RE: [Leica] JG & Ted - flash & M6

[Jim Laurel <jplaurel@microsoft.com>]

Like I said earlier...it's tough nowadays to do a complete shoot with just
M6s.  I always keep the R6.2 tucked away with 80-200 and 35-70 vario elmars.
It's crazy to not have an SLR around for the 80-200 range.  So, if I need
fill flash, I just snap the 35-70 on the R6.2 and use that.  You need an R
camera or other SLR to do those things that an M6 isn't suited for: long
tele, fill flash, macro.

Why insist on using the M6 to do something for which it's ill-suited?  It's
like driving nails with a screwdriver.

- --Jim

- -----Original Message-----
From: Mark Walberg [mailto:Walberg@simmons.swmed.edu]
Sent: Friday, October 09, 1998 5:24 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] JG & Ted - flash & M6


So JG, I think Ted and others are suggesting that maybe an SLR with better
flash control and metering might be better than a Leica for the kind of
work you are talking about.  So, maybe you could enlighten us as to why you
think a Leica is best for this kind of work.  Maybe I'm missing something,
but it sounds like much of the examples you describe could be handled very
well with an N90 or an F5.
   Oh, and by the way, is there any way you could turn off all those lines
of winmail stuff at the bottom of all of your posts??  Thanks.
- -Mark Walberg


JG said:
>Ted,
>
>Where are you coming from with these broad statements, these grand
>philosophical generalizations?
>
............snip........ Speaking in
>photojourn terms, in which a great many assignments are inside, lit by
>fluorescence, or tungsten, or even a variety of both, a good bounce of
>strobe is necessary since you are not dealing with any aesthetic qualities
>but a bland broad coating of dull light. Offices, houses, gyms, are not lit
>like in the old days, and half the time a shooter is forced to go in under
>short time requirements, grab a shot, get out. ......snip....
> But for most jobs, even the PR jobs I'm assigned, you gotta get
>in, get out.