Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/08/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Putting all one's gear on a signature is kind of silly, but I'd excuse folks who are all excited about their new camera. Especially for youngsters, a new camera can be a real "prize possession." OTOH, I do appreciate when folks annotate their online photo posts with information about the lens, film, aperture/shutter setting and what not. If it doesn't matter, it doesn't bother me one bit. But other times, you see a particular "look" and that might interest me in trying out a different film or something. It can be educational. Also, if I'm considering lens options, it's great to be able to search different sites and find pics taken with different lenses. In other product categories folks are psyched about the products they own or use. Think Mac fanatics or AMD chip fans in computers. Or Mercedes or "your-brand-goes-here" fans in cars. Or Gibson or Fender players in guitars. Nothing special about camera lovers in this regard. I think gear-headedness in general is pretty harmless, with the caveats that (1) good gear doesn't make you good and (2) at the extremes gear-chasing can make one constantly frustrated and very, very broke :-) Scott ------------- Equipment not listed in this signature. Daniel Ridings wrote: >>Nathan Wajsman offered: ! >> >> >>>In a similar vein, on the Miranda Canon forum people usually have their >>>equipment list in their signatures. I have: "Never mind the equipment, >>>just look at my pictures."<<< >>> >>> >>Hi Nathan, >>Absolutely!!!! The only time it's worth knowing something about how a >>picture was made is when there's a "particularly interesting effect and how >>was it achieved?" >> >> > >I list the equipment for one single reason. There has been previous >discussions about posting shots taken with Leicas or not on the LUG. So >for the LUG's sake, I mention it (usually) if a shot was taken with a >Leica. If I don't mention the equipment I either 1) forgot or 2) used >something other than a Leica. > >In my case the information that a Leica was used is more or less useless. >The quality is not "Leica quality", that is, the quality you would get >with a modern Leica. I don't own a modern Leica. I bought all of my stuff >in the 70's with one exception, the 21 I bought last week. So the "Leica >quality" is that of 30 years ago, not what you would get today (and I'm >assuming it would be better). In the 70's I simply loved Leicas. Now >they're just trusty side kicks that I don't think much about. > >Daniel > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >