A Few Words About While we wait for A few words about...™ Lawrence of Arabia -- in 4k/UHD Blu-ray (2 Viewers)

[ManW_TheUncool]

Finally, an appropriate camera for the people…

Leica’s Q2 ‘007 Edition’ camera celebrates ‘No Time to Die,’ the 25th Bond film

The Leica Q2 ‘007 Edition’ camera will be limited to 250 units and retail (body-only) for $7,995.

www.dpreview.com

Paging @Sam Posten...

I guess they gotta find every which way to recoup the mounting losses on this movie...

_Man_

 

[AnthonyClarke]

Robert, I don't think everyone could afford that Leica.
I of course am buying two and will let my wife use one occasionally.

 

[Robert Harris]

Robert, I don't think everyone could afford that Leica.
I of course am buying two and will let my wife use one occasionally.

And that leaves 248 for other HTF members.

The camera itself is an interesting anomaly.

In aeons gone by, if one invested in a qulaity camera, especially higher end with interchangeable optics, you’d have a system that could grow over the years as one could afford to build it.

My choice, once I hit my late teens, was the Nikon F and its variants. Lens mounts were generally proprietary, and adding one every couple of years was doable.

In that analogue world, whether one went with Zeiss, Rollei, Canon, Hasselblad et al, both bodies and lenses retained superb residual value, possibly even more so for Leica gear.

The current problem, in the digital age, is that bodies no longer retain value, and optics are upgraded constantly with newer designs.

In the Leica Q2, the lens is not interchangeable, which means that as the computer portion of the camera becomes obsolete, the entire piece loses value.

Even the veritable M series - I had an M7 and loved it - does not hold its value in digital form.

So the reality, imho, is that while the beautiful new 007 edition may hold some value for Leica and Bond collectors, it’s basically a nice $8,000 fashion accessory.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

And that leaves 248 for other HTF members.

The camera itself is an interesting anomaly.

In aeons gone by, if one invested in a qulaity camera, especially higher end with interchangeable optics, you’d have a system that could grow over the years as one could afford to build it.

My choice, once I hit my late teens, was the Nikon F and its variants. Lens mounts were generally proprietary, and adding one every couple of years was doable.

In that analogue world, whether one went with Zeiss, Rollei, Canon, Hasselblad et al, both bodies and lenses retained superb residual value, possibly even more so for Leica gear.

The current problem, in the digital age, is that bodies no longer retain value, and optics are upgraded constantly with newer designs.

In the Leica Q2, the lens is not interchangeable, which means that as the computer portion of the camera becomes obsolete, the entire piece loses value.

Even the veritable M series - I had an M7 and loved it - does not hold its value in digital form.

So the reality, imho, is that while the beautiful new 007 edition may hold some value for Leica and Bond collectors, it’s basically a nice $8,000 fashion accessory.

It really is too bad how that's become... though the tech may finally have matured enough that most recent (enough) gear can still readily hold their own in actual usage, quality and performance (at least for still photography that doesn't involve ultra-machine-gun style shooting anyway ) despite whatever new fangled gear/tech comes out. Yeah, resale value still loses out, but that's ok enough for those of us who actually own gear to use them, not so much as financial investments to be resold/traded.

My soon-to-be-10-yo Nikon D800, for instance, can still do very well for stills (and even shoots 1080p video well enough for much of my uses)... although I've largely switched to using my mirrorless Z6 (plus more video-oriented gear) and (gasp!) iPhone 11 and probably 13 soon (for more convenient snaps and video-in-a-pinch)...

And it's nice that most of my (admittedly, relatively small collection of) F-mount lenses are still (often very) usable on the mirrorless Z6 -- I actually haven't bothered owning any dedicated Z-mount lenses beyond the high quality f/4 widezoom kit lens so far...

_Man_

 

[Robert Harris]

It really is too bad how that's become... though the tech may finally have matured enough that most recent (enough) gear can still readily hold their own in actual usage, quality and performance (at least for still photography that doesn't involve ultra-machine-gun style shooting anyway ) despite whatever new fangled gear/tech comes out. Yeah, resale value still loses out, but that's ok enough for those of us who actually own gear to use them, not so much as financial investments to be resold/traded.

My soon-to-be-10-yo Nikon D800, for instance, can still do very well for stills (and even shoots 1080p video well enough for much of my uses)... although I've largely switched to using my mirrorless Z6 (plus more video-oriented gear) and (gasp!) iPhone 11 and probably 13 soon (for more convenient snaps and video-in-a-pinch)...

And it's nice that most of my (admittedly, relatively small collection of) F-mount lenses are still (often very) usable on the mirrorless Z6 -- I actually haven't bothered owning any dedicated Z-mount lenses beyond the high quality f/4 widezoom kit lens so far...

_Man_

I believe the only time you get into a problem with the Nikors and modern bodies will be with oddities like the 20/3.5, which I’ve held along with my favorite 105/2.5

Currently shooting a Sony A7Riii (waiting for the v), which is an extraordinary body. Just picked up a 14/1.8. Great lens.

 

[AnthonyClarke]

I also had a Nikon F and loved it.
My favourite camera though was a small Zeiss Ikonta from approx 1935 with the bellows which snapped out on the press of a button. It was my father's and I still have it, in perfect condition. It fitted both 120 and 620 roll film and took beautifully melllow colour photographs as well as sharp B & W. I'd like to say it took the pic on left of this post .. but that honour belongs to a London railway station instant snap booth, circa 1969.
My final proper camera before everything went into digital was a lovely Leica Minizoom -- a commercial tourist's camera of course, but still with flawless Leica optics. Those were the days ....

 

[Robert Harris]

I also had a Nikon F and loved it.
My favourite camera though was a small Zeiss Ikonta from approx 1935 with the bellows which snapped out on the press of a button. It was my father's and I still have it, in perfect condition. It fitted both 120 and 620 roll film and took beautifully melllow colour photographs as well as sharp B & W. I'd like to say it took the pic on left of this post .. but that honour belongs to a London railway station instant snap booth, circa 1969.
My final proper camera before everything went into digital was a lovely Leica Minizoom -- a commercial tourist's camera of course, but still with flawless Leica optics. Those were the days ....

If you’re referring to the Zeus Super Ikonta, I have the same camera, and will post an image.

 

[Robert Harris]

Is this similar?

 

[AnthonyClarke]

Here's a primitive pic of my very primitive Zeiss Ikonta, compared to your feature-laden version. Bit like comparing a VHS player to a Blu ray
But although I had to carry a separate range-finder and had to also carry a separate light meter, I took really good photos without usually having to resort to either of those gadgets. I usually used Agfa film stock and Kodak for colour. And did all my own B & W developing without a studio .. using a developing tank housed inside an opaque bag with arm openings. You probably used the same thing at one time or other...

 

[Robert Harris]

Here's a primitive pic of my very primitive Zeiss Ikonta, compared to your feature-laden version. Bit like comparing a VHS player to a Blu ray
But although I had to carry a separate range-finder and had to also carry a separate light meter, I took really good photos without usually having to resort to either of those gadgets. I usually used Agfa film stock and Kodak for colour. And did all my own B & W developing without a studio .. using a developing tank housed inside an opaque bag with arm openings. You probably used the same thing at one time or other...

While I used the bag routine on occasion, I did have a proper darkroom. B & W, along with color neg and occasional Ektachrome. Friends knew when I’d been tinkering, as I generally came away smelling a bit akin to a Caesar salad.

Less the anchovies.

 

[Robert Harris]

James Bond x adidas UltraBOOST Collection Release Details

To celebrate the release of the 25th James Bond film, adidas has crafted several Ultraboost 20s inspired by the film's scenes and characters.

sneakernews.com

 

[Charles Smith]

A wonderful pursuit.

I am NOT the photo artist that any of you are, but I loved teaching myself B&W developing and printing out of a couple of books, using borrowed equipment set up in my small kitchen in the 1970s, and simply drawing the curtains and working at night.

As I recall, the first thing I managed to learn was loading the film tank while sitting on the floor of a closet. Then I went high-tech and got the bag. I wonder if I even have that now. What I do still have in this current house is everything else, in a dedicated darkroom, and finally my own equipment. Sadly, I think the last time I used it for anything but storage was 20 years ago. But it's all there, just waiting for the purchase of a roll of film and the chemicals. But loading that film tank ... I dunno, I'll bet getting the feel of that would be like starting all over again.

 

[Robert Harris]

Land Rover. 4x4 Vehicles and Luxury SUV

Enter the worlds of the most desirable luxury SUVs. Explore the Range Rover, Discovery and Defender models and find yours today.

www.landroverusa.com

 

[Robert Harris]

Movie History Has Never Been More Accessible, So Why Do Classic Film Fans Still Feel It’s Threatened?

Discourse around film history veers away from nuance and to snap judgments — or stops altogether — but improved restoration tech gives hope.

www.indiewire.com

 

[Robert Harris]

Video: Using Photoshop and AI to restore 110-year-old glass plate negatives

Mathieu Stern is back, this time with a restoration video wherein he uses Photoshop and artificial intelligence to bring 110-year-old glass plate negatives back to life.

www.dpreview.com

 

[Paul Penna]

Video: Using Photoshop and AI to restore 110-year-old glass plate negatives

Mathieu Stern is back, this time with a restoration video wherein he uses Photoshop and artificial intelligence to bring 110-year-old glass plate negatives back to life.

www.dpreview.com

I don't know which specific "AI-powered enhancement tool" he's using, but I've seen the results of some that users on a Facebook group devoted to early amateur color photography have employed, including a few of my own family photos I've posted. In those, people whose faces I'm intimately familiar with - including my own - look disturbingly, creepily off.

Those examples of his work with the young woman's photos are scarier than Mystery of the Wax Museum.

 

[trajan007]

Are they ever going to release a single edition of LOA in 4k?

 

[Robert Harris]

Are they ever going to release a single edition of LOA in 4k?

Certainly.

 

[owen35]

Are they ever going to release a single edition of LOA in 4k?

Next year is its 60th Anniversary. I'd be surprised if there wasn't something planed given how popular the film has become.

 

[Robert Harris]

For those who may not have seen - one monumentally class act of a gentleman.

And huge congrats to Ms Voytko. Hopefully, her career will bloom!