Re: [Leica] Gandy vs. Puts

[Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net>]

FIGLIO4CAP@aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 01/16/2000 3:32:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> icommag@toad.net writes:
> 
> << So, while Erwin is probably right about
>  scientific testing I doubt that it really means much to the vast majority of
>  photographers.
> 
> Huh?? It is absolutely essential for me, both intellectually and in practice.
>  My God, man just compare the images of the old 35mm Summilux to the new
> (ASPH) version. If you do not see the difference we must be on different
> planets. But for me the numbers have to be right and Erwin's measurements set
> the baseline. There is a srrong correlation between what the measurements say
> and the quality of the image in technical terms.
> 
>  Yes, I like to have lenses that give me excellent results,
>  but, I still belief that content is more important. >>
> 
> For me the craft is part of the content and a poor lens can only diminish the
> impact of the content. Otherwise, why strive for quality. Who needs a Strad?
> Why pay more for a Steinway? What difference does a Leica lens make?
> 
> Bob Figlio

If content is the real issue then why worry about using the best equipment?
I'd used above average "standard of the industry" equipment for 20 years.
(Nikons) 
I now like to use the very best stuff and I like to know what the best stuff is.
Gandy's site sells the old stuff and he devalues the new stuff with the aid of
his crony Mike (death to pigdog twinkie lights on the hallowed M) Johnson.
 :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)
Erwin's site is more involved with discerning just how much better the newer
stuff is. And it does tend to be better which is putting it mildly. 
Technology marches on but the Leica M system remains a "classic" system with the
flat out best glass. I value that. How could I not? I'm here am I not?
(I don't mean to misrepresent you Erwin this is just my opinion on the whole
thing!) 
For every roll of Tri X I've shot I've shot ten rolls of Panatomic or Pan F (at
ASA 50). (with studio strobes)
Whenever I've cut corners on technique my prints don't match up to my Portfolios
and people notice. They want their money back.
I am constantly searching for ways to produce a better quality image, films,
developers, strobes, glass, paper... it all adds up to produce a product with my
name on it. (I sign my prints).
Erwins site helps me do this, Gandy's I don't feel does. I'm not a collector I'm
a shooter.
If I was into using old stuff, LTM or what have you i would do so with glee and
not 
make any excuses about it. 
I'd just enjoy my old cameras and the nice soft pictures they produce.
Would I need to be further justified by saying that not only do I love my old
stuff but the new stuff is lacking? The new stuff is tacky?. 
I'd just use the old stuff with out sweating out how much the images I was
creating compared to modern images and how my style of shooting (hand held or
add on meter) differed from the modern in camera meter way of shooting smaller
negs. 
I'd just enjoy my old cameras and the nice soft pictures they produce. My prints
would reflect that. Perhaps I'd have a picture of myself on my business card in
period Jimmy Olsen costume!
Mark Rabiner