Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/07/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi, Dave, and thanks for the post.... However, in my third paragraph, I state that none of the folks I have known use M exclusively....at least two of the three you mention DO use Ms, on occasion....as you imply you would, too! Some folks can use M for over 90% of their work (me, for example... I've never done sports/heavy politics, so I've usually had unlimited access to my subjects--exc one Reagan convention (84) :) :) Others can use it for only 5% of their work, but still keep it around. Some just don't really like RFDRs, but have one for extreme low light, slow shutter speeds, quiet surroundings or whatever. Also, I think as the digital age continues, there has been a resurgence in fine documentation (kinda as "art"?) in some smaller publication, at least in our area. Twice in the last year an "equipment burdened" young pro (25-30 yrs old) has come up to me and said something to the effect "I've been using my 35/50 more and more!"...one of them even wanted to buy a 50!....he's not owned one!!....I think as digital replaces film for the Sports, Wire, and major magazine photographers, we'll see more and more fine "essays" in "alternative" publications...seems to be the trend where I live....or am I being selfishly optimistic? Walt On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Dave Yoder wrote: > > Whoa, Walt! > > I'm a journalist/editorial photographer who uses R's by choice over M's. I believe Salgado, > Bill Allard, Sam Abell and Maggie Steber among others use R's predominantly (unless that's > changed of late). I work with a few newspaper photographers who use Leicas too, and two of > them are thinking about switching from M's to R's because of the limited focal range and > parallax when in close. Damian Dovaragnes (sp?) at AP in LA also uses R's. AP! Even I wonder > why sometimes, his R8 loaded with color neg and sometimes even next to a digital camera. > > I wouldn't rely on M's for my kind of work, though sure I'd like to have some and I think > they'd be better for my style. They are too limited in versatility for me. In the past I've > owned and M3 and a Mamiya 7 outfit, and I know from experience I'd miss moments that I could > get with my R's (and I don't buy the zone focusing argument when shooting a moving subject at > maximum aperture, which I do a lot of instead of compromising the film speed). > > I don't rely on my R's exclusively either, though, as I can't afford the long lenses. So I > fall back on the company-issued Canon gear on the relatively uncommon occasions that I need a > telephoto (hardly sounds like newspapering, eh?) > > I hate shooting sports too. What a yawn. > > Dave Y. > > > > > Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 18:05:07 -0500 (CDT) > > From: Walter S Delesandri <walt@jove.acs.unt.edu> > > Subject: Re: [Leica] why leica? > > > > Well, Since I apparently DIDN"T answer the question, and went into > > my babble instead, I'll do it now....why don't pros use Leica? > > > > Never met a journalist/editorial photographer who didn't >IF< they > > could afford it....So that's my answer...those 35mm pros who shoot > > OTHER than sports (yuck), ALL use Leica M.......period. > > > > If they can't afford it, they get 'sour grapes' and may even > > criticize Leica M....until they get one :) :) > > > > NONE of them, however, use Leica M >ONLY<.....they may need > > lenses longer than 90, and a close-focusing 50 or 105. > > > > Now don't get me ta lying about sports/wildlife photogs....don't > > know, don't care....I'd rather scoop ice cream for a living. > > > > Walt > > > > ---- > >