Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/07/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Jeezus, Mark...I'm disappointed....I thought you WERE a beatnik..... On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Mark Rabiner wrote: > Guy Bennett wrote: > > > > >Why do professionals rarely use Leicas? Well the reason is NOT that so many > > >non-professionals do so! This is where I can merely say...nothing. > > > > lugnuts (professionals or not): > > > > can you say, concisely, why you do use leica? what is it exactly about > > these cameras that appeals to you? let's try to avoid the hyperbole of the > > fanatic devotee and explain why we choose this camera over another. > > > > guy > > Because all the other ones do! > You get the accepted equipment. > When you get a pretty good paying job you go out and get that lens that you need > to shot it with. > Or that job pays for the lens so the next time you can shoot it right. > The Job pays for the lens. A Nikon or Canon lens that is. > Leica's are generally considered effete. Possibly troublesome and difficult. > When I started out in the late seventies it was Nikon and Hasselblad. Anything > much else was an eyebrow rasier. > You want to raise your art directors eyebrow? > The 1970 Photography Annual at my side is dominated by Leica's. > But if I started a decade later those Canon's have creaped in. > I know a guy who's day rate is astronomical and could shoot it with a Holga or > other toy camera just as easily as he could shoot it with his Nikon's or new > Leica M6. Although not now with the M6 because he made the mistake of sending it > to Leica in New Jersey to get fixed a week after he bought it 2 months ago and > he might get it back next week they say. I try not to mention Leica when I run > into him. > I wish I started out a decade earlier so it would have probably been with a > Leica. And I would have been a beatnik! > Mark Rabiner >