Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2016/06/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Personally I rarely touch the controls once they are set; change ISO on the M's and in/out of mirror lock-up on the S2 is about it... john -----Original Message----- What bothers me about this camera is not the sensor size but the fact that the user interface seems to be that of an iPhone. Which is fine for an iPhone but not on a camera. One of things I like about the cameras I use the most?the Fuji X, the Panasonic LX-100 and the Ricoh GR?is that most of the settings I use are controlled with dials and buttons. I hate touch screens. Cheers, Nathan Nathan Wajsman Alicante, Spain http://www.frozenlight.eu <http://www.frozenlight.eu/> http:// <http://www.greatpix.eu/>www.greatpix.eu PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws <http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws>Blog: http://nathansmusings.wordpress.com/ <http://nathansmusings.wordpress.com/> Cycling: http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/belgiangator <http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/belgiangator> YNWA > On 23 Jun 2016, at 21:06, George Lottermoser <george.imagist at > icloud.com> wrote: > > >> On Jun 23, 2016, at 1:28 PM, Sonny Carter <sonc.hegr at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Having been a 645 user in another life, I can assure you that it uses >> 120 film, commonly known as medium format to photographers of my >> generation. (credibility unstretched or not) >> >> 645 is actually a pretty nice frame size, but like 35mm, it's best to >> pick out as you shoot which you want, landscape or portrait. >> >> No comes digital, and many cameras have the ability of setting the >> shape of the image through menus, my iPhone does it, and my Sony A7s >> does it. I don't think I get a choice with my M9. >> >> The Leica M240 has choices in the video side. >> >> No matter what, I really don't much care what shape the sensor is, >> because I format an image to fit the composition, not the other way >> around. >> That's why God gave us mattes. > > always amazed by these ?controversies.? > ?medium? and ?large? format obviously qualify as "relative? terms. > we, who grew up with the terms, know their meaning. > > 620 roll film, 120 roll film, 70 mm roll film, which included 6 x 4.5 > cm, 6 x 6 cm, 6 x 7 cm, 6 x 9 cm frame cameras and or backs were all > referred to as ?medium format.? > > 4 x 5" sheet film and larger were referred to as ?large format? > even though 4 x 5" seems rather small when compared to 11 x 14" and 12 x > 20". > > 2 1/4 x 3 1/4" sheet film - fell into a void - terminology wise. > > And of course none of those terms has any particular relevance in digital > sensor world. > Now we say ?full frame? to describe a sensor more or less the size of > a 24 x 36 mm film frame; even as sensors (frames) come in every > conceivable size from extremely tiny to relatively large; with NONE > reaching anywhere close to 6 x 6 cm or larger. > > What is relevant and important, to me, is the actual size of the film > and/or sensor not relative terms like full, medium, miniature, or > large > > > Regards, > George Lottermoser > > http://www.imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com/blog > http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist > > >