Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/03/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Does that mean I should have been happy with my old Argus c3? If so we all could save a lot of money and even start a new discussion group. We could call it the ARUG....Which is the sound I made loading that camera. >---- >Good point, Walt. I must say that after hanging out on the LUG for a while >now, I'm left wondering how every legendary photographer over the age of 50 >who ever shot with a Leica managed to become a "legend" using such inferior, >crappy equipment. It's really astounding to think about what we were fooled >into thinking was acceptable quality before the advent of the latest >generation of lenses - how did HCB do it in 1938? How could Esie have >possibly gotten the shots he did? And Larry Burrows? (Must have always been >using Nikon! :-))Capa? Henri Huet? And those Jim Marshall shots we all >thought were so spectacular? We must have been on acid! How could we >possibly have thought those images were acceptable? Gene Smith? No wonder he >did so much manipulating in the darkroom - he must have been making up for >the inferior lens quality... > >Yes, the latest lens are optically the best lenses. Yes, they will reduce or >eliminate flare under circumstances where earlier generations would not >have. Yes, they can give you the ability to count the seam threads on a pair >of jeans at 20 yards. > >But you're right Walt..."most 'shooters' don't >think about all this crap....they shoot, expecting the best, >and usually get something OK.....if not, then they might >worry about it....jeez.." > >And you know what, I'll be that when all is said and done, the "shooters" on >this list like Eric, Tina, Ted, Harrison, etc., feel the same way when >they're out shooting and not at the keyboard... > >:-) B. D. > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com