Archived posting to the
Leica Users Group, 2000/06/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index]
[Home]
[Search]
Subject: Re: [Leica] it DOESN'T work well for leica!
From: Bernard <4829.g23@g23.relcom.ru>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 20:30:29 +0400
References: <200006122106.OAA19032@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> <017001bfd4bc$11446b60$a882e0d8@i928653> <001b01bfd4d4$71e12900$953d18d1@PACBELL.NET>
Tom Schofield wrote:
> who the heck are you to declare that anyone's family photos do not "justify
> the expense"?
> I doubt Ken Lisaka would trade his Noctilux shots of his child's birth for
> it!
I can't believe how you would need a nocti in a hospital. Isn't that people's
workplace? Aren't there laws in the US stating how bright the light should be at
people's workplace? Wouldn't a hospital be a well-lit place, practically per
definition?! And the man has to use a nocti and ISO1600 film... who are you
kidding! A 2.8 quality point and shoot would have done just as nicely, and it's
a lot quieter yet.
Bernard
Replies:
Reply from Akhil Lal <akhil.lal@bcc.cuny.edu> (Re: [Leica] it DOESN'T work well for leica!)
Reply from Jim Brick <jimbrick@photoaccess.com> ([Leica] Re: it DOESN'T work well for leica!)
Reply from "Ken Iisaka" <ken@iisaka.org> (Re: [Leica] it DOESN'T work well for leica!)
Reply from Peter Jon White <PeterJonWhite@PeterWhiteCycles.com> (Re: [Leica] it DOESN'T work well for leica!)
Reply from Ted Grant <tedgrant@home.com> (Re: [Leica] it DOESN'T work well for leica!)
In reply to:
Message from "Joe Codispoti" <joecodi@thegrid.net> (Re: [Leica] it DOESN'T work well for leica!)
Message from "Tom Schofield" <tdschofield@email.msn.com> (Re: [Leica] it DOESN'T work well for leica!)