Re: [Leica] the 90% rule-long, rambling BS from Walt

[Phil Marcus <pmarcus@swbell.net>]

And then there are those of us who would have Mesa Engineering modify it
into a *real* amp. <snitty grin>

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter S Delesandri" <walt@jove.acs.unt.edu>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Cc: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 8:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] the 90% rule-long, rambling BS from Walt


> I have a desire to get flamed.
> Leicas DO NOT make better pictures than "acceptable" equipment by ANY
> other maker.  I've used IT ALL.  I've said for years, buy Leica FOR OTHER
> REASONS (feel, pride, compactness, reliability or at least
'repairability',
> low light focusing with WAs, etc....)...NOT for "results".
>
> Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Minolta, Konica, etc....TAKE THE SAME PICTURES.
>
> Even Erwin states (if somewhat cryptically) that the ONLY way to
> see the superiority of this glass is to use a tripod, VERY slow
transparency
> film, speeds that don't shake the camera, etc...
> If I felt that Cosina gear was built for the 'long' haul, and would remain
> supported by the maker in 25 years, I'd have NO problem switching.
> If Nikon had brought out an SP for the price of the M6, I'd already be
> using it. (the real thing, not some plastic imitation).
>
> If you're holding your Leica in your hands, using it in a 'real world'
manner,
> with 'real world' films, then you might as well use a nikon or canon--if
you're
> worried about "quality"
>  I've NO
> doubt that current Ni/Ca/Oly lenses are as good or better than my 60s-80s
> Leica lenses.  But I >>>>LIKE<<<< my Leicas (and my Nikons!)...and I'll
continue
> to pay through the ass to use them.
>
> An "Epiphone" guitar is NOT a Gibson....but I'll be damned if anyone other
> than me in the bar can tell....Period....give it 20 years, and like Leica,
> there MIGHT be a difference in the way they hold up....but who knows?...
> If ya'll are into this, I have a new "1958" Fender Deluxe clone
(amplifier)
> It's built so it's roadworthy, and will hold up better than the real thing
> EVER would have, even new.....but it's NOT the same as a ragged, torn up,
> cigarette burned 1958 amp...--to me (I have a real '60 vibrolux)...but for
> my "user" ,it's perfect...throw it in the van, leave the bar with it on
> the stage (might get stolen?)...etc....I don't have to WORRY about it...
> That's the way I'd look at the Cosina/Konica/etc....throw it in the trunk
> and don't worry...(that's where my 1970 M4 is now....if it gets hot I'll
> have to go get it out of there!!)
>
> If pride of ownership, feel, longevity, is important to you (YES!!!!), and
IF
> you think more and make better pictures with it,(YES!!!!) -- then buy
Leica...
> it's the best...not as good as it was 30 years ago, but what is?
>
> Walt
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2001 08:03:50 -0800 kyle cassidy <kcassidy@asc.upenn.edu>
> wrote
> > >A rhetorical question - how many of us would be better off with
equipment
> > that's 90% as
> > >good as our Leicas, spending the difference on film and/or time spent
> > photographing?
> >
> > i've been tellin' ya folks.... now repeat the spell after me: " ...
> > jupiter-12, cosina and a bulk roll,
> > canon serenar, ql-17, use the rest to bribe the models to rug down...."
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html