Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/12/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Well, Seth, what is the maximum image magnification in a magazine? I have always thought that you can enlarge a part of a negative if you want to show some differences. Actually this is the Leica principle: small negative, large print - and a portion could well have been shown. Photos of lens exteriors do not show anything image about image quality - even if made by generals. Yes, your opinions seemed quite strong - especially when no corresponding images were shown. Waste of editorial space IMO - a letter to the editor would have been sufficient to clearly state your opinion. But - as I wrote - I find the VF highly enjoyable. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen - -----Alkuperäinen viesti----- Lähettäjä: SthRosner@aol.com <SthRosner@aol.com> Vastaanottaja: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Päivä: 18. joulukuuta 2001 19:16 Aihe: Re: Vs: [Leica] shade >In a message dated 12/18/01 11:59:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, >raimo.korhonen@pp2.inet.fi writes: > >> Might this be the same Seth that had so strong opinions of 50 mm Leica >lenses >> in the VF? Gives perspective - the opinions were fully backed with >> photographic "evidence" - only the pictures were of the outsides of the >> lenses, not results made with same. > >Hello Raimo: > >Yes, the very same Seth. Did these opinions seem to you stronger than those >of Erwin Puts? > >Worse than my strong opinions, the photographs of the outsides of the lenses >were provided by the infamous General Roy Moss. I believe that Erwin would >tell you that comparing magazine reproductions of photographic prints in the >very small sizes that the VIEWFINDER format permits would prove nothing >whatever about lens qualities. > >Over, > >Seth LaK 9 > > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html