Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/11/20[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
>I honestly don't understand how a photojournalist who publishes in >newspapers or weekly magzines such as Time or Newsweek can benefit from the >superior optics of a Leica. The differences, though they may exist, simply Time and Newsweek? Yeah, sure, those are hardly bastions of image quality. Try U.S. News at least. :-) This is an old argument, and people who choose to believe they don't need Leica will always claim they don't. Then why are Leica coveted? I can tell you, from talking with Magnum photographers, and National Geographic photographers, and others, that there are good reasons optically as well as the well-known reasons. Ever see a picture run six columns? I have at least one a month that does. You CAN see a difference in that case many times. Especially when it had to be used wide open in really poor light. The Leica makes a big difference in those conditions. We don't all shoot with fill flash with the sun behind our shoulder. Our pictures aren't always full frame. We often choose to shoot in really nasty light. Some of us (right Ted?) revel in bad light. Optically isn't the only reason I use Leica, but that is a good reason. Yep, this newspaper photographer has converted several of my colleagues to Leica just by letting them use one and they see it for themselves in the negatives. We don't all aspire to only see our work on recycled toilet paper. We are creators of "history on the run." Why not use the best? - -- Eric Welch St. Joseph, MO http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch Blessed are the censors; they shall inhibit the earth.