Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/03/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Usually, but not exclusively. I use Leicas for the bodies, not the lenses. If I lost my M6s, and could only replace them with some totally redesigned modern M7, chances are that I would trade in my lenses. Alternatively, I wouldn't dream of trying to fit a Leica lens onto any of my other Japanese cameras, even if it were possible. The alternative optics are simply not that significantly inferior to make that big a fuss over, IMHO. And a photograph is just a photograph. There is not such thing as "Leica" photographs, or "nikon" photographs, etc. There has to be more to the content of a photograph then microscopic clues as to which optical system produced it. Otherwise, what is the point to photography? Again, IMHO. Dan C. (just having one of those days) - ----- Hey, Dan - You may be having "one of those days," but it sure sounds rational to me. Yes, the Leica lenses are terrific, but the beauty of the M is the M - the rangefinder, the size, the heft, the lack of noise - despite recent complaints - the feeling that it belongs in your hand and will remain there, functioning, as long as your hand is function... And, to paraphrase you and Gertrude Stein, "A photograph is a photograph is a photograph...While a Leica photograph is nothing but a photograph of a Leica." :-) B. D. At 08:49 AM 12-03-99 -0800, Jim wrote: >One usually buys Leica "for the lenses", not the other way around. > >If you photograph using non-Leica lenses on a Leica, are they still a >"Leica photographs?"