Re: [Leica] Exposed!

["Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com>]

From: Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 1999 18:46
Subject: [Leica] Exposed!


> Now you're going to get me in trouble! I'm about to
> lose ALL credibility here.

Uh-oh.  I sense a long confession coming up.

[and hundreds of heart-rending paragraphs later]

> But (<*sigh*>--here goes my cred <g>) no, at the moment
> I have no Leica M. I'm shooting with a Nikon F100, courtesy
> of Nikon.

I thought so.  You know you've just lost all credibility here, don't you?

> I've also been using a number of 1970s cameras for an
> article I'm piecing together called "Classic Metal Boxes
> of the 1970s."

Old cameras don't count, unless they are old _Leicas_.

> ... and a Leica R3 ...

That's a bit better.  Better old than not at all.

> In the interest of honesty, I have to confess that
> so far I absolutely love the F100.

In other words, you've never held an F5 in your hands, eh?

> ... it's a big ol' point-and-shoot ...

Big?  You definitely have not held an F5!

> And it gets my second-place award for Best Noise
> during its shutter release...

Have you heard the .WAV file on Nikon's Web site of the F5 running at warp
speed?

> My credibility here is now officially and totally
> trashed. I know I might as well slink away right now,
> since nobody will ever listen to me again.

I'm glad that you are facing up to it voluntarily, otherwise of course I'd have
to tell you.

> However, another camera that has impressed me far out
> of proportion to its reputation is the R3.

All the Nikon publicity above, and now you hope to gain quarter?

> I imagine I have only a day or two left on the LUG before
> I depart again--my workload and e-mail traffic just don't
> allow me to linger very long.

I'm sure that some list members are already itching to censor you out of
existence, given the many thoughtcrimes to which you've alluded in your post.

FWIW, I prefer Nikon for SLRs, and Leica for rangefinders.  I don't have to
worry about my credibility, though, since I never had any to begin with.

> A great portrait lens is something to be truly prized--they
> are rare, and they are never "sharpness champs."

So what is so special about them?

  -- Anthony