Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/05/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Eric Welch wrote: > You really don't understand, do you? > > When I blow it up to the equivalent of a 48 inch print, and see that the > tiny little writing on the poster in the back of the room is still tack > sharp, well, then it's pretty amazing when I've never seen a Nikon lens, > Canon lens, or most Leica lenses that can hold detail at such enlargement. Who said anything about Nikon and Canon? Don't try and change your sad story now. You said they look like MEDIUM FORMAT. Are you seriously trying to claim that you believe a Leica can get the same quality as, lets say, a Schneider Kreuznach on a MF camera, all when you havn't actually compared it to a MF camera, AND all on a computer screen? Come on, you're really lost all sense of objectivity. Hey - maybe a Leica CAN beat it. But you wouldn't have a clue from doing that test. > That you are looking for simplistic criticisms is simply amazing. It's not simplistic at all. Are you now going to try and claim you did the same shot on medium format and compared it? No, I thought not. > I have used the Nikon F5 professionally, have you? Are you a pro? Even a > skilled amateur? Yes, yes and yes. > Have you had a respected magazine ask you to do a review > on the F5? Maybe you did one for Pop Photo eh? hehehehehe. > No, then why don't you look for a reasonable argument to put out on the > list instead of sniping because someone says your beloved F5 isn't perfect? Hey, I'm not using Nikon right now, and I don't want to. Why get defensive because Nikon actually did something better than Leica? When you grow up you'll realise that Leica isn't best for everything on the planet. Just some things.