >>>> >>>>> So with the world all ablaze about the new Leica M 240 the only >>>>> person on the Leica users list who is allowed to discuss it is the >>>>> one person who has managed to obtain one. Hoppy. >>>> >>>> I believe we've seen a few examples from others who have handled them >>>> and own them. >>>> And we can certainly discuss their results; as questions; point to >>>> other reports; etc. >>>> >>>> Though I, personally, cannot imagine denying their actual experience; >>>> anymore than I can imagine denying your actual experience with your >>>> gear, software, chemistry, films or papers. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> George Lottermoser >>>> george at imagist.com >>>> http://www.imagist.com >>>> http://www.imagist.com/blog >>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist >>>> >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > >-- >Mark William Rabiner >Photography >http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information