Re: [Leica] Brassai

[Thomas Kachadurian <kach@freeway.net>]

Bruce:

Not a valid comparison. 286, 386, G3. It's just speed. The word "wherefore"
is exactly the same with all of them. 

Lenses do filter the light. A much better analogy would be a paintbrush.

Tom

At 06:01 AM 4/23/98 -0400, you wrote:
>I think you've hit the nail on the head Richard.  It's a bit like computer
>equipment. Imagine a writer who uses his aging 286 or 386 machine primarily
>for word processing.  Say he writes novels. Should he think he can write a
>better novel with a PENTIUM II?  Perhaps he can better write a novel (more
>easily, more fun, more storage, etc)  but chances are great he can't write a
>better novel.
>
>What makes for great photographs and great photographers is not equipment
>but the vision and sensitivity of the person behind the lens.  Naturally we
>would rather not be hindered by obsolescent equipment.  So if one were in
>the market for a new camera, one would be better of (all things being equal)
>buying an M6 than an M3, and buying newer rather than more ancient lenses.
>However if one already had an M3 and a decent 50's or 60's vintage lens, it
>probably wouldn't improve one's art (let's not argue Erich) much by
>replacing the kit.
>
>Of course if you're a commercial photographer or a news photographer and you
>can afford or expense the new equipment, then why not get the latest and
>greatest?  But if you lack vision, the greatest equipment in the world will
>not give give it to you, will it?
>
>
>Bruce S.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Disfromage <Disfromage@aol.com>
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
>Date: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 11:11 PM
>Subject: [Leica] Brassai
>
>
>>Dear LUGers,
>> Tom Abrahamsson was in Chicago yesterday and I had the pleasure of meeting
>>him face to face and spending the day with him. Is there anything he
>doesn't
>>know about Leicas? I don't think so. Truly a nice man.
>> Part of our day was spent at the Art Institute viewing a Brassai exhibit.
>>Wow! It was a sobering experience. Many of us on the LUG (myself included)
>are
>>drooling over the latest lenses and film, looking for maximum resolution
>and
>>sharpness to the Nth degree. Here was a man using uncoated lenses and
>>relatively crude film making images we would be hard pressed to make
>today-if
>>we even could. There were photos taken at night that included people (they
>>couldn't have been very long exposures), bare light bulbs with visible
>>filaments and the shadows had detail. Talk about knowing your tools! I
>don't
>>know how he did it. By today's standards, these photos were soft and had
>poor
>>resolution. But they were incredible nonetheless. Maybe we should
>concentrate
>>more on developing our vision as photographers and really learn how to use
>>what we have, rather than lusting after every new thing that comes along.
>Is
>>this sacreligious? I realize many of my fellow LUGnuts are very interested
>in
>>equipment, optics, etc. As for myself, I have to do some serious thinking.
>(
>>Now how do I justify that 75 summilux?) :-) Boy am I conflicted!
>> Richard W
>>
>
>
>
==================================
Thomas Kachadurian
WEB PAGE: http://members.aol.com/kachaduria