Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/07/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Nope, not at all. Of course as I've argued here repeatedly, discrete is as the photographer does. These images were all shot with the Olympus E-1 on the street - not as big as an EOS, but hardly a 'little' camera. I love the M, but the issue in discrete photography is how the photographer behaves, not what camera's used. http://gallery.leica-users.org/Public-Places%2C-Public-Faces/BenchWomenb w http://gallery.leica-users.org/Public-Places%2C-Public-Faces/Sleeper http://gallery.leica-users.org/Public-Places%2C-Public-Faces/TwoGuysbw -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Dan C Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 2:39 PM To: Leica Users Group Subject: RE: [Leica] Digital M For one thing, the EOS isn't exactly a pocket sized camera, for those wishing discression. -dan c. At 02:09 PM 12-07-04 -0400, B. D. Colen wrote: >Digital cameras are not 'just boxes.' The sensor and firmware have an >enormous amount to do with the quality of the image produced. And I >didn't, btw, say anything about the 'look' of the camera; I said >'similar build and image quality.' As in build quality and image >quality. Or, to put it really bluntly, why would anyone in his or her >right mind pay 5500K - for example - for an "M" body when for the same >amount of money he or she could buy an 8 mpg Canon Eos MkII and an >array of Canon's best lenses? I know, I know, it's not a Leica, and it >wouldn't take your m lenses. ;-) [snip] _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information