RE: [Leica] Nikon 300 2.8 vs Leica SLR lens

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

Hey, Ted, have any thoughts about Leica SLRs? ;-)

B. D.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Ted Grant
> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 9:15 PM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Nikon 300 2.8 vs Leica SLR lens
> 
> 
> I questioned my mental state for replying to this crap post 
> and very nearly
> didn't. However it's such a crock of bullshit, but nothing 
> any brighter
> than we've come to expect from  good old toto oz!
> 
> There isn't any doubt the 300 Nikon 2.8 isn't a fine lens, it is. Why
> wouldn't it be?
> 
> <<<<<Also no Pulitzer prize has ever been awarded to a photo 
> taken with a
> Leica SLR.  Because Leica-SLR are not up to the punishment 
> put on them by
> pros not the 5 rolls a year shooters which most of the lugger 
> are.>>>>>>>
> 
> I say old chap would you mind just taking a flying leap into 
> a windmill!
> 
> The absolute sillyness of stating that no Pulitzer prize has ever been
> awarded to a photograph taken with a Leica SLR is probably 
> the stupidest
> remark of all!!! I figure it comes close to an Oscar Award for "stupid
> comments on the LUG!" Hell even I don't make them that 
> stupid!  Close on
> occaision!:):)
> 
> What the hell does any camera have to do with capturing a 
> Pulitzer moment?
> It's the photographer holding the camera dummy, not the camera!
> 
> <<<<Because Leica-SLR are not up to the punishment put on 
> them by pros not
> the 5 rolls a year shooters which most of the lugger are.>>>>>>>
> 
> gee I hate sounding like an off the wall kinda guy, but here 
> you go again
> with the second dumbest thing....sorry no prizes for seconds! 
> But it ranks
> right up there with the dumbest!
> 
> There are many photographers on the LUG that shoot hundreds 
> and hundreds of
> rolls a year and I imagine damn few who only shoot 5 if any! 
> Some of us
> have shot a 100 rolls within a couple of days on certain 
> assignments. Or in
> my case, July 1, 1985 I shot 53 rolls of 36 exposure 
> Kodachrome during the
> one day celebration of Canada Day! So "only 5 rolls a year?"  
>  Up your nose
> with a rubber hose!
> 
> <<<<<<Leica has great optics but the SLR bodies have second 
> rate features.
> No compact tough motors or even removable finders and their 
> metering system
> is a shame given the price of their bodies.>>>>>>>>>
> 
> Gee you really have a thing about Leica slr's don't you. Is 
> there anything
> else in life you don't like? WOW! And the metering you get 
> right off on
> that one, whew! Is there anything you do like about the Leica 
> SLR and if
> there is I bet you wont tell us at the rate your going!
> 
> But I'll just bet, if Leica were to offer you a couple of 
> R8's with motors
> and a nice selection of lenses as a gift, you couldn't get 
> them in your
> hands fast enough before you peed your pants with excitement.
> 
> And I bet you wouldn't say to them, "Well they aren't tough enough as
> they've never won a Puliter and the metering sucks and the 
> motors aren't
> compact and for heavans sake you can't get the prism off!"  I just bet
> you'd tell them!
> 
> <<<< I like to here comments on the death of the Leica SLR 
> bodies or better
> yet when are they going to be born.>>>>>
> 
> Well I guess I've done it again with some comments for the 
> second day of
> shooting my mouth off at a tenderfoot fool who knows nothing 
> about Leica.
> Hell, I bet ToTo, you've never put a dozen rolls through an 
> R8? Otherwise
> you'd know what a real SLR is all about.
> 
> But than that's my humble opinion for the day!
> 
> ted
> 
> Ted Grant
> This is Our Work. The Legacy of Sir William Osler.
> http://www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant
> 
> 
>