Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/25

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] What is in a name (Shakespeare)
From: Johnny Deadman <john@pinkheadedbug.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 12:49:47 -0400

on 25/10/00 11:58 am, Mark Rabiner at mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com wrote:

> I do like Erwin have some trouble with this seemingly worshipful view towards
> the defects of a lens.
> 
> Johnny:
> "A picture where the flare/halo/coma/whatever is absolutely integral to the
> way it..."
> 
> I believe the use of old glass is simply a more sophisticated way of getting
> what Hamilton got.
> Fuzzy wuzzy's! (as Ansel would say)
> Instead of sticking flagellated filters on the front of our glass we are just
> using glass with wonderful crudities of design built right it! I've got mixed
> feelings about it.

horses for courses

sometimes a holga is the right camera

sometimes a summarit is the right lens

sometimes an aspheric is what you need

why deny yourself any riches?

lenses are not a moral thing

none of them are 'bad'

'bad' pictures can be taken with all of them

ditto, probably, 'good'

- -- 
John Brownlow

http://www.pinkheadedbug.com