Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/02/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]peter wrote: <<<I have not moved the goal posts but after your bragging about all >this,>>>>>>>> Peter, Nope not bragging I leave that to those who are wanna be's like yourself! You asked a question and I filled you in with the details of a portion of my professional career. If you consider that bragging that's your problem!! Not mine! Mine is real proven on the line time buddy! No need to brag! <<<sounds like you are ready for a challenge. Go for it! I had not idea >you used Canon equipment. I will say, and this is not to send needles, but >comparing slides is a very subjective way of comparing lenses.>>>>> You know I don't need a challenge from you, simply because if you had cut the time like many of us I'd find it fun to take you on. But quite frankly it would be nothing but a pain in the ass and I've got alot more to do with time than make comparisons that wont make a tinkers damn difference one way or the other in my or your life. It'll only continue a stupid conversation that will lead nowhere! Go take pictures with your time. >> So on many occaisons during Games Trial events, these are preliminary >> competitions prior to the actual Games. I used the 400 2.8 on competition >> sports as though I were shooting during the actual Games or the Olympics, >> which I've done on many occaisons since 1968. All but a couple!:) Winter >> and Summer. >> >> Did I like the Canon gear? Yes! And if I wasn't committed to Leica and >> it's glass I'd use Canon! Period. No questions! >> >> As far as the 400 2.8 Canon to what I knew from my Leica 400 2.8? The >>Leica >>images just looked different, more pleasing to the eye, crisper, >>better colour >>saturation. Was this film? OK so who knows? But I've >>had my slides on light >>tables so many times with Canon and Nikon images >>and the art director has >>always been able to pick Leica slides from all >>the rest at anytime.>> <<<<<<<<<Sounds good. Could it be the image? Or was it the fact that it was >so much sharper?>>>>>> "without bragging!" they looked colour contrast and image saturated sharper! And I shoot quite different to the rest of them. figure that out for your self. >That great. Sometimes subjective is better than scientific. Hopefully all >the films, times of day, apertures, shutter speeds, angle of available light >matched so when this subjective comparison was made it was near accurate.>>> And that sounds just like a typical technical engineer answer and not from the experienced eye of a photographer! In my humble opinion. It may not be yours :) > Thank you very much for your kind response, but please tell me what >is an SD? You referred to me as this and I do not know this acronym.>>> Peter me old son, so you mean to tell me you've never been referred to as a "S hit D isturber" before? :) Now you know the acronym "SD"! :) Have a nice weekend!:) ted Ted Grant This is Our Work. The Legacy of Sir William Osler. http://www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant