Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/11/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Larry, If it seems I am attacking David, then I apologise to him and everyone else. My point is that he has given no specifics of any merit for his trashing of the M8 and that is what we would like for him to define. I think that is also what Steve is asking and also what Ted said in his reply to David a week ago. I have no problem with making negatgive statements on the M8, but lets give the specific reasons, not generalities. Gene -------------- Original message from Lawrence Zeitlin <lrzeitlin@optonline.net>: -------------- > > On Nov 25, 2006, at 6:30 PM, lug-request@leica-users.org wrote: > > >>>> hi David, some superb photographers (their work is very well known > >>>> here and long time M shooters they are)...have been more than > >>> favorable about the M8. More, they have been explicit and detailed > >>>> about their M8 experience... > > > Enough of these ad hominum attacks on David. Good photographers have > learned to rise above the inadequacies of their equipment. I suspect > that Ted and Tina would make prize winning photographs with Holgas. > Therefore their judgments on equipment should count LESS than those > of less talented mortals. We have been told to learn to accommodate > the flawed WB of the M8, ignore blobbing and banding, and artfully > arrange the subject matter to minimized the dreaded magenta cast. If > we don't know enough to do this, we don't deserve the M8. But for > those of us that depend on our equipment to compensate for our > photographic inadequacies, the anti M8 sniping in the LUG provides a > valuable caution. Wait for the M9, or at least the M8.1. > > Larry Z > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information