Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/08/01

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

Subject: [Leica] Totally OT question about dentists
From: jls at (Jeffery Smith)
Date: Sun Aug 1 07:38:14 2004

Because Fuji seems to give better results, but I understand what you're
saying. Back before Fuji, film snobs preferred Ilford and Agfa. I guess
Kodak seemed synonymous with "snapshots of Ozzie Nelson".

Jeffery Smith
New Orleans, LA

-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of Jesse
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 9:27 AM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] Totally OT question about dentists

I'm not a dentist but I've talked with a number about the subject. They 
have mentioned: the standing hunched over, the need for very steady 
hands, the physical contortions necessary to do the job, and problems 
with dental insurance.

They seem like a fairly content group. Statistics are tricky things.

But your post led to your fascinating website. I have a Retina I and a 
Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta B and have always regretting passing up a Retina

IIIC in the distant past.

And why do film snobs eschew Kodak film, execpt for Tri-X?


Karen Nakamura wrote:
> OK, this is an off-topic question except for the fact that dentists
> to like Leicas.
> Dentists seem to also retire early. Is it true that dentistry is a 
> particularly tough job? Is the rumor about dentists having the highest

> suicide rate true?
> Or do dentists just retire early so that they can actually enjoy all
> Leicas they have bought?
> Just some random thoughts.
> Karen

Leica Users Group.
See for more information

Replies: Reply from dorysrus at (Don Dory) ([Leica] Totally OT question now Kodak questions)
In reply to: Message from hellman at (Jesse Hellman) ([Leica] Totally OT question about dentists)