Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/02/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hear hear. B. On 2-feb-2006, at 14:26, Don Dory wrote: > Ted, > Your response is a good vehicle to rant about something that I have > been > meaning to rant on for a long time. > > Specifically on two fronts it seems we have two related places > where there > is a lot of futile disagreement. First is the appropriateness of > tool. We > have arguments about this lens is sharper than that lens or this > body is > insanely priced next to this perfectly usable but much less > expensive body. > Whether you are a professional who makes her/his living with a tool > or an > amateur who just enjoys the hobby/passion the decision on what to > budget for > the pursuit of said endeavor is between you, SWAMBO, and your business > manager. Cost is a very situational thing. If you are a recordist of > weddings in those parts of Guatemala where Tina does her mission work, > spending $1000 equivalent on camera gear would be foolhardy from a > return > point of view. > > Likewise, unless you are at the very top of your profession, > showing up to > tour with POTUS on Air Force One with only a Holga in your hand would > quickly provide an invitation to get off the plane. In the same vein, > talking to Clay Blackmoor?, he had a 10 month ROI on thirty > thousand dollars > spent on some very early Kodak digital bodies as it allowed him to > change > his business model and vastly increase income from event photography. > > In summary, what is spent on the tools needed for the output > desired is best > decided by the purchaser. > > The second area of ranting is the area of noise. I think that this > is one > of those things that is used to brand one camera over another with > little > real appreciation for the actual impact. One example would be B.D. > who is > getting more than acceptable results from what is considered a > pretty noisy > Olympus. On the other hand some ascribe the Canon's performance at > high > ISO's as too plastic. Yet for years, the grainy gritty look of Tri- > X at > 1600 was looked on with approval and thought of as "artistic". > Just about > any camera with an 4/3 or larger sensor delivers more than acceptable > results up to 800 ISO and possibly up to 1600. I fondly remember the > infantile comparisons of motor drive speeds in the late 60's, you > know, 3 > frames per second is so totally inadequate compared to my 3.5 > frames per > second. My personal belief is that humans have an intrinsic need > to do the > "mine is longer/bigger/faster than yours" comparison. > > The full summary of my rant is that the person using the tool > should be the > one to determine if the tool does what they need to get done. > Crappy lens > performance to one is riches to another. Those Hamilton books > twenty/thirty > years ago that made the photographer rich and adored are a perfect > example > of one persons trash is another persons fine art and gravy train. > > Rant over, back to the saloon. > > Don > don.dory@gmail.com > > > On 2/1/06, Ted Grant <tedgrant@shaw.ca> wrote: >> >> >> I'm sure what happens on the list is, we have people who are damn >> fine >> amateurs and those who earn their keep through photography, so this >> creates >> a completely different perspective in regard to what equipment >> delivers, >> cost and their competition. >> >> ted >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information