Re: [Leica] Holy memory

["Steve LeHuray" <icommag@toad.net>]

> 
Steve LeHuray wrote: 
>>I do think there is something to this Leica "Glow" thing, in part based on
>>Dermott seeing immediately on the light box something was different (the
>>"Glow") [snip]
>>Dermott has also said that with Leica lenses there really is a difference
>>apart from every other brand he has ever printed.
>
Mike Johnson replies:
>
> True. They're better! <g>
>
> I'm not saying there's anything wrong with good lenses. I love good lenses.
> I love Leica lenses. Where I hop off the bandwagon is where someone OPINES
> that 1) good photographs can't be taken with other makes of lenses (utter
> nonsense) or b) that sharpness / resolution / lp/mm somehow helps a
> photograph be good. What crap.

Sure I agree there are lots of good lenses other than Leica and I have quite
a few of them (mostly Nikor and my small collection of Angeniux zooms put
the best Leica lens to shame). In fact I have been doing a lot of B&W
shooting with an Olympus P&S, the 8x10 prints are pretty good.
>
>
> And I just dippped into my library and came across a wonderful book by a
> photographer I don't know very much about, name of Eric Newby (maybe an
> English Lugger can tell me more about him). The book is called _What the
> Traveller Saw_. And it's an absolutely wonderful book, full of great
> pictures. Most taken with an old Pentax and a budget 50mm lens. But taken by
> a good PHOTOGRAPHER.

So what is the point you are trying to make here relative to the discussion?
I was only trying to make the point that Leica glass has a different look
(particularly old lens design) and even if they are not up to modern
standards I like the look and it seems so do many other people.
>
> If you can't take a good picture with a bad lens, you can't take a good
> picture with a good lens. The art is in using the tools artfully, not in the
> tools themselves.
>
> --Mike

This comment is so pedestrian, I cannot even think of an answer.

Steve
Annapolis