Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/27

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

Subject: [Leica] Re: Re: Bokeh controversy
From: Jim Brick <jim@brick.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 21:18:45 -0800
References: <4.1.20001227155235.01814610@xsj02.sjs.agilent.com>

Visiting what?

J.

;)

At 09:38 PM 12/27/00 -0500, Martin Howard wrote:
>Jim Brick jotted down the following:
>
>> M.  You completely missed my point. The point of the entire post.
>
>Then perhaps you should have stated it more clearly.  It appeared to me, who
>is of normal intelligence and average native English reading ability, that
>the point of your message was that taking bokeh into consideration would
>require additional lenses (based presumably on the unstated assumption that
>lenses with good bokeh are necesarily different from any other lenses one
>might own) that must be brought with the photographer at any time he/she
>wishes to go out and take pictures.
>
>My point was that many people already have duplicates of focal length or
>equipment -- sometimes in different formats -- which are chosen depending
>upon what the picture-taking scenario is.  We very rarely, if ever, haul all
>our gear, but rather choose those pieces suitable for a given situation.
>Why should this situation be any different?  If you're going to take
>sweeping landscapes where everything is pin-sharp in focus, then obviously
>bringing along that 1960's 90mm Summicron for its bokeh is going to be a
>little superfluous and the more compact and lighter 90mm APO-ASPH would
>probably be a better choice.
>
>M.
>
>-- 
>Martin Howard                     |
>Visiting Scholar, CSEL, OSU       | People don't like to be parameters
>email: howard.390@osu.edu         | in an equation.
>www: http://mvhoward.i.am/        +---------------------------------------
> 

In reply to: Message from Jim Brick <jim_brick@agilent.com> ([Leica] Re: Bokeh controversy)