Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/07/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In a message dated 7/26/2000 7:20:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, imxputs@knoware.nl writes: << I know I am a loner here and that I will end my life on a deserted island with a small pipeline of chemicals and some classical books on the craft of >> It's interesting that I was talking with a well-know Leica repair expert about this very same issue a couple weeks ago. I had just received a Fuji digital camera for fathers day. It is the latest version with 4.3 million pixels. I was very impressed with its ability to render details and shadow gradation. And in many respects I could see that snapshots and drug store printing may be seriously challenged when the cost of such a digital camera comes down. Furthermore, for much of the photos that so many folks take, this camera would produce acceptable results, thus we were lamenting that the days of silver imaging are now seriously numbered and the art of "Leica photography" similarly limited because the younger generations simply will not and evidentally, know not the difference. Now, I certainly do not want to offend anyone here, but for those who have spent time with large format photography and have tried to push 35mm negatives to even approach the detail and gradation of a print made from a large negative know very well that digital techniques simply do not "make it." When I see assertions on the web that scanned negatives and computer images look the same as silver prints I can fully understand the concern expressed in Erwin Puts' argument. Additionally I have always thought that the street photography that I have seen rarely exploits the capability of an M camera and any Leica lens except in low light conditions. In fact, I have always thought the the best street camera is the little aperture-preferred Minox 35mm. The lens is quite competent, the camera is small and it is even quieter than a Leica. Bob Figlio