Re: [Leica] it DOESN'T work well for leica!

["Birkey, Duane" <dbirkey@hcjb.org.ec>]

Unfortunately by the same token, Professional photographs taken by
Professional Luggers in many cases could have been taken with any reasonable
camera and lens.  And quite honestly it is the same diference in the amount
of money spent.  It actually might be more if you compare annual income

I have used Canon FD cameras and lenses since High School.... My best images
have been taken them.  I sold my Hasselblad stuff and used the money to buy
Leica.  Why? The way my stuff gets used and published, you can't tell
whether something was shot on 35 or 2 1/4..... and the 35mm shot were always
better content wise than the 2 1/4.  By the same token,  For 99% of my work
you could never tell what was shot with Leica M vs my Canon stuff.   There
is a difference in quality, and they do feel different and each has it's
advantage..... But, if you are shooting for printed material, that
difference between a $300 24mm lens and a $1900 24mm will be practically
negligible in many circumstances.  

And one could argue that for those situations, the expense for Leicas is not
justified either. Let's face it, if the expense was justifiable, no Pro
would be shooting with Nikon or Canon.   (AF, features, reliability,
personal preferences and lens selection aside)

Either way one could make the same argument about cars, pens, suits,
computers, stereo equipment and a whole host of other luxuries and in the
end it is all meaningless. 

Duane 


> Duane and Pascal,
>
> Speaking for myself, I am simply saying that  the amateur photos taken by
> amateur LUG photographers could have been taken with any camera with any
> lens. I am not being critical of the snapshots , merely of the amount of
> money spent to take those snapshots.
> Obviously if those individuals can afford the high speed lenses, more
power
> to them, but the fact remains that they are not being used in a way that
> would justify the expense.
>
*  *  *
>
> Joseph Codispoti
>