Re: [Leica] 35mm versus 120

[Ted Grant <tedgrant@home.com>]

 > Ted Grant said...........
> 
> > Man I'm glad I don't have the skills some of you have in doing all this
> > measuring stuff, be no time left for picture taking.

Paul Bolam responded: 

> I agree with you Ted, a very interesting debate on format difference.
> However, this theory should not worry us too much.>>>>>>>

Hi Paul,
One thing with this theory thing and testing is, it keeps all these guys
out of circulation and the photo competition down,  as they're all busy
testing and talking and not .............  shooting.  :)

> I use most formats from 35mm upwards AND the only thing that really counts
> is the kit that I have with me at the time! AND you just can't tell what
> your gonna need in advance.>>>>>>>>>

The equipment and comparisons are fine if your not shooting every day
for a living or you worry more about  size instead of being concerned
about quality of the content captured.  Sure I've used 35mm where I
should have used bigger, 4X5.  But then the gear is always dead hardware
and if you know what your doing with any camera size, you bring the gear
to life with "your ability" and  you should come away with a quality of
photography that most clients don't know the difference of size anyway. 

All this theory is fine if you have nothing else to do with your time
and are more concerned about mm's per square what's it, than bread
earning picture taking.  Before I became a member of this Leica list I
never knew there were so many people who spent what appears to be huge
amounts of time to test everything photographic, rather than getting on
with the fun of picture taking.  I'm amazed this 35mm vs 120 topic has
gone on for such a long time.  But be that as it may, some folks get off
on this stuff, so be it.

And in the end it'll prove absolutely nothing to anyone who just takes
pictures with a Leica!  After all, this is a Leica 35mm conversation
location isn't it?

ted