Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/11/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Just for clarification, Colin shot the pictures. I just expressed a fondness for one of them. (The others aren't bad either.) I have neither an Eos nor a Noctilux. (I sure would like the latter though!) Mike D - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Rabiner" <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 2:26 AM Subject: Re: [Leica] Dancing and Architecture, was Canon EOS for Leica-style...sorry! > A Canon zoom with a ttl flash wow! The pictures sure come out and they're quite > nice just like the 10 million other photographers out there shooting with Canon > zooms with their dedicated flashes. > We have to have respect for real picture taking by a working photographer. And > by far most certainly use Canon. > But interestingly here an example of when you need amazing speed in a lens Mike > goes to Leica! The Noctilux! > I was expecting the opposite to be illustrated. > Perhaps he has very agreeable to Leica lovers reasons for not having a second > Canon body with the Canon 50mm f1 AF lens? > Would these pictures have come out a bit better if Mike went around gleefully > blasting every one lining up for him with a Leica R with it's zoom and ttl flash? > I think so but who the hell would care in this case? > They sure were not AF dependant. > This outfit and shoot has the Canon as the bread and butter picture taking > machine with the Noctilux on an M as a backup for those excruciating moments > when it seemed completely inappropriate to use flash. It looked like to me. > It's Leica which is the special purpose high speed back up in this case not > Canon with its high speed optics of other focal lengths. > > Just a tad ironic as it's kind of being used as an example to prop of the > argument of we need Canon when we need optical speed. > > For some reason there is a justification of using two camera systems here, one > off topic for this list, and i don't know what it is. Mike isn't telling us. But > that's really no big deal. > No big deal as i see it on this list we don't pretend other cameras don't exist. > They get mentioned in passing. It's unavoidable. It's reality. > > But if someones switching to Canon for it's fast lenes or other reasons perhaps > the best place to get the best information with the least conflict is on the > Canon list. I'm sure they don't mind an occasionally mention of Leica in passing > on their list. AS long as it is well preambled with how overpriced and archaic > they are. > > I have no big problem with Simon or Mike and my hunch would be likewise. > Others have jumped on this thing all red in the face with their ongoing agendas > which they'd not care to mention. > A tad rancorous for many and a shame we cant be kinder better people who state > where they are coming from but things were gettin pretty slow around here so > what the hell!?. > > I use Hasselblads extensively but i don't go on and on here to the joys and > wonders of medium format and Zeiss for Hasselblad optics with interchangeable > backs which always break. > Although in the past Zeiss and Leitz might have had some things in common. > Some of us have late model Focomats for Peet's sake! And live and die for 35mm. > I certainly have to respect that! > > So i don't ask on this list if the Zeiss 120 f4 macro made for Contax for it's > 645 with internal focusing has anything over the Zeiss 120 f4 macro which all > this time has been made for Hasselblad and Rolleiflex with much less elements > and a more traditional Zeiss design. > That would be rude! Who would want to hear all about THAT on the Leica Users > Group? :) > > Mark Rabiner > > Portland, Oregon > USA > > http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/ > -- > 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