Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/10/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]George, Only you and James Nachtwey would know the answer. Cheers Jayanand On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 11:04 PM, George Lottermoser <imagist3 at mac.com>wrote: > > On Oct 19, 2011, at 9:57 PM, Jayanand Govindaraj wrote: > > > I agree 100% with Mark. Its about results, not pixel peeping. That is a > > subject reserved for all of us to endlessly debate.(-: > > Of course it's about the "results," > whether one uses 80 mp medium format backs or a Diana. > > Yet when we purchase a lens and can't stand looking at the pixels > that lens produces - then we're not getting the "results" - are we? > > The fact that a famous photographer uses a lens with the same name and > numbers > does not mean our copy of that lens is automatically a wonderful performer; > or make our photographs into his famous photographs. > > Why would I shoot with a 16 - 35 canon on my (then 10D and 20D) > when the 10 - 22 out performed it by a mile > or on the 5D > when the > 21 SA R, > 24 elmarit R, > 35 summicron R, > 35 summilux R, > 28 elmarit and summicron, > 35 lux asph > shot the pants off it > and > even the lowly 15mm Wide-Heliar put it to shame? > > Y (and Natchwey's) MMV > > Regards, > George Lottermoser > george at imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com/blog > http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >