New Leica DEMANDS discipline!!

On 4/30/2016 8:51 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Now the stage has been reached where the photographer
has to know not only the scene, lighting and exposure factors but the
maze which he has to follow through the myriad of menu items over
which he now has control.

that's a flaw of the ui/ux, not the technology.

I was referring to the sheer volume of settings can overwhelm the
photographer, no matter how well the menu system is laid out.

start with the defaults.

then, based on the results, see which options may affect what you like
or don't like.

you don't need to grok it all at once.

You are trying to tell me how to cope with the morass of settings.
While that's good you have to recognise that in doing that you are
agreeing with me that that there are a morass of settings. While there
are occasions and appplications where having the plethora of such
morass available may be helpful there are other occasions they only
serve to get in the way.

there are lots of settings because today's cameras are vastly more
capable than old cameras, which is an incredibly good thing.

just because there are lots of settings doesn't mean it's hard to use.

quite the opposite, in fact. today's cameras are much easier to use
than older cameras because they can do much of the grunt work, leaving
the photographer to concentrate on the creative side.

in other words, there's *less* in the way.

There are people who oonly ooperate their
camera in 'M' mode. The Leica M-D sounds as though it is intended for
these people.

those people are complete fools. they don't want to learn anything new
(or maybe can't) so they try to rationalize doing it the hard way.

m has its place, as does p/s/a and even scene modes. the better
photographers know when to use which mode to get the desired results.

It's got
to the stage where, with some cameras, the operating manual weighs
nearly as much as the camera.

pdfs weigh zero grams.

But the device you have to carry with you to enable you to read them
does not.

it weighs very little and you'd be carrying it *anyway*.

paper books are old school. not only do they weigh a lot but they take
up a lot more space.

that little device can hold thousands of books as well as tutorial
videos *and* have access to the internet for instant results for
anything that can't otherwise be answered, not to mention a phone for
calling/texting someone for answers.

Too much stuff gets between the
photographer and the picture.

nope.

By definition, stuff which gets between the photographer and the
picture is too much.

there isn't anything that gets in the way unless the photographer puts
it there.

with modern cameras, there's *less* in the way because the camera can
take care of all the annoying and boring details that get in the way,
such as focus, subject tracking, exposure, bracketing, etc., letting
the photographer concentrate on the image.


Your above statements tell us what you really know about photography,
and confirms why you have not posted any images that you claimed are yours.


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Too much stuff gets between the
photographer and the picture.

nope.

By definition, stuff which gets between the photographer and the
picture is too much.

there isn't anything that gets in the way unless the photographer puts
it there.

with modern cameras, there's *less* in the way because the camera can
take care of all the annoying and boring details that get in the way,
such as focus, subject tracking, exposure, bracketing, etc., letting
the photographer concentrate on the image.


Your above statements tell us what you really know about photography,
and confirms why you have not posted any images that you claimed are yours.

your statements tell us you're just a condescending asshole.

On 4/30/2016 1:04 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

Too much stuff gets between the
photographer and the picture.

nope.

By definition, stuff which gets between the photographer and the
picture is too much.

there isn't anything that gets in the way unless the photographer puts
it there.

with modern cameras, there's *less* in the way because the camera can
take care of all the annoying and boring details that get in the way,
such as focus, subject tracking, exposure, bracketing, etc., letting
the photographer concentrate on the image.


Your above statements tell us what you really know about photography,
and confirms why you have not posted any images that you claimed are yours.

your statements tell us you're just a condescending asshole.


You really ought to take a course in English.
In any event I'd rather be a condescending asshole, to some unidentified
entity, than a total asshole, like you.


--
PeterN

In article ,
RichA wrote:


Years ago, in the film days, they COULD have used LCD previews (like Polaroid
test shots) because there was a variability to the result, most people would
lose a few shots per role due to problems unless they are very careful.

years ago they *did* use polaroid for test shots.

Today, you can shoot three-shot bursts of everything and (probably) one would
be a good one.

you can, but that's certainly not required.

