Wet Moose wrote:
> Which assumes that using a Leica would not have led them to leave photography
> for other, more enjoyable, or at least
> less annoying, careers or pastimes.
Now now. We've talked before about my past dislike for rangefinder
cameras. We don't need to go down that dark alley again. HOWEVER, I
will say that rangefinder camera or not, I fell in love with
photography and was actually a pretty decent photographer long before
I ever got an SLR. So, I'm going to just reject your negativism and
recognize that by your very statement I can surmise that your
photography is now about the gear, not the image.
> Contrary to what might easily be read into AG's comments on ergonomics, it is
> a HIGHLY personal subject.
I think we've established, eons ago, that my own issues with
ergonomics really are a highly personal subject.
> In TOP today, Mike says: "A friend just completed some tests on his own
> equipment and told me that a $7,000 Leica 24mm
> ƒ/1.4 Summilux-M produces visibly inferior results to a $1,100 Sony/Zeiss
> 24mm ƒ/1.8 E-Mount on a NEX."
> Part of his theme is that some of the rules may have changed - such that old
> verities no longer apply.
Five years from now, let's revisit this test. Granted, those
Sony/Zeiss lenses are nothing to sneaze at, but you're comparing
apples to oranges on many levels. I'm not going to even bother diving
into this one, but suffice to say that it is a bogus comparison.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|