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: Walter S Delesandri <walt@jove.acs.unt.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:08:09 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)

Thanks, Ted...good to hear from you!
Walt
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 07:36:54 -0700 Ted <tedgrant@home.com> wrote:
> 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
>