Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Interesting perspective, but could we not also say that the AE-1 enabled the average person to have an SLR? And take photos they would not have taken otherwise, even with a brownie, since the AE-1 was an SLR. Besides, the AE-1 forced manufacturers to make more affordable cameras....oooopss, sorry I guess I wasn't thinking. Peter K - -----Original Message----- From: Ruralmopics@aol.com [mailto:Ruralmopics@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 10:17 AM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica Camera of the century? Why! Nah, you guys are living in a dream world. The Leica as camera of the century? Sheez, like anyone cares about Leicas or photography anymore . . . the camera of the century is the Canon AE-1. Besides selling more than probably any other "sophisticated" camera in history it is almost single-handedly responsible for dumbing down the buying public in regards to photography. Yep, the Canon AE-1 must mark the end of photography as a popular hobby. The camera was so counter-intuitive in anything but dummy mode it's little wonder almost none of the millions who bought the damn thing ever advanced in their hobby. It truly is an abomination and therefore deserves the title camera of the century based on it's impact to the pastime . . . Want to know why nobody today knows what a Leica is? Blame the AE-1. Bob (face anything but straight) McEowen In a message dated 1/12/00 10:58:22 AM, bdcolen@earthlink.net writes: >If there is going to be a "camera of the Century" - and, yes, it's a silly > >concept - I believe that that camera should be the Leica rangefinder...Not > >necessarily because it did or didn't take the most important photos of >the >Century, but because it philosophically made them possible