>From: "John Hudson" <13874@xxxxxxxxxx>
>snip
>If Oskar Barnack's light box acquired its reputation by accident
>there are and have been a lot of confused people out there,
>Robert Capa and Cartier-Bresson among them!.
>From: "om@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <om@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [OM] OM vs. Leica
>snip
>Albert, et al,
>
>I'm an avid OM and Leica user, so I have a good frame of
>reference
>snip
>Second, the Leica (or any other good interchangable lens
>rangefinder) is a better machine at close-quarter candid or
>people photography than any SLR
>snip
I couldn't have put it any better. And, it is the photographer that
takes the picture, not the camera.
Albert, in taking on a competition like that you show that all the
hype about Leica annoys you.
There is no need for that.
I often use 2 old chisels for woodworking. When I grind and hone
them properly they will make as good a cut that any of my
Stanley's, each of which cost about 5 times as much than the old
ones together. The dearer ones do stay sharp longer, but not 5
times as long.
But with technical items usually 10% more quality, precision or
whatever you want to call it, just costs twice as much.
My cameras (including a pre WWII Contax II) do what I NEED them
for.
There are other cameras for other needs (and, naturally enough,
showing off is also a valid one amongst them).
I don't give a hoot.
---
Reinhold
< 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 >
|