[Leica] Leica or not to Leica

[jayanand at gmail.com (Jayanand Govindaraj)]

I posted a link to the LUG Forum today making the same point about wine,
mainly value lies in perception, not utility for the great majority of
imbibers. The same argument can spun out for anything - cars, pens,
clothes, whatever.
Cheers
Jayanand


On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:12 PM, <lrzeitlin at aol.com> wrote:

>  Tina,
>
>
> The LUG has over 2000 members. I suspect that fewer than 10% make their
> living by photography and even fewer sell to stock agencies. Any of a score
> of professional quality cameras will meet the criterion set by stock
> agencies. Also, by definition, photos posted in the LUG Gallery ARE on the
> web. You are speaking for a tiny minority of LUGGERs, Owning a Leica, and I
> have several, is like owning a Rolex watch. It is nice to handle, provides
> pride in ownershio, implies a certain degree of affluence, allies you with
> James Bond, but is functionally equivalent to a $50 Timex.?
>
>
> Lsrry Z
>
>
> But we are not all photographing just for the web.? Try and get your
> digital photos accepted by a stock agency.? Or printed as a large print.
> Resolution matters.
>
>
> Tina
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 8:31 PM, &lt;lrzeitlin at aol.com&gt; wrote:
>
>
> ?Enough of this praise of Leica superiority. It is tiresome even on the
> LUG. For most practical purposes Leicas are not superior to other cameras.
>
>
>
>
> The limit to image quality, especially for images presented on the
> internet, is set by the viewing device. In the case of an HD TV, a 35 mm
> full frame image need only have 45 lines/mm to appear perfectly sharp. Even
> if the image is viewed on the top quality 27" Mac monitor it need only have
> 60 l/mm to appear sharp. These image resolution standards are only slightly
> greater than those that the old Modern Photography magazine rated as
> minimally acceptable. Every camera I own, no matter how cheap or how old
> can meet the resolution standard required by modern image viewing systems.
> Every Leica lens ever made, except possibly the old Thambar portrait lens,
> will exceed the minimum resolution criteria. By actual test my widely
> disparaged 75 year old Elmar 35 mm f3.5, Leica's first wide angle, resolved
> 68 l/mm.?
>
>
>
>
> Some zealots on the LUG seem to obsess over the latest and greatest Leica
> lenses and the imaging characteristics and the size of electronic sensors.
> While these may be interesting topics in themselves, they have almost
> nothing to do with the pictures posted on the LUG and viewed on a computer
> screen. The best is the enemy of "good enough." Get out there and take
> meaningful pictures. Don't blather endlessly about technical perfection.
>
>
>
>
> Larry Z
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>