I'm safe then.
a longitudinal study of adults in the USofA found that greater than 99.9% of all people who had died in the prior two decades had also consumed at least 1 liter of water per day, every day of their adult lives....
A whole lot of photographers on Youtube or other social media are out there to promote themselves as photographers or "influencers," or a brand that sponsors them. Most photographers I know don't waste their time making self-serving videos testing equipment, they'd rather spend the time shooting photos.
At $20/roll I can understand Leica being reluctant to use real film for testing...
should I then conclude that all photrio forum members are intolerant Luddites?
I'll be honest here, there are days when I operate under that assumption.
I run into a lot of "photography enthusiasts" as I call them, and they want to fight, argue, gatekeep way more than they seem to like making photographs... and it's not just here, the same thing used to happen in photography clubs back in the 90s. I remember showing one coworker photographs I'd taken, not the originals but the ones in the magazine, the magazine which had purchased them from me, and being told I wasn't a real professional because one had been taken with a 4004 instead of a "pro" camera. I knew, and have met since, lots of people like that and this hobby seems to have its fair share.
I think we all know you can run into the whole gamut, from trendy equipment whores to beginners to experienced folks who just like the hobby and love to help others learn a thing or two. The you tubes adds the inducement of money and the tyranny of the algorithms to the mix, so you might be served an awful lot of the former.
But, my initial point, the problem with crushing stereotypes is that there is so often someone out there to reinforce them. Click on one youtube popular idiot and you're likely to be served up tons of similarly popular idiots every time you return to the you tubes. This is true for photography enthusiasts as it is for everything else google wants you to click on, so it is easy to get jaded.
Idiots on the internet are like wire hangers in a closet. Close the door and they will duplicate. They do not have to be two different sexes, they are hermaphroditic.
I am certainly not a Luddite. I am in favor of mechanized textile fabrication. And fairly tolerant, too.
I am certainly not a Luddite. I am in favor of mechanized textile fabrication. And fairly tolerant, too.
It looks like M film series where promoted to Kardashian's category.
Good thing what money can't buy brains and this is why better made Barnacks are still affordable to photogs.
Yes a Barnack is a much better camera than an M. Strange that Leica gave up on it and introduced the M3. What were they thinking?
Mechanically, Barnacks are better, and overall as cameras they are the quintessential Leica.
Barnacks are undestructible cameras (as are the Nikon S). The M3 was manufactured alongside the IIIf, and the its advantage was the bigger viewfinder and a new Mount. Disadvantages were that it was bigger. On quality alone, the IIIf was the pinnacle and seen as the better camera. The departure from the Barnacks had to be done for marketing reasons. Same for Nikon who had to depart from the rfs to SLRs. Once they created tue Nikon F, rangefinders were totally out of the game. Totally destroyed.
The Leica glory years were the Barnack years. Absolutely. The groundbreaking cameras are the Barnacks.
Here is a small part of William Eggleston’s collection of Barbacks. Legendary cameras.
Get your Leica game straight.
Why did he need so many indestructible cameras?
Mechanically, Barnacks are better, and overall as cameras they are the quintessential Leica.
Barnacks are undestructible cameras (as are the Nikon S). The M3 was manufactured alongside the IIIf, and the its advantage was the bigger viewfinder and a new Mount. Disadvantages were that it was bigger. On quality alone, the IIIf was the pinnacle and seen as the better camera. The departure from the Barnacks had to be done for marketing reasons. Same for Nikon who had to depart from the rfs to SLRs. Once they created tue Nikon F, rangefinders were totally out of the game. Totally destroyed.
The Leica glory years were the Barnack years. Absolutely. The groundbreaking cameras are the Barnacks.
Here is a small part of William Eggleston’s collection of Barbacks. Legendary cameras.
Get your Leica game straight.
Not to be picky (but this is Photrio after all, so why not?)...The sole advantage of the M3 was the combined viewfinder/rangefinder. Everything else was just a refinement, many of which would have found their way onto a future IIIh or whatever.Mechanically, Barnacks are better, and overall as cameras they are the quintessential Leica.
Barnacks are undestructible cameras (as are the Nikon S). The M3 was manufactured alongside the IIIf, and the its advantage was the bigger viewfinder and a new Mount.
Yeah. like the $1500 Contax T2. Thank you Kendall Jenner.
Why did he need so many indestructible cameras?
He actually prefferred the Canons. The Leicas were the backups.
It does look like typical selling price of a non-TTL M6 has fallen from $3K+ to around 2500, but this is still almost 2x what I recalled before the start of the pandemic.
I also see a pretty big disconnect between the price of a new 50/0.95 Noctilux (almost 13K USD) versus used (as low as 6K USD).
Sometimes, the Leica M market hands you a cheap/free rental, or maybe you even make a few bucks in resale when you move onto something shinier. But usually, they depreciate: Even that minty M3 outfit purchased decades ago for a couple of hundred bucks starts to look a lot less impressive as an "investment" when inflation is factored in.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?