[Leica] Galen Rowell and Nikon

["Robert G. Stevens" <robsteve@hfx.andara.com>]

I saw one of Galens slide shows in Calgary in July.  I was not impressed
with the images, technically or asthetically.  The consensus amongst the
attendees that saw the show was that they too were not impressed with the
quality of the images.  Nikon should perhaps pay him to not use their
cameras :-)  A lot of the images were not that sharp and others looked
manipulated digitally. The loss in image quality may be from this and
perhaps the viewing of dupes rather than originals.

On another note, Galen is surprisingly short when you see him in person.  I
would guess he is under 5.5 feet tall.  The images you see of him do not
portray his height as being that short.  Not that height has anything to do
with a persons skills, but it just seemed paradoxical for a well travelled
adventurer to be so short.  I guess the Indianna Jones movies have us
programmed to expect these adventures to be taller.

Regards,

Robert


At 01:22 PM 9/7/99 -0700, Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote:
>Galen is sponsored by Nikon, that's the main reason.  They use his name, and
>he gets $ome.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: InfinityDT@aol.com [mailto:InfinityDT@aol.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 11:14 AM
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: Re: [Leica] Rebuild my R8
>
>
>In a message dated 9/7/99 2:10:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
>mrabiner@concentric.net writes:
>
><< When I started out in the late 70's about five of us had Nikon 24 2.8's
>on 
>our
> cameras most of the time. It was my normal lens and almost never came off
>the
> camera. I shot most of the  California Coast with one. When we all went
> commercial the 24's came off and the 85's and 105's came on.
> Mark Rabiner >>
>
>Look through Galen Rowell's books, the preponderance are shot with a 24 2.8 
>or an 85 f2.  I wonder if anybody's ever asked him why he didn't/doesn't use
>
>Leica R (it's not going to be me!).
>
>