Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]on 22/9/00 2:31, Martin Howard at howard.390@osu.edu wrote: > What the proponents of 'better' consistently fail to realize is that the > 'better' they think is so obvious, is *one* of many, many possible frames of > reference, and that their frame of reference is not necessarily any more > valid than any other one. For example, a quarts watch may be 'better' than > a mechanical one using a functional frame of reference, but it may be the > other way around if using an aesthetical frame of reference. > What really pisses me off is the arrogance with which people assume that > their 'better' is the only 'better' than can exist. I'm with Guy on this > one: Provide me with options and let *me* do the choosing. I'll let you > know if it's 'better' or not. I don't need to be told. Martin, I agree with you entirely. There are still many photo dealers who would claim a faster lens is 'better', and they say it such a manner that I must be an idiot not to understand when they mean. Regards, Joseph