Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/11/02

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] the 90% rule-long, rambling BS from Walt
From: "Joe Codispoti" <joecodi@charter.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:09:58 -0800
References: <SIMEON.10111020806.A@sova-walt.unt.edu> <01a501c163b6$aba37ae0$3e5bef88@compaq>

In my view, *regarding results*, Leica is superior to most brands in the
following areas:

Quality of optics
Consistancy of quality from optic to optic
Absence of shutter (mirror) vibration (M only)

However I see no difference in quality of results between Leica, Contax
reflex, and Contax G.

Any camera in the right hands can produce outstanding results just as the
same camera, misused, can produce mediocre ones.
In the end " it ain't what you have that counts but what you do with what
you have that determines the final outcome".
By the same token, to produce a good photograph, sharpness, ASPH, APO,
bokeh, and micro-costrast - the most talked about subjects at the LUG
(besides single malt)-  are the very least important ingredients. Lasting
visual impact based on contant, timing, and composition -in other words
aesthetics - are far more important.

Joe Codispoti



- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from Walter S Delesandri <walt@jove.acs.unt.edu> (Re: [Leica] the 90% rule-long, rambling BS from Walt)
Message from "George Weir" <george@georgeweir.com> (Re: [Leica] the 90% rule-long, rambling BS from Walt)