On Thu, 5 Aug 1999 JIM_TEO@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> No, I don't doubt their ability, but there are plenty of camera owners who
> buy Leica for the name of the front.
For the last time...I never addressed the duffers...not once. I always
have been careful in this discussion to limit its scope to the pros, and
why Leicas are over-represented at the top of that heap. I remain
forever thankful to the legions of Drs, Lawyers, etc. who in fact, are
keeping OM SLRs and Leitz afloat. If it weren't for them, these product
lines would have ceased to exist long ago. Please resist the urge of
trying to enlighten me on consumer status icons. I know.
> The world of advertising is now based on brand identity
It has been since the rise of the flaneur, in the late 1800s.
> Ultimately, a good picture depend on the person behind the viewfinder
> and Not the brand of camera system used.
Of course. I agree 100%. Although if you had to cover a boxing match,
and were given a pinhole camera to do it, you might not come back with
as many usable images as the guy with the F5 and the 300/2.8...
the type of equipment CAN and does make a difference.
*= Doris Fang =*
Such comparison is somehow totally out, how could we compare a
primitive camera to a high tech one? It is just like recording a 100M
sprint timing using a sundial to a digital watch.
Jim Teo_____________________________________________________
< 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 >
< 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 >
|