Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/02/03

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

Subject: [Leica] Canon doesn't see it quite like Mark
From: photo.forrest at earthlink.net (Phil Forrest)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 11:22:15 -0500
References: <CD33846F.4AC0%mark@rabinergroup.com> <D77433A8-917D-499A-90FA-9658D669B225@btinternet.com>

What Frank said.

Phil Forrest



On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 09:00:23 +0000
Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com> wrote:

> Yes Mark but you are -just- like Barnacks contemporary critics, never
> accepting that a smaller format could ever produce acceptable results.
> 
> Well Leica proved them wrong, not as good as MF, 5x4 and 10x8
> obviously, but entirely useable for reasonably sized prints and much
> more convenient for use hand held, traveling, climbing etc.. Today
> few people argue that MF digital sensors don't produce better results
> (at least in bright light), but superb and totally acceptable results
> in prints much bigger than Barnack would ever have believed possible
> are being made in their billions by people using the smaller sensors
> nowadays. Just like 35mm film displaced 120. Get used to it, you are
> a dinosaur - just like all Barnack's critics back in the 1920s. FD
> 
> On 3 Feb, 2013, at 08:05, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote:
> 
> > Well Gary I think that there was a guy named Barnack who thought a
> > lot of work could be done with a quality compact camera with a
> > 24x36mm format. After much thought he didn't go with 24x18 as a few
> > others in the time were going. Which was called "single frame" he
> > went with "double frame" taking up twice the film in length an at
> > the time  a bit of an unusual move. His hunch was proved right. It
> > turned out that most of what you'd ever want to do could be done in
> > that format for a hundred years later. There's really nothing
> > arbitrary about it and its not a minor subject. As is its WAY more
> > of an important issue that lenses. If the thread bores you please
> > continue playing with your cameras which could come out of a box of
> > crackerjacks and ignore the posts about eagerly waited for larger
> > format compacts. Me I'll be not be totally happy until the first
> > medium format compact comes out. An in effect:  digital Fuji folder
> > 
> > 
> > On 2/3/13 1:40 AM, "Gary Benson" <bensonga at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> All these arguments over format size get very tiresome, very
> >> quickly. Some people will think if any subject is worth shooting
> >> at all, only 8x10 film will do.  Others are quite happy to shoot
> >> with something else.
> >> 
> >> I really thing good photos can be made with any camera.....they
> >> will just be "good" in different ways
> >> 
> >> I say.....pick the camera or format that works best for you and
> >> your shooting requirements and leave the rest of us to do the same.
> >> 
> >> Gary
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Leica Users Group.
> >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more
> >> information
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Mark William Rabiner
> > Photography
> > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 


-- 
http://philipforrestphoto.wordpress.com/
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/philforrest


Replies: Reply from tedgrant at shaw.ca (tedgrant at shaw.ca) ([Leica] Canon doesn't see it quite like Mark)
In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Canon doesn't see it quite like Mark)
Message from Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie) ([Leica] Canon doesn't see it quite like Mark)