Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/21

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] 'better'
From: "Dr. Joseph Yao" <yaojkfdr@netvigator.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 13:41:11 +0800

on 22/9/00 2:31, Martin Howard at howard.390@osu.edu wrote:

> What the proponents of 'better' consistently fail to realize is that the
> 'better' they think is so obvious, is *one* of many, many possible frames of
> reference, and that their frame of reference is not necessarily any more
> valid than any other one.  For example, a quarts watch may be 'better' than
> a mechanical one using a functional frame of reference, but it may be the
> other way around if using an aesthetical frame of reference.

> What really pisses me off is the arrogance with which people assume that
> their 'better' is the only 'better' than can exist.  I'm with Guy on this
> one: Provide me with options and let *me* do the choosing.  I'll let you
> know if it's 'better' or not.  I don't need to be told.

Martin,

I agree with you entirely.  There are still many photo dealers who would
claim a faster lens is 'better', and they say it such a manner that I must
be an idiot not to understand when they mean.

Regards,

Joseph

Replies: Reply from Kevin H <kevin@2image.com> (Re: [Leica] 'better')