Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/08/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]on 29/8/00 12:25 AM, Krechtz@aol.com at Krechtz@aol.com wrote: > It is not necessary to denigrate an > intellectual or aesthetic concept in order to recognize that different Leica > users have diverging needs and place different demands on equipment, just as > they have different demands placed on them by others. Joe I hope you don't feel I was denigrating anyone: my contention is that imprecise terms lead to more confusion than enlightenment. This is why I feel 'bokeh' needs to be quantified and clarified or put aside. There are already so many misused or ill-understood terms in describing imaging qualities: contrast, brilliance, SQF, MTF, acutance, resolution, definition, sharpness, clarity, etc etc. I doubt more than 1% of this list could agree upon the meaning of each of these terms and even if they could it would not enable them to describe with much exactitude the imaging qualities of any lens. Does 'bokeh' help or hinder in this purpose? I contend that it is on balance a hindrance. 'Bokeh' is contingent on so many other variables that it is intrinsically confusing. In an ideal world we would perhaps have hugely comprehensive reports on all lenses available so we could do our research and perhaps save time and money. Even then I believe the vast majority of photographers (as opposed to camera collectors and the technically inclined) will buy their equipment based upon the results of and recommendations of their peers and trial and error rather than such tomes. I have no quibbles with anyone buying cameras as toys, investments, jewellery, therapy or whatever: I cannot pretend to belong entirely to another world to them either. I buy lenses based upon the specs I need (focal length, aperture and in focus imaging qualities mostly) and keep lenses I like but it takes a while to get to know them through use and that is time and effort valuably spent for which there is no effective alternative IME: in any case it is fun getting to know these lenses through use so why forgo the pleasure? Or do you see things differently after your Hexar experience? In any case it would seem to support my argument that the simplistic assessments in magazine articles (even by Mike Johnston) are no substitute for first hand experience (either your work or your viewing someone else's up close). Like Ted I have found that just getting and using Leica lenses is all the evaluation you need: not many duds in this lineup. And the great thing is that if you feel one is not right for you it is not hard to sell it on for a good price. Try that with EOS lenses... Bests Adrian - -- Adrian Bradshaw Corporate and Editorial Photography Beijing, China tel/fax +86 10 6532 5112 mobile +86 139 108 22292 e-mail apbbeijing@yahoo.com OR adrianpeterbradshaw@compuserve.com website: http://www.apbphoto.com Please note my new mobile number (as of August 1st) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com