[Leica] Re: Re: Ten years behind? I think not

[tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant)]

Slobodan Dimitrov offered:
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Re: Ten years behind? I think not


> Well, I actually work with one photo editor that can spot Nikon glass, who
> claims it's soft. It doesn't help when they are looking at prints from my
> Leica glass next to the prints from Nikon bottles.<<,

Hi Slobodan,
Like wise, actually two editors at the same AV house. They produced slide
shows using 16 to 24 projectors all working in sync with music. Absolutely
magical.

Anyway there were about 8 shooters working on various projects so at any
given time there were slides all over the place being sorted and edited on a
dozen 4'X8' light  tables in one film room.

Often 5 or 6 of us would be shooting on the same progamme so there was a
mixture of gear, Canon, Nikon and of course my Leica's. And when film was
being laid out on several tables one of the 2 editors would walk around and
pick out my Leica slides constantly from the other shooters. They would do
this without being asked, usually at initial layout or final selection for
show.

They'd often say.. "I wish to hell everyone was using Leica." Or, " Ted you
gotta switch to either Canon or Nikon so everything will match." :-) You can
imagine what my answer was. ;-) See I'm still shooting Leica! ;-) The other
guys and gal? Haven't got a clue.

Anyway this difference is quite easy to see when you're looking at hundreds
of transparencies lying out on light tables. Actually it's tougher between
Leica and Canon, than Nikon - Leica. There seems to be a similar look to the
Canon and Leica material. The Nikon is not as sharp looking, ( don't get yer
pants wet! I did say "looking!" It wasn't a scientific test,) Eye balls!
Nor do the colours have the same snap to them.

So it's quite easy to observe this difference when there's a volume of
material being observed over a period of time.
ted