Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/03/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I never even THOUGHT about it's "performance"....it's Leica, so it's probably at least fair, but ya know what? the pictures are sharp and hopefully meaningful....back to my LUG bashing, most "shooters" don't think about all this crap....they shoot, expecting the best, and usually get something OK.....if not, then they might worry about it....jeez Walt - ---- Good point, Walt. I must say that after hanging out on the LUG for a while now, I'm left wondering how every legendary photographer over the age of 50 who ever shot with a Leica managed to become a "legend" using such inferior, crappy equipment. It's really astounding to think about what we were fooled into thinking was acceptable quality before the advent of the latest generation of lenses - how did HCB do it in 1938? How could Esie have possibly gotten the shots he did? And Larry Burrows? (Must have always been using Nikon! :-))Capa? Henri Huet? And those Jim Marshall shots we all thought were so spectacular? We must have been on acid! How could we possibly have thought those images were acceptable? Gene Smith? No wonder he did so much manipulating in the darkroom - he must have been making up for the inferior lens quality... Yes, the latest lens are optically the best lenses. Yes, they will reduce or eliminate flare under circumstances where earlier generations would not have. Yes, they can give you the ability to count the seam threads on a pair of jeans at 20 yards. But you're right Walt..."most 'shooters' don't think about all this crap....they shoot, expecting the best, and usually get something OK.....if not, then they might worry about it....jeez.." And you know what, I'll be that when all is said and done, the "shooters" on this list like Eric, Tina, Ted, Harrison, etc., feel the same way when they're out shooting and not at the keyboard... :-) B. D.