Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/11/02

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] the 90% rule-long, rambling BS from Walt
From: George Day <george@rdcinteractive.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 09:06:37 +0000

I like'em because they're small, they're super-quiet, they force you to be
at least somewhat creative with every exposure and they take damn nice
pictures when you point them at the right thing.


on 11/2/01 2:29 PM, Mārtiņš Zelmenis at martin@lrpv.lv wrote:

> 
> May I suggest you work on your negatives just a weeny bit more?? The
> difference emerges under certain circumstances.
> 
> Yours
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> 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

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