Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/06/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]First off, B. D. doesn't feel "threatened" by people talking about how much they love their Leicas, or anything else. If Mark R. would return from Mars for 15 minutes he'd recall that I have said over and over and over that a camera is nothing but a tool, and everyone should use the tool that best suits their work. So why would I feel "threatened" by anyone loving anything? As to giving up all modern equipment if doing so would turn one into HCB - I'd give up digital, aspheric lenses, etc. etc. in a heartbeat if doing so would make me a better photographer. Period. And, if by some bizarre chance digital disappeared tonight, I'd be back to nothing but film tomorrow with nary a tear shed; I've adapted digital because it's the present and future of mainstream photography, not because I wasn't comfortable, or competent, with film. But even more to the original point of this thread - and of my comment about people noticing the image, not the razor-like quality of the optic - the comments about HCB prove my point: by today's standards, he was using crap equipment for the bulk of his career, yet I've never heard anyone say, 'ah, poor Henri. He might actually have been good had he been able to use Leica MPs and the Aspheric lens lineup!' The reality is that today's Canon, Nikon, and, yes, Olympus Zooms are, by and large, optically superior to the lenses HCB used for most of his career - even if they aren't as good as Leica M aspherical beauties. It still comes down to the image - the elements that make up the photo, that draw people to it, that bring the viewer information, that inspire the viewer to think. On 6/14/05 9:53 AM, "Scott McLoughlin" <scott@adrenaline.com> wrote: > Art, > > It's an interesting point. It's also interesting to think about > different quality criteria and what has improved and how > much, and then what has not improved so much since the > times of HCB. > > Just a few quick thoughts, but a shutter, shutter speed, > film load/wind/rewind, aperture setting and a meter (presuming > a hand held meter) hasn't changed all that much, I imagine. > Some of the earlier Summicron 50's are still cherished for > their high resolution and lower contrast for B&W photography. > I wonder how much build quality has changed either way since > the 40's and 50's. > > Automation has certainly improved, and modern zoom lens > technology, while I'm no afficianado, seem quite remarkable > to me. > > Scott > > Peterson, Arthur G CIV SEA 02 wrote: > >> B. D. Colen wrote (in part), "As to the comments about the Canon lenses - >> It's not that photographers won't 'notice,' it's that real photographers >> know >> it just doesn't matter - what matters is getting a meaningful image, not >> the >> technical accomplishment." >> >> And Mark Rabiner responded (in part), "BD feels threatened by people >> talking >> on the Leica users group about how much they value their Leicas." >> >> I value my Leicas, and I have no idea of what B.D. may or may not feel, >> but I >> would like to re-frame what I take to be his point in a way that seems to >> me >> indisputable. Three quarters of a century ago, Cartier-Bresson was taking >> better photographs with his technologically deprived (i.e., by today's >> standards) Leicas than I'm taking today with the latest electronic bodies >> and >> aspherical lenses. And if using equipment as antiquated as his would >> enable >> me to take photographs as good as his, I'd trade my modern equipment for >> it >> in an instant. >> >> Art Peterson >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information