Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>My response to why I don't use it for >other things is "Why use a high contrast and saturated film with high >contrast and saturated lenses that the Leica has?". Save the Velvia for >the Nikon lenses ;-) Good reply! :-) That's like one guy who said his Nikon lenses were as good as Leica lenses if he uses a polarizer. :-) As for Fuji/Kodak prices. Kodak keeps trying to sell us Kodak 800 (the new stuff that's out since Photokina). It's great film. It's a true 800 while Fuji is more like 640. And the color is significantly improved. Especially with Kodak scanners. But, it's .25 or .50 cent more per roll. Add that up with 4,000 rolls of film we shoot a year and you can see why Fuji wins out. (All their films are cheaper). The Kodak rep. told me that because of the great color and true speed, that Kodak films save money at the scanning stage because it takes less time to scan and tone in Photoshop. Yeah, right, and Nikon's just as good as Leica. ;-) - -- Eric Welch St. Joseph, MO http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch A good pun is its own reword.