Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/17

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: Gauntlet revisited was: RE: [Leica] ...And lies there....
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <peterk@lucent.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 16:47:11 -0800

I don't think it was inferior and superior but Leica v. Another brand.  If
you remember, some tests showed the 50mm F1.4 of other manufacturers to be
superior to Leica.  So the question is, can one see any difference in a
photo.

PK

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@mediaone.net]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 4:16 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Gauntlet revisited was: RE: [Leica] ...And lies there....


Mike,

It really depends. You say that you are a really really good printer. Your
magazine is terrific and I believe you are a really good printer. If you are
as good as you say you are I am certain that I would be able to see the
differences between inferior and superior lenses. Are you able to bring out
the very best a lens has to offer?

Jon


>
>
> Jim B.: >>>
> It is human nature to want to be right. To NOT want to be proven wrong.
> And to make certain that one can support his/her own beliefs, one
> selectively
> collects his/her own facts and then makes broad statements based upon
> these
> selected facts...etc., etc., etc....<<<
>
>
> Jim,
> ...Er, so, then, if a person wanted to believe that Leica lenses are
> always superior to all others, in every case, and that the difference
> was always significant, and could always be seen in real-world results;
> and then that person carefully marshalled lots of scientific evidence to
> support this belief, ignored all evidence to the contrary, and refused
> even to submit to a simple practical trial under safe, anonymous
> conditions....
>
> Oh, never mind. <g>
>
> I'll presume this means you're "out," too.
>
> Chicken!
>
> --Mike
>
>