Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/03/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Correct, Larry. I started my career at the tail end of the format/phojo controversy (1968). Glass, film, chemistry advancements, the need for compactness, and great talent pretty much settled that issue. Seems like we here on the LUG have to go down this road each time some new gear is introduced, like a drug we need twice a year or so. The answer is always the same in the end. I think Mr. Rabiner eluded to it this time. Quality of desired results = correct gear/format selection + the knowledge and ability to use it. The end. 1. Ansel didn't use a minox at Yosemite. 2. 10" film SR-71 recon camera systems suck for portraiture. 3. Edgerton (spelling) didn't use a 11x14 view camera. on and on and on............ Montie >I hate to admit this but I am old enough to remember when exactly the same argument was used about 35 mm cameras in photojournalism. The film size was too small to stand much cropping. It was slow. There was too much visual noise (grain). Small Leicas and Contaxes would never be competitive with Rolleis and Speed Graphics. Miniature cameras were only suitable for amateurs, not working professionals, etc., etc. Sharpness and even flash lighting were the order of the day, HCB and Capa were criticized for their blurry and grainy images. Baseball pictures were taken with Graflex SLRs. Who cared what the Europeans were doing? Real men carried big cameras. Doubt me? Go to your library and check out bound copies of photo magazines from the 1940s era. Larry Z