[Leica] Re: Re: Re: Focusing a 280 F2.8???

["Miro Jurcevic" <miroj@ozemail.com.au>]

Dear Ted,

I have a draw full of great photos that will never look good on poster
paper. In trying to perfect the images I learned that it takes a lot more
than a Leica to make an emulsion perfect.

As for your great photos and other amazing observations, I can only add that
I was never born with tremendous physical hand-holding ability. It took some
trial and error to find the limitations of my method.

The fact that you can do better stand-up with a Leica in one hand and a beer
in other whilst supporting two swedish backpackers on your shoulders, only
goes to show that you are such a superior photographer that science could
not possibly add to your knowledge.

Some guy gets lucky with a shutter and all of the sudden I'm an idiot. Tell
me some fishing stories too.


- ----- Original Message -----
From: Ted Grant <tedgrant@home.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2000 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Focusing a 280 F2.8???


> Miro Jurcevic wrote:
> >
> > The physics are against you all the way. First the mirror goes clunk and
> > shakes the entire casting. Then in the SLR versions, two shutter
curtains
> > move at hundreds of K's per hour in a fraction of a second. That's
enough to
> > move the camera.
>
> Hi Miro,
> I think your pulling my leg and that of others with years of experience
> and extremely large blow-ups made into posters and exhibition prints,
> like 30" X 40" and larger.
>
> You're making this begin to sound like you're one of those all theory
> guys and not a shooting guy with much experience.
>
> Pardon me if I'm wrong, as no offense is intended, however my son you're
> all wet with this technical nonsense. Maybe you should have a whole
> bunch of practical time to learn the truth of what can be done with a
> Leica M or R as opposed to what you are pushing.  Quite frankly it
> doesn't wash any more than elephants can fly.
>
>  > No matter what your human body is doing, the camera body, unless it
> is M*,
> > is doing a cha-cha all over the place. The difference only shows above
8' x
> > 10' and then it is a seriuosly limiting factor in image size.<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> You are now without question, speaking with absolutely no practical
> experience whatsoever, or you are really trying to get a confrontation
> of experience against theory going here.
>
> > The main factors in the equation ..... (thanks to Rob)
> > 1. Mirror weight
> > 2. Shutter travel - vertical or horizontal
> > 3. Body construction
> > 4. Wind speed - a 1mm movement on the end of your lenses hood is enough
to
> > destroy film grain sharpness
> > 5. Tripod type
>
> Before I say anymore would mind very kindly to please explain to the
> crew just what you base this drivel on from your ____ practical
> experience ___ and for how long you've believed and practiced what you
> are espousing?
>
> > Some individuals have gone to the trouble of testing these variables and
> > looked at the results under a microscope. It is quite evident that
cheap,
> > hand held bodies, with the mirror down shot on a windy day with a long
lense
> > make the worst possible photos.<<<<<<<<<<
>
> But what does this crap have to do with real picture taking with Leicas
> of any model in the heat of a fire fight, the roar of a crowd at the
> Olympics or a Santa Claus parade?  Please get real and don't be so naive
> anyone is paying any attention to what you are pushing, as it's sheer
> nonsense when it comes down to every day working photographers. Or
> amateurs or everyday fun folks taking pictures.
>
> > I used to think that the sound of some cameras was impressive, now I
realise
> > that the sound comes from bits of metal violently colliding into each
other.<<<<<<<<<
>
> And are you sure your head at sometime didn't inadvertently violently
> collide with a piece of metal?  Whew a hell of a criteria.
>
> Ted wrote previously to Miro:
> > > Sorry my friend not at all, as there are assignments many of us work
on
> > > that it's completely impractical to use any kind of support.  And our
> > > pictures are as sharp as any you might do with a monopod or
tripod.<<<<<<<<<
>
> And good buddy I still stand behind this comment from 50 years
> experience. And I'm still doing it and it still works!
>
> ted