Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/02/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Ted, Your response is a good vehicle to rant about something that I have been meaning to rant on for a long time. Specifically on two fronts it seems we have two related places where there is a lot of futile disagreement. First is the appropriateness of tool. We have arguments about this lens is sharper than that lens or this body is insanely priced next to this perfectly usable but much less expensive body. Whether you are a professional who makes her/his living with a tool or an amateur who just enjoys the hobby/passion the decision on what to budget for the pursuit of said endeavor is between you, SWAMBO, and your business manager. Cost is a very situational thing. If you are a recordist of weddings in those parts of Guatemala where Tina does her mission work, spending $1000 equivalent on camera gear would be foolhardy from a return point of view. Likewise, unless you are at the very top of your profession, showing up to tour with POTUS on Air Force One with only a Holga in your hand would quickly provide an invitation to get off the plane. In the same vein, talking to Clay Blackmoor?, he had a 10 month ROI on thirty thousand dollars spent on some very early Kodak digital bodies as it allowed him to change his business model and vastly increase income from event photography. In summary, what is spent on the tools needed for the output desired is best decided by the purchaser. The second area of ranting is the area of noise. I think that this is one of those things that is used to brand one camera over another with little real appreciation for the actual impact. One example would be B.D. who is getting more than acceptable results from what is considered a pretty noisy Olympus. On the other hand some ascribe the Canon's performance at high ISO's as too plastic. Yet for years, the grainy gritty look of Tri-X at 1600 was looked on with approval and thought of as "artistic". Just about any camera with an 4/3 or larger sensor delivers more than acceptable results up to 800 ISO and possibly up to 1600. I fondly remember the infantile comparisons of motor drive speeds in the late 60's, you know, 3 frames per second is so totally inadequate compared to my 3.5 frames per second. My personal belief is that humans have an intrinsic need to do the "mine is longer/bigger/faster than yours" comparison. The full summary of my rant is that the person using the tool should be the one to determine if the tool does what they need to get done. Crappy lens performance to one is riches to another. Those Hamilton books twenty/thirty years ago that made the photographer rich and adored are a perfect example of one persons trash is another persons fine art and gravy train. Rant over, back to the saloon. Don don.dory@gmail.com On 2/1/06, Ted Grant <tedgrant@shaw.ca> wrote: > > > I'm sure what happens on the list is, we have people who are damn fine > amateurs and those who earn their keep through photography, so this > creates > a completely different perspective in regard to what equipment delivers, > cost and their competition. > > ted > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >