Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/09/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I missed my own point on this thing the gaps between 16 and 18 and so on. 21 Its not the gaps its the range. So for us its not continuous. The biggest revolution in shooting other than digital on the past decade or so was AF. And the use of wide angle zooms. Which really pretty much were and are ULTRA WIDE ZOOMS. When these lenses came out they instantly became glued onto the the cameras of those that used them; certainly photojournalists. Once in a blue moon they'd use a tele zoom. Never a normal zoom I heard. I never thought wide zooms would work well or go over very well. One of my major modern bloopers. Turns out the use of these optics are very enabling. And addicting. The world is plasticized right in front of you it's like you have control over the environment in front of you. Very addicting. Makes for great shots. Not architectural maybe but for everything else. Maybe you can fix that now even, in software. So we few, we happy few rangefinder shooters can have those framelines etched popping around in front of us. The question I still think of is which will be more fun and profitable:16-18-21 mm. or 21-24-28 mode? I thing we film shooters are also going to want something in the non ultra wide angle mode. A 21-24-28 like what they get in digital. Ideally what we had before before digital hit. A 21 to 35. Or 18 to 35 as digital started sneaking in. I'm going to wish for 18-24-35 The effect of which Film or digital Mark Rabiner 40?46'58.65"N 73?49'31.68"W Whitestone NY 11357 http://rabinergroup.com/