Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/08/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I wasn't aware that I (or Roger Hicks) was promoting the 21/35/90 as THE system. Right up front, I stated that my own personal choice was (and still is for 35mm) 28/50/90. Roger Hicks (and his wife Frances Shultz--they are usually co-authors) is a petty prolific writer. Amamzon.com gives 31 hits when his name as author and the subject "photography" and he is a Leica M user. As such, I was looking for an articulate, incisive, and professional explanation of why "he" chooses 21/35/90 as "his" primary 35 system--he also uses MF and LF, fwiw. Not, having read the article yet, I don't know if he actually makes a "case" of just the 21/35/90 or what. However, as two of my primary genres are travel and street photography, I have a special interest in minimalist systems and the writings of articulate individuals who might be inclined to delineate their own "personal" choice of such a system--whatever it might be. Regretfully, still no word on the article itself--if it exist. Alex >> > Again I would add that if you're serious about your images, your vision, your > working distance comfort level, your subject matter - price and bulk has much > less to do with things than focal length, minimum focus distance and maximum > aperture. Yes of course George is right. That said, anyone who knows the writings of Roger Hicks will be aware that he is dead against the idea of "gurus" in photography. For his style, the 21-35-90 combination works better than the old classic 35-50-90. That is all there is to it. I am certain that the man would be appalled at the idea of anyone treating this as holy writ. As he would say "what works for you, works for you".<< - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html