KM-25
Well-known
x-ray said:the 24 1.4 and 35 1.4 are superb. All the longer Canon L glass is the best money can buy.
They better be, they are the largest primes in their class for 35mm. I have those two primes, they are exceptional indeed.
x-ray said:the 24 1.4 and 35 1.4 are superb. All the longer Canon L glass is the best money can buy.
x-ray said:I think the pattens have run out on the Nikon mount and that's why Zeiss is making lenses but WHY? Nikon glass is excellent. As to Canon the only lens that canon could gain from is a 19mm to replace the 20 that they have allready. the canon 20 is nothing to write home about but the 24 1.4 and 35 1.4 are superb. All the longer Canon L glass is the best money can buy.
All of this has been said about Apple computer.
I think Leica has already been striking alliances that will better their chances for survival ...
Yeah, Toby, I read that. No animosity, I just didn't see how it was relevant. He wasn't in the market for a Hasselblad. I don't think. 😉Toby said:Please read what I said: For the price of a 50 summilux you could buy an excellent ZM 50 AND a hasselblad.
Toby said:But for £1500 (summilux 50 new) you could buy a hassie and a ZM prime and have the best of both worlds - and surely that's the point, you can buy an extra camera with the current price differentials, and not exactly a crappy one.
Topdog1 said:I shoot available light mostly. I would say 50%-75% of my photos are wide open, and I can never get enough aperture. I think your remarks are truer of snap shooters than serious photographers. (not disparaging snap shooters - it's just a different style.)
/Ira
KoNickon said:You don't take pictures outdoors?
Leica...performance is not hype or brand snobbery ...The problem is the law of diminishing returns. Once you reach a certain level of performance small improvements in quality result in geometric increases in cost. So to get 90% of the performance and be a little worse in the corners or wide open -you can cut the price of the lens by a factor of 4 or 5.
The problem with the quest for lens 'perfection,' I think, is that it's simply a waste of time in most cases. Composition, lighting and subject matter are what make a photograph, and unless your lens is screwing something up (as in the case of Xray's Summilux flare example) then you're better off ignoring the whole subject.
I don't know what some suit on Wall Street might think, but 158 years of making money is successful by my standards. They don't hang around that long by being in the red consistently.RObert Budding said:I don't think investors will define success by how long a company has existed.