Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/19
[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! By spending the extra money I feel I can not blame the equipment for bad pictures. There is no discussion about it. It is all my fault when things do not turn out like I wanted. That is worth the money. The bucks stops here.