Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/03/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]John Hudson wrote: snip > >Usually, but not exclusively. I use Leicas for the bodies, not the lenses. > > If I lost my M6s, and could only replace them with some totally redesigned > >modern M7, chances are that I would trade in my lenses. Alternatively, I > >wouldn't dream of trying to fit a Leica lens onto any of my other Japanese > >cameras, even if it were possible. The alternative optics are simply not > >that significantly inferior to make that big a fuss over, IMHO. > > > >And a photograph is just a photograph. There is not such thing as "Leica" > >photographs, or "nikon" photographs, etc. There has to be more to the > >content of a photograph then microscopic clues as to which optical system > >produced it. Otherwise, what is the point to photography? > > > >Again, IMHO. > > This has got to be one of the most intelligent messages ever to appear on > this list. > > Again, IMHO. > > jh No, I don't think it's at all particually cool to think that our stuff is much less special than many of us think it is. There is always a negative flip side to any discussion or train of thought. The Leica look is not determined with a microscope, it is an overall look. It's spottable by myself and others. At times in the past I've thought it was hype, now I don't. Mark Rabiner