RE: [Leica] squabbling over digitial vs. film

["bdcolen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

So "rubber meets the road" when it comes to a 2 1/2 x 3 1/2 print in
your journal, but doesn't when it comes to the vast majority of museum
photo exhibits, photo books, and high-end magazines? Interesting. And
quite amusing. :-)

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of
Afterswift@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 1:53 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] squabbling over digitial vs. film


In a message dated 8/7/03 10:39:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
bdcolen@earthlink.net writes:

> Try making a statement sometime that is not a ridiculous exaggeration 
> -  such as your latest statement - and then perhaps there will be some

> point in this discussion. It is obvious, however, that you are so  
> besotted with the name "Leica," that you simply can't grasp the fact  
> that there are numerous pieces of photo equipment of equal quality, or

> quality so close to Leica that the images they produce are 
> indiscernible  from those produced by Leica equipment. Were this not 
> the case, all the  world's outstanding - non-newspaper - photographers

> would be shooting  with Leica equipment. And they are not. ;-)
- ----------------
BD,

I'm referring to a standard of excellence. Sure a Nikon is a very good 
instrument.
I use Nikons and Nikkors all the time. A Nikon isn't a Leica M when it
comes 
to ultimate quality at 3' to infinity. Just one man's opinion.

There are many cameras that produce 'acceptable' images. They're
commercially 
viable and I see those pictures in newspapers and magazines all the
time. But 
I'm shooting for my journals. And there the rubber meets the road.

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

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