Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>>>>>>>>>> Now Mike will try to show that his setup is relevant for allowing conclusions of an empirical nature, as opposed to a scientific one. Well if that were the goal, there is no need to proceed, as it has been established countless of times since 1925 that in many instances pictures taken with Leica equipment cannot be identified as such. <<<<<<<<<< I'm missing something here. If in real-world photography, using a camera and lens the way I'm going to use it day in and day out, I will not be able to tell the difference between a photo taken with, say, a $2000 50 mm Summilux and a $300 50 f/1.4 Nikkor or EOS, why in heaven's name should I - -- or anybody not made out of money -- spend $1700 more for the Summilux? Because a bench test says the $2000 lens is better? Baloney! I'm not going to test the resulting photo, I'm going to look at it. And if that $2000 lens does not deliver a difference I can see, I'm clearly better off spending my money on the $300 lens and $1700 worth of film, then taking a bunch of photos. Larry