Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/07/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Are you trying to tell us that f-stop for f-stop, the canon lenses were so inferior to the leica lenses that the pictures were unusable? Sorry, I can hear these anecdotal stories till the cows come home, there is no friggin way the optics or camera operations of these two companies (or any of the major camera manufacturers) can be that different. No way. I've been doing my best to stay out of potentially argumentative subjects, but this is just plain ridiculous. Dan C. At 07:40 PM 29-07-98 -0500, you wrote: >At 05:26 PM 7/29/98 +0200, you wrote: >>Eric Welch wrote: >>> I think this is too sweeping a condemnation of 35mm. >> >>Eric, >>I'm not condemning 35mm, on the contrary. I prefer it to larger formats > >You are right, condemnation wasn't a good choice. But I think the >differences between 35 and MF have advantages going either way. > >>>Could you describe the Canon experience ? I am happy we agree on the >>>'not every lens' precision anyway. > >Sure. I was at the Missouri State Fair with a fellow photographer from my >paper. We both started shooting around 5 a.m. in the cow/sheep/pig barns. >Light at that time of day was quite marginal. I wandered around for about >three hours, and so did he. Me shooting with my Leicas (24 Elmarit, 35 >Summilux, 90 Summoicron 180 Elmait) and he with his L series 20-35 and >80-200 2.8 lenses. Now the differences would be obvious, Leica single focal >length lenses vs. Canon zooms. It's ovbious there would be some difference. >But wait... > >He took our film back. Fujichrome 400 pushed two stops. Ran it all in the >same processing runs. (Wing Lynch can take 9 rolls at a time). > >When I came back the next day, he looked up at me and said, "Now I know why >you use Leica. Your stuff looks great, and mine is unuseable." > >Note, he didn't say he could see the difference. His stuff was no good in >comparison! My stuff looked gorgeous. The kind of light I was shooting in >is what Leica speed lenses eat up. His Canon lenses let him down. Now he >could have used flash and saved the pictures, but flash isn't an option in >many situations. > >That's just one experience. But I can name several other photojournalists I >know (one at the St. Louis Post Dispatch and one who became a graphics >editor at the Dallas Morning News) who used Leicas one time, and were >hooked, because there was such a significant difference. And their exact >words..."Now I know why you use Leica." >-- > >Eric Welch >St. Joseph, MO >http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch > >Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive. > >