The Leica demands knowing something about how a camera
functions.

every camera does.

But then I know people who haven't a clue as to how to (for
example)to compensate for back-lighting so modern DSLR or Leica,
they are at the camera's mercy.

so what?

that's *exactly* the thing a camera can do so that the photographer can
concentrate on more important details, like the image.

rOn Sat, 30 Apr 2016 15:30:23 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
says...

You are trying to tell me how to cope with the morass of settings.
While that's good you have to recognise that in doing that you are
agreeing with me that that there are a morass of settings.

But people usually only spend some time at the beginning to find the
right default settings. After the camera is set up, they just point and
shoot without worrying about the settings.


pdfs weigh zero grams.

But the device you have to carry with you to enable you to read them
does not.

I have a smartphone with a large screen with me all the time. There I
keep all (pdf) manuals, all Lonely Planet, Rough Guides etc. guidebooks
and so one. Zero additional weight for me.

By definition, stuff which gets between the photographer and the
picture is too much.

As explained in the other post, most of the time I just switch on the
camera and shoot. I never worry about the settings. Only in case I need
some special function, I will need to set up the camera.

I'm not arguing in favour of what Leica has done. All I am doing is
putting forward my hypothesis as to why they may have done it.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 08:51:10 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Now the stage has been reached where the photographer
has to know not only the scene, lighting and exposure factors but the
maze which he has to follow through the myriad of menu items over
which he now has control.

that's a flaw of the ui/ux, not the technology.

I was referring to the sheer volume of settings can overwhelm the
photographer, no matter how well the menu system is laid out.

start with the defaults.

then, based on the results, see which options may affect what you like
or don't like.

you don't need to grok it all at once.

You are trying to tell me how to cope with the morass of settings.
While that's good you have to recognise that in doing that you are
agreeing with me that that there are a morass of settings. While there
are occasions and appplications where having the plethora of such
morass available may be helpful there are other occasions they only
serve to get in the way.

there are lots of settings because today's cameras are vastly more
capable than old cameras, which is an incredibly good thing.

just because there are lots of settings doesn't mean it's hard to use.

quite the opposite, in fact. today's cameras are much easier to use
than older cameras because they can do much of the grunt work, leaving
the photographer to concentrate on the creative side.

in other words, there's *less* in the way.

There are people who oonly ooperate their
camera in 'M' mode. The Leica M-D sounds as though it is intended for
these people.

those people are complete fools. they don't want to learn anything new
(or maybe can't) so they try to rationalize doing it the hard way.

m has its place, as does p/s/a and even scene modes. the better
photographers know when to use which mode to get the desired results.

It's got
to the stage where, with some cameras, the operating manual weighs
nearly as much as the camera.

pdfs weigh zero grams.

But the device you have to carry with you to enable you to read them
does not.

it weighs very little and you'd be carrying it *anyway*.

You are referring to a smartphone of some kind. Well I don't have one
so I couldn't carry one. (I do have a small Nokia which has a six day
battery life and does all I want from a mobile phone.)

paper books are old school. not only do they weigh a lot but they take
up a lot more space.

that little device can hold thousands of books as well as tutorial
videos *and* have access to the internet for instant results for
anything that can't otherwise be answered, not to mention a phone for
calling/texting someone for answers.

Too much stuff gets between the
photographer and the picture.

nope.

By definition, stuff which gets between the photographer and the
picture is too much.

there isn't anything that gets in the way unless the photographer puts
it there.

with modern cameras, there's *less* in the way because the camera can
take care of all the annoying and boring details that get in the way,
such as focus, subject tracking, exposure, bracketing, etc., letting
the photographer concentrate on the image.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
RichA wrote:

Years ago, in the film days, they COULD have used LCD previews (like
Polaroid
test shots) because there was a variability to the result, most people
would
lose a few shots per role due to problems unless they are very careful.

years ago they *did* use polaroid for test shots.

That's what I meant, as in "could have used and LCD like they did polaroids.

why would anyone want to go back to that?

Today, you can shoot three-shot bursts of everything and (probably) one
would
be a good one.

you can, but that's certainly not required.

The Leica demands knowing something about how a camera
functions.

every camera does.

Not every camera demands knowing as much as the Leica.

nonsense. there are cameras that are *far* more complicated than any
leica,

But then I know people who haven't a clue as to how to (for
example)to compensate for back-lighting so modern DSLR or Leica,
they are at the camera's mercy.

so what?

"So what?" is a low-brow response.

nope. it's in response to your condescending comment.

that's *exactly* the thing a camera can do so that the photographer can
concentrate on more important details, like the image.

ONLY if you know to TELL the camera to do it. Program Mode won't do it for
you unless it includes some kind of sub-program specifically to compensate
for back-lighting, like a novice's "scene mode." None of the traditional
modes, P,A,S,M will automatically compensate for back-lighting.

actually they can, and often do.

Realistically, no modes can compensate 100%

nothing is 100%.

even on full manual, photographers make mistakes, and lots of them.

the point is that the camera can do a better job and make fewer
mistakes than the photographer would, which leaves more time for the
photographer to concentrate on the creative side of things rather than
worry about the little things.

it's like having an assistant who never complains and never gets tired,
packed inside the camera.

of the time since for all the
camera knows, the thing it was trying to compensate for might have been a
black bowling ball and not a human face in which case the compensation might
not even be needed. I can see them creating modes to "guess" by its shape
that's it's back-lit human head in the frame, and to compensate for that.

it' very easy to tell the difference between a black bowling ball (and
many other things) and a human face.

camera makers call it face detection.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I'm not arguing in favour of what Leica has done. All I am doing is
putting forward my hypothesis as to why they may have done it.

the reason is because they're stuck in the past.

they should partner with kodak, who just released a super-8 movie
camera.

http://petapixel.com/2016/01/06/koda...-super-8-as-a-
film-camera-with-digital-features/

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

It's got
to the stage where, with some cameras, the operating manual weighs
nearly as much as the camera.

pdfs weigh zero grams.

But the device you have to carry with you to enable you to read them
does not.

it weighs very little and you'd be carrying it *anyway*.

You are referring to a smartphone of some kind. Well I don't have one
so I couldn't carry one. (I do have a small Nokia which has a six day
battery life and does all I want from a mobile phone.)

you're a minority.

if you don't have a smartphone, then get an ipod touch and load it up
with ebooks. it weighs just 88 grams (3.1 oz) and will slip into a
pocket.

On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 14:55:05 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Saturday, 30 April 2016 17:40:35 UTC-4, nospam wrote:
In article ,
RichA wrote:


Years ago, in the film days, they COULD have used LCD previews (like Polaroid
test shots) because there was a variability to the result, most people would
lose a few shots per role due to problems unless they are very careful.

years ago they *did* use polaroid for test shots.

That's what I meant, as in "could have used and LCD like they did polaroids.

Today, you can shoot three-shot bursts of everything and (probably) one would
be a good one.

you can, but that's certainly not required.

The Leica demands knowing something about how a camera
functions.

every camera does.

Not every camera demands knowing as much as the Leica.

But then I know people who haven't a clue as to how to (for
example)to compensate for back-lighting so modern DSLR or Leica,
they are at the camera's mercy.

so what?

"So what?" is a low-brow response.

that's *exactly* the thing a camera can do so that the photographer can
concentrate on more important details, like the image.

ONLY if you know to TELL the camera to do it. Program Mode won't do it for you unless it includes some kind of sub-program specifically to compensate for back-lighting, like a novice's "scene mode." None of the traditional modes, P,A,S,M will automatically compensate for back-lighting. Realistically, no modes can compensate 100% of the time since for all the camera knows, the thing it was trying to compensate for might have been a black bowling ball and not a human face in which case the compensation might not even be needed. I can see them creating modes to "guess" by its shape that's it's back-lit human head in the frame, and to compensate for that.

The Nikon D750 has got face recognition *and* compensates for back
lighting.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens