The ultimate Sin!! Leica sale

let's not have any illusions. those photos would have been much better if they used those perfect leica lenses. that's something talent can't help you with. :D
 
Hey, that is right, nothing wrong with Nikon, or Canon SLR's. Each has their strengths. Canon 85/1.2 L or the Nikon 85/1.4. If you load in chrome, no one will know which lens you used, or system. When you go to a gallery, if the photographer lists what he/she used (system) and you like the photo, are you not going to like it because of the camera system used. Come on. You will be more interested in the wonder and the reaction to the photo it brings too you.

What ever you like you using and are pleased with the shot, then that is the best. I like my F3HP and I will put my money in chrome.

Cheers

Mark
Quito, EC
 
yeah, I always wondered about those guys, using "junky" cameras, but still being the best. It must something to do with THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S EYE!!!
Click to expand...
A light hearted take on that...
Rob
 

Attachments

  • WTD136.gif
    WTD136.