Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/11/06

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

Subject: [Leica] 2500 ISO
From: Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie)
Date: Mon Nov 6 21:26:01 2006
References: <00c401c70155$4d761260$6401a8c0@FrankDell2> <454EB466.3090205@eth.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20061106070325.024ecdb0@infoave.net> <454FDF93.7050900@eth.net> <454FFF5C.4090101@waltjohnson.com> <001101c70227$c5ba4ed0$a302a8c0@ted> <4550115E.9010405@eth.net>

not necessarily. The main reason why modern cars are more reliable  
than old ones is the improved reliability of things like electronic  
fuel injection over carburettors. Electronic shutters are more  
accurate, more reliable and very much cheaper than mechanical ones.
I prefer mechanical myself but electronics is inherently more reliable.
Frank

On 7 Nov, 2006, at 04:53, Jayanand Govindaraj wrote:

> Ted,
> But that was for a mechanical camera that would last a lifetime,  
> not an electronic gizmo with a limited shelf life.  Things will go  
> wrong with PCBs...
> Cheers
> Jayanand
>
>
> Ted Grant wrote:
>
>> Walt Johnson offered:
>> Subject: Re: [Leica] 2500 ISO
>>
>>>>> I absolutely couldn't agree with you more about these new M8's. If
>>>>
>>> someone could show me a real advantage to $5000 cameras maybe.<<<<
>>
>>
>> Hi Walt,
>> Yeah it's expensive, but slip back a few years.... maybe late  
>> '50's early '60 and buying a Leica was considered.... "Holy Cow  
>> you paid what for that little thing?" attitude amongst the press  
>> guys I worked with.
>>
>> But I had to have one, then another and another as my tools making  
>> my assignment ratio climb like crazy.  And I had lots of economic  
>> arguments about spending money for bodies and lenses, but!  I  
>> began to shoot better photographs, see differently and shot where  
>> others feared to shoot without blasting a twinkie light or two.
>>
>> As often as I've had to swallow hard at the Leica price on many  
>> occasions, it's always been the "value of the tool" and not what  
>> it cost. It's what it allowed me to do that counted, period.
>>
>> Yep 5 grand will buy you a lot of tri-x. But if you don't have the  
>> right tools at hand that allow you to shoot what motivates you,  
>> then the film is a throw away. No?
>>
>> And like you I can't imagine wrecking an M8 as I too would cry all  
>> the way to the repair shop, bank, and pharmacist. Or maybe that  
>> should be... Bank, repair shop and padded cell! ;-)
>>
>> 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


Replies: Reply from jgovindaraj at eth.net (Jayanand Govindaraj) ([Leica] 2500 ISO)
In reply to: Message from red735i at earthlink.net (Frank Filippone) ([Leica] 2500 ISO)
Message from jgovindaraj at eth.net (Jayanand Govindaraj) ([Leica] 2500 ISO)
Message from images at InfoAve.Net (Tina Manley) ([Leica] 2500 ISO)
Message from jgovindaraj at eth.net (Jayanand Govindaraj) ([Leica] 2500 ISO)
Message from walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson) ([Leica] 2500 ISO)
Message from tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant) ([Leica] 2500 ISO)
Message from jgovindaraj at eth.net (Jayanand Govindaraj) ([Leica] 2500 ISO)