Re: [Leica] it DOESN'T work well for leica!

[Wilber Jeffcoat <jeffcoatphoto@sumter.net>]

Duane: From one pro shooter to another, your comments make more sense than just
about anything that I've heard in a long time. Would really be   nice if the
comments on this board could be kept in a more constructive light. Now I've done
it this will start another bashing thread of some type. Anyway thanks for making
good sense.
Cheers Wilber GFE OAO2

"Birkey, Duane" wrote:

> Unfortunately by the same token, Professional photographs taken by
> Professional Luggers in many cases could have been taken with any reasonable
> camera and lens.  And quite honestly it is the same diference in the amount
> of money spent.  It actually might be more if you compare annual income
>
> I have used Canon FD cameras and lenses since High School.... My best images
> have been taken them.  I sold my Hasselblad stuff and used the money to buy
> Leica.  Why? The way my stuff gets used and published, you can't tell
> whether something was shot on 35 or 2 1/4..... and the 35mm shot were always
> better content wise than the 2 1/4.  By the same token,  For 99% of my work
> you could never tell what was shot with Leica M vs my Canon stuff.   There
> is a difference in quality, and they do feel different and each has it's
> advantage..... But, if you are shooting for printed material, that
> difference between a $300 24mm lens and a $1900 24mm will be practically
> negligible in many circumstances.
>
> And one could argue that for those situations, the expense for Leicas is not
> justified either. Let's face it, if the expense was justifiable, no Pro
> would be shooting with Nikon or Canon.   (AF, features, reliability,
> personal preferences and lens selection aside)
>
> Either way one could make the same argument about cars, pens, suits,
> computers, stereo equipment and a whole host of other luxuries and in the
> end it is all meaningless.
>
> Duane
>
> > Duane and Pascal,
> >
> > Speaking for myself, I am simply saying that  the amateur photos taken by
> > amateur LUG photographers could have been taken with any camera with any
> > lens. I am not being critical of the snapshots , merely of the amount of
> > money spent to take those snapshots.
> > Obviously if those individuals can afford the high speed lenses, more
> power
> > to them, but the fact remains that they are not being used in a way that
> > would justify the expense.
> >
> *  *  *
> >
> > Joseph Codispoti
> >