Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/11/03

[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: Martins Zelmenis <martin@lrpv.lv>
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 10:54:53 +0200
References: <SIMEON.10111021309.A@sova-walt.unt.edu> <3BE2F94D.938E89B8@earthlink.net>

Friends, I object!

Sorry, My experience is quite the opposite. In my early years of serious
photography I had got a CanonAE1 - with 1.8/50 FD lens. A <modern camera> by
the standards of the day. All the attitude I got for may work was tolerant.
<OK, those are his pictures>. It took me more than a year or two to
understand that the lens just does not perform!
I swapped this - in those years quite acceptable - electronic gadget for
Nikon F with the old 2/50 lens. I kept using the same developers, processes,
you name it. And the next day - all of a sudden - I was a better
photographer! Just because THE CAMERA PERFORMED! The next step for me was
Leica M3 - complete with Summarit 1.5/50 and Summaron 3.5/35. AND AGAIN IT
WAS A STEP UPWARDS! Just don't tell me my professional improvements simply
coincided with the moments I switched to a different camera maker. I really
mean it - it is easier to be a good photographer with a Leica, but it
(certainly) does not make HCBs of us all. It is better to be a photographer
with a good camera than a bad one - period. On the other hand - lots and
lots of really great photos were/are/will be made by use of mediocre/bad
gear. So what? I am still using my Nikon equipment when the demands for my
pictures are lower (when it's certain the enlargements don't need to bi
large, etc.) - and - after all - I can't afford a similar - comprehensible
Leica system yet (and maybe I never will).

But - please - don't tell me you can't tell the difference between properly
developed Leica negs/pictures - and those taken by a different maker
camera/lens. Because I'm no magician or superman - and I can.

Yours

Martin

> I'm glad that you said it Walt, because I was writing a response saying
> precisely the same thing - I have never had a client, friend, family
> member, etc. etc., say, 'oh, this is the Leica shot.' There are times
> when I look back at the results of a shoot and even I am not sure which
> camera I used for which shot.
>
> Walter S Delesandri wrote:
>
> > It hasn't been my experience that they could tell any difference.
> >   I and a
> > co-worker have often mixed Leica and Nikon (as well as other formats).
Not
> > once has anyone noticed the difference, even in color.
> > My co-worker Brent SAYS he can tell Leica shots on the light table, but
that
> > has NOT ever been proven in practice...the "consumer", publisher, etc,
has NEVER
> > commented as to brand of equipment.
> >
> --
> 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

In reply to: Message from Walter S Delesandri <walt@jove.acs.unt.edu> (Re: [Leica] the 90% rule-long, rambling BS from Walt)
Message from "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> (Re: [Leica] the 90% rule-long, rambling BS from Walt)