Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/06/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Jim, first of all, this is such an old saw that actually "everyone," including "everyone" on the LUG would say that. (BTW, I find it highly amusing that terms like "everyone on the LUG" and "everyone except a couple people on the LUG" get thrown around so much. It's like everyone on the LUG speaks for everyone else, or like to think their opinions is the only one different from everyone else on the LUG. It's great to be the loner, or the mass majority, I guess, but I digress...) Anyway, while there are certain truth to the statement, it's just to get the gear obsessive people off talking about gears, but it has no reality if you actually try to take photos. It's pure bull. Sure HCB would probably have been a great photographer if he used a Kodak Brownie, but HE WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN THE SAME GREAT images. This is why we do obsess over gears, in the ideal case, (hopefully) not because we are camera whores, but because we want the best tools for a particular job. Lets assume a P&S has 300 megapixels and can make 10'x20' feet print easily. The only caveat, for argument sake, is that it still has a shutter lag of 0.5 seconds. Now compare that to a, lets say, Leica M9, which can only make "small prints" of a couple feet. If you are a photojournalist, you pick the latter. If someone gives you the former, you'd sell it and buy the latter. If you do landscape, you pick the former. So gears do matter. On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 6:34 PM, James Laird <digiratidoc at gmail.com> wrote: > > If HCB had used a Kodak his pictures would still have achieved > greatness because he knew how to create eternal images with whatever > tools he had at hand. I know that sounds like anathema to the LUG but > we all know it's probably true. > > Jim Laird > -- // richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>