Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 02:06 PM 1/18/2000 -0600, Larry Kopitnik wrote: > >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, You are toying with the prayer Liam Dunn chants in BLAZING SADDLES to the effect that, "Oh, Lord, will you give us the strength to accomplish this great task or are we just JERKING OFF". Think about it. As a professional, are you doing 5x7 seaside snaps for tourists? Then, hell, a Kodak box camera is great for you, one of those disposable things. Are your doing real professional shots which are intended for extended use by a client? Then go with the Leica. Nothing more embarrassing than selling a photograph for Big Bucks and having the client blow it up to a decent size (20" by 24" or so) and having it get fuzzy of a sudden. Makes you look like Joe Moron. Best to spend the extra money to make certain your photography is as good as you think it is. Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!