Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/08/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In a message dated 8/22/03 12:46:32 PM, bdcolen@earthlink.net writes: << And I was not comparing the results obtainable with the latest generation of M lenses - results which are, when all is said and done, beyond the power of 99.9 percent of hand-held shooter to obtain ;-) - to digital results. What I am saying here is that it is utterly ludicrous for those who are using 40-50-60 year-old flare-prone, poorly coated lenses that when they were new were not considered the best available and now don't even compare in image quality to the lenses SLR manufactures sell as part of cheap packages, to be knocking digital quality. >> I don't know about quality but I do know about "look." I actually try and get the glow sometimes. But that's probably why I have a Holga. Sounds strange to own a $1,100 Notcilux Holga but that's basically how I view it. It gives me a look that I like. Quality? What is quality anyway? That's for you tech-heads to duke out with your endless arguments about lines per square mm and p ixelatated interpolated sensorized amatorized CMOSed CCDed gobblygook. For me, this whole thing is more intuitive. I like the look or I don't. Like I wrote in a previous post that never showed up, I'm sure that in the future (not too distant) there will be plug-ins which will allow your digital imaging device to emulate the look of a Holga, Nocti or whatever. When that point comes I'm sure more of the herd will move to digital because it's immediate and efficient and great for business! - -kim - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html