[Leica] The lens is only as good as the photo it takes

["Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <peterk@lucent.com>]

It depends what you shot.  If you have a MF system it would be much more
difficult to shoot action, like fast moving sports, compared to a faster AF
system with high quality lenses.  Another point here is why would you buy
sub quality AF lenses when there are superb AF lenses available?  In
essence, you would not have to go backward to MF but could if you prefer.

Peter K 

- -----Original Message-----
From: Greg Locke [mailto:locke@straylight.ca]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 1999 6:47 AM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] It's the lens, stupid.


At 08:23 AM 03/05/99 -0500, you wrote:

>It doesn't have AF! Horrors! You'd think Leica R8s were made in the 60s the

>way people are talking. 

> I like the fact that Leica 
>emphasizes the glass, which is where the tire hits the road, rather than 
>the me-too one-upsmanship of the other companies who miss the point. It's 
>the glass!

>At least that's my conspiracy theory and I'm stickin' to it.  :-)
>
>Eric Welch

        Just to add to Eric's point...

I, for one professional, will gladly give up AF for better lenses (and
HAVE!).  What's the point of having an AF lens if the quality is sub
standard.

Sure, you don't have to rotate a barrel... but your pictures are soft.

Technology is not necessarily an advancement. Digital cameras are a
technological advancement... but, their picture quality is crap!





Greg Locke <locke@straylight.ca>                               
St. John's, Newfoundland. 
http://www.straylight.ca/locke
- ----------------------------------
TOUCHED BY FIRE: doctors without borders in a third world crisis.
McClelland & Stewart Canada.  ISBN#0-7710-5305-3 
http://www.straylight.ca/touchedbyfire.htm