All I can say is... SNOB.
Having owned a Leica (a M-3) back when, I'd rather have my OMs now.
Why? I can afford to put lenses on them. I never had any other lens for
my M-3 than the 50 mm. Even back in the '70s and '80s Leica lenses were
too costly to own. I have a kit of lenses for my OMs ranging from 28 mm
to 200 mm, with a Tokina 7 element converter to take me up to 400 mm.
No matter how "superior" a camera is, if you can't afford it, you can't
make any pictures, good OR bad, with it.
Frankly, the instructor sounds like a jerk.
But then, I might be wrong...
Ed Senior
You make a good point re the cost of photography acting as the ultimate
stop to production. When gear is too pricey to use then the obvious choice
is to turn to more affordable equipment.
We don't know the entire story as we weren't at the class when this
instructor said whatever he said, but trooping around the front of the
classroom with a Leica in hand does sound a little bit like snobbishness.
On the other hand, if this guy goes on to demonstrate the capabilities of
other camera systems (SLRs and medium- and large-format gear, which all
have their own strengths and weaknesses) then perhaps he's out to do his
pupils justice.
Tris
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|