Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/25

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] What is in a name (Shakespeare)
From: Ted <tedgrant@home.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 07:36:54 -0700
References: <SIMEON.10010250843.B@sova-walt.unt.edu>

Walter S Delesandri wrote:

> Oh, hell, Erwin, LET US >>>>BELIEVE<<<<< IN THE SANCTITY OF ALL THAT IS
> OLD/LEICA/UNOBTAINABLE/EXPENSIVE/ETC>>>>>
>
> WE NEED AN "OPIATE" FOR OUR MASSES (the LUG)...without DOGMA
> we'd probably be throwing rocks at one another or blowing up
> a lot of shit...
> We NEED to believe that a bunch of drunk, hack-assed old photojournalists
> that probably couldn't get a job today (at least not with a Leica and a 50-
> this I KNOW for sure) KNEW THE TRUTH AND THE WAY, and we MUST follow
> them.......
> I personally don't know anything about the 50 1.5 Zeiss, or the Nokton (old),
> but I am VERY familiar with the flarey-assed Canon 50 1.4, and the
> Summarit (damn, in the seventies you could get all you wanted for $75, and
> THERE's your "ultimate Bokeh"......)...of course, all these crap lenses
> are more expensive now cuz they're 25 years older, and they have much
> more haze and cleaning marks (anal collectors clean a LOT)...therefore,
> they should be MUCH better for REAL photography....hence their inflated
> values...
>
> BTW, if you take ANY of this seriously, or take some bizarre kind of offense
> to it,  then you're even farther gone than I thought....<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Walt old buddy! :-)

Good on you my friend, made my morning. Now I can go out and shoot without all the
techie stuff clogging up my sight lines!

ted

In reply to: Message from Walter S Delesandri <walt@jove.acs.unt.edu> (Re: [Leica] What is in a name (Shakespeare))