Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/06/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Good logic. On 6/17/12 8:23 PM, Richard Man wrote: > Jim, first of all, this is such an old saw that actually "everyone," > including "everyone" on the LUG would say that. > > (BTW, I find it highly amusing that terms like "everyone on the LUG" and > "everyone except a couple people on the LUG" get thrown around so much. > It's like everyone on the LUG speaks for everyone else, or like to think > their opinions is the only one different from everyone else on the LUG. > It's great to be the loner, or the mass majority, I guess, but I > digress...) > > Anyway, while there are certain truth to the statement, it's just to get > the gear obsessive people off talking about gears, but it has no reality if > you actually try to take photos. It's pure bull. > > Sure HCB would probably have been a great photographer if he used a Kodak > Brownie, but HE WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN THE SAME GREAT images. > > This is why we do obsess over gears, in the ideal case, (hopefully) not > because we are camera whores, but because we want the best tools for a > particular job. > > Lets assume a P&S has 300 megapixels and can make 10'x20' feet print > easily. The only caveat, for argument sake, is that it still has a shutter > lag of 0.5 seconds. > > Now compare that to a, lets say, Leica M9, which can only make "small > prints" of a couple feet. > > If you are a photojournalist, you pick the latter. If someone gives you the > former, you'd sell it and buy the latter. > > If you do landscape, you pick the former. > > So gears do matter. > > > > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 6:34 PM, James Laird <digiratidoc at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> If HCB had used a Kodak his pictures would still have achieved >> greatness because he knew how to create eternal images with whatever >> tools he had at hand. I know that sounds like anathema to the LUG but >> we all know it's probably true. >> >> Jim Laird >>