Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/04/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I always look at the writer to get a context. He's a business writer. Usually these people are reviewing tech gadgets and flash drives and they hand them a camera to write up. When they are handed a Leica they are in no position to write anything about it and no one cares... The thing this is a filler piece. Kind of an extended caption they wanted a pic of the M on the page. Informed copy from the inside track is far from the point. They had a few inches laid out for text which needed to be filled. Didn't matter who wrote it or what was really said. Could have been Lorem ipsum. On 4/4/14 9:50 PM, "Howard Ritter" <hlritter at bex.net> wrote: > Nothing's wrong with the caption calling an M typ 240 a "vintage camera"?if > the dateline is 2114! > > ;-) > > ?howard > > > On Apr 4, 2014, at 4:57 PM, Geoff Hopkinson <hopsternew at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Notice the caption of the photo ? The rest of the article is hardly more >> accurate. >> >> >> Cheers >> Geoff >> http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman >> >> >> On 5 April 2014 01:27, Tina Manley <images at comporium.net> wrote: >> >>> LUG: >>> >>> This doesn't really answer anything: >>> >>> >>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/why-leica-camera-decided-to-leave-its >>> -beloved-r-series-behind/2014/04/04/4eacaa6a-b9ce-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_sto >>> ry.html >>> >>> Don't really know why it merits an article in the Washington Post. >>> >>> Tina > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information -- Mark William Rabiner Photographer http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/