Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/02/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Doug: I agree with your comment. IMHO this has nothing to do with which technique is correct. As you stated, both have merit. It has to do with the unwarranted and childish attack on someone else. There is no knowledge on this earth that is this important, especially the testing of lenses. This IS minutae, pure and simple, in my opinion. Bob Bedwell << Erwin wrote: >I myself cannot contribute to the Lug anymore since Eric in his Olympic >wisdom has decreed that testers of lenses have worthless information about >lenses compared to his own views. I value the opinions of Eric and the analysis of Erwin. Erwin tells me what optical performance the lens is capable of, while Eric's opinion is of the equipment in field use. At various times my goal can be either to maximize the technical quality of my images, in which case I'll use a good tripod, Kodachrome 25 and optimum technique, where Erwin's opinion carries more weight, or to capture a fleeting image under difficult conditions, where Eric's opinion of the equipment's handling is paramount. IMHO, both are valid uses of Leica equipment. I favor the field use opinion because I frequently use my equipment under difficult field conditions and at the same time Jim Brick's optimum technique with his R-cameras demonstrates under real-world conditions how much can be done with 24x36mm of film. Given two lenses of equal optical quality, I'll choose the one with better handling. Given two lenses of equal handling qualities I'll pick the one that cuts a finer image on film. When faced with equipment with unequal qualities I'll pick the one best suited to the task at hand. Now will you guys quit bickering?!? Doug Herr Sacramento >>