Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/08/02

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: Leica Quality versus Medium Format
From: Jeff Moore <jbm@oven.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 14:45:09 -0400
References: <12d.2506d2c.289a02c9@aol.com> <3B68B692.F31DCAD2@rabiner.cncoffice.com>

2001-08-01-22:10:26 Mark Rabiner:
> Frankly i find it astounding that so many of the best people find acreage on the
> light table so crucial to how their work goes over to the extent that they would
> use such a clunky piece of trash as a Mamiya 67 RB or RZ.

Those are big and huge and it's hard to imagine using one anywhere but
bolted to a tripod in a studio.  But the Mamiya "Texas Leica"s -- the
6 and now 7 -- they're a pleasing package.  Except -- I never seem to
take as good pictures with one as with a Leica.  Is it just a question
of needing more practice, but I don't gravitate to the Mamiya because
I don't do so well with it and I don't do so well with it because I
don't use it so much?  Or is it that it's just that little bit more
clunky to use?  I know I resent the lack of f/1.4 (or even f/2.0, or
2.8) lenses;  but when I happen to "hit" with a 6x7cm hunk of
silver-rich B&W film, the result is really pleasing.  But I don't hit
so much.  O Bother.

Replies: Reply from Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com> (Re: [Leica] Re: Leica Quality versus Medium Format)
In reply to: Message from Teresa299@aol.com (Re: [Leica] Leica Quality versus Medium Format)
Message from Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com> (Re: [Leica] Leica Quality versus Medium Format)