Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/07/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Jul 2, 2013, at 7:16 AM, Peter Dzwig <pdzwig at summaventures.com> wrote: > All, > > This is NOT what I had intended. By pointing out what the Fount of All > Knowledge > was whispering in my ear all the way from BC to Surrey, I *had* hoped to > put an > end to what has become a fairly pointless discussion. > > I did not mean to lead to Tina getting insulted. Sorry, Tina. > > Keep pressing the button...and shoot from the shadow side. > > Hell, I might even post some photos again one day! ;-) as they say Peter "true, true, and unrelated".....we never know where our words may take us, while I felt your words were wise and true, an important reminder for all of us, I was very sad to see the outcome... twas a rainbow leading to a vial of venom... nuff said, Steve > > Peter > > On 01/07/2013 23:40, Peter Dzwig wrote: >> All, >> >> At the end of the day, whether we are using Leica, Fuji or something else >> I >> don't doubt that Uncle Doctor Ted would impatiently remind us that it's >> us not >> the cameras that take the photos, and that if we are any good anyway then >> the >> camera shouldn't matter a huge deal. >> >> Peter >> >> >> On 26/06/2013 23:25, John McMaster wrote: >>> I really wonder if I would have bought into Leica if I was buying >>> now..... I had not shot with nor knew anybody who owned one (I have >>> owned Canon, Nikon, Contax, Olympus, Hasselblad, LF etc and shot with a >>> lot more, all prime lenses etc) and thought the name was all image ;-) >>> >>> I was coming from an APS-C Nikon and was looking at Canon 5D II or M9, >>> at that time size (I knew I would not carry a DSLR) so went M9. If the >>> Fuji series was on the market at the time would I have bought that? >>> >>>> From http://zackarias.com/blog/ >>> >>> "You see, for decades Leica was the shit for the traveling journalist, >>> street shooters, documentary photographers, etc. They are fantastic >>> cameras with an undeniable heritage. But here?s the deal. The folks who >>> put Leica on the map can?t afford them any longer. They are a boutique >>> camera company. The working stiff can?t shell out close to $10,000 for a >>> body and a lens. Go price out 2 M?s, a 20mm ish lens, a 35mm, and a >>> 75mm. Go price that out. Then price out an x100s, an X-Pro1, and the >>> Fuji 14mm, 35mm, and 60mm lens. You still haven?t spent the price of a >>> single Leica body yet. Let alone two of them. And glass." >>> >>> With hindsight I would still go Leica, nothing to touch the lenses for >>> different looks and I prefer the simpler operation, but if I had not >>> used them what would make me spend 'rather a lot' more on Leica than >>> Fuji? Does 'full frame' or the build quality make enough of a difference >>> for the price jump to most people? >>> >>> john >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >> > > -- > > =========================================================== > Dr Peter Dzwig > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information