Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/07/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]><Snip> > > all know in a year or so. > > > > So both the Leica macro 60 and 100 clearly out performed the Nikon 60 > > and 105 micro nikkors????? > > > > Mark Rabiner > > Portland, Oregon USA > > http://www.rabinergroup.com > > -- > > Jim - http://www.hemenway.com > -- Nice shots Jim from what i can see and yes, I agree I don't expect Nikon glass to equal Leica possibly in the whole lineup there maybe one exception where a Leica lens is a real perhaps Minoltalike doggy and the Nikon is a recent design - with Mr.ED and that always indecisive IF. What IF? My work does not depend on AF I've decided and I've done a lot of different kinds of photography I think that AF is fun sometimes but i wouldn't stake my careeeer over it. I'm into Nikon for the digital interim. MY hologramic lenses in the year 2525 will be from Pentax. I also believe that AF is thought of as being necessary for a lot of photography for which it is not really at all nesseary. But a shoot from the hip macro style of shooting would be possible with AF when it is not with manual focus lenses. I don't know i haven't tried it yet. But i was real disappointed ten years ago when i got my 105 macro and a month later they came out with the AF verson of the lens.. I love it when you use a flash with an AF lens where it's real dark and the flash sends off a red laser beam to light up the subject so that AF can AF. Now THAT's what i call high tech. Am I having fun yet? Look at it this way: in a hundred years, who's gonna care? Mark Rabiner Portland, Oregon USA http://www.rabinergroup.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html