Re: Limiting the Discussion

[Donal Philby <donalphilby@earthlink.net>]

Please lets don't limit the discussion.  

That is what the quick delete function is for at my discretion.

Personally, I'd like to know more about experiences like Oddmund's.  
And I'd like to hear much more about the R-system.

I'm a pro, doing mostly advertising, shooting Nikon, Pentax 6x7 and 
Linhof 4x5 and still occasionally use my M bought in 1968.  And the 
pix from my history that I care about the most were shot with the M.

But I'm looking to switch to the R for commercial/editorial work.  But 
very hard to justify the expense in these days of shrinking budgets.  
And how, when the goal is to get saleable pix on film to put the kids 
through university, as well as satisfy artistic needs, do you argue 
with the shear picture making convenience of almost every system 
EXCEPT Leica.

Take a look at the latest National Geographic.  Can you see a 
significant difference between the pix of the Mongols by long time 
R-series shooter James Stansfield  and all the other pix in the 
magazine which were shot, probably, with Nikon?  Significant?  

And when even NG budgets are shrinking story times from 3-6 months to 
six weeks, productivity is vital--not being precious about things.

Boyd Norton told me he used Leica because they survive the wild treks.  
But he switches to Nikon to do people in the villages with flash fill.  
Isn't that sad??

Isn't it strange that photographers who only use 35mm, such as Galen 
Rowell, Art Wolfe, Pete Turner, Jay Maisel, and many more DON'T use 
the system that would maximize the quality from a small image??

From what I've seen, the R8 may be the body that brings Leica back to 
the modern era of highly demanding productivity.  It is certainly the 
only R body that I would consider owning.

Let the good discussions roll!!!