Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/03/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Actually, Dan, the answer is maybe.....most significant photos of the century COULD have been shot with an Argus C3 (if it was clean and in 'adjusted' condition)...if reproduced as intended (i.e., printed page and/or 8x12" prints viewed on the gallery wall) In fact, look at the Leica "god" -- HCB!!! few if any of his photos COULDN"T have been shot with the C3.... I have carried a C4 (same optics, nicer finder) with my leicas, and shot very nice negatives with it ($20, mint)...the negs are "sharp" but have "bokeh" not unlike older SM Leitz offerings... I have a very fine portrait shot with same....eyes are sharp, but the out of focus background has a very nice "flarey" effect! Many of our photographic "greats" worked with Leicas/lenses of the dismal early 50s era, and they probably were in questionable condition (no "protective" filters...) or dirty/misadjusted... and yes, they turned out some of the finest that photography has offered to date....so yes, a clean/adjusted Argus would've equalled them...in the same capable hands.... I like my toys.....but I still haven't equalled an Argus in the hands of Gene Smith or David Douglas Duncan or ??? Walt On Sun, 7 Mar 1999, dan states wrote: > Does that mean I should have been happy with my old Argus c3? If so we > all could save a lot of money and > even start a new discussion group. We could call it the ARUG....Which > is the sound I made loading that > camera. > >---- > >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. > > > > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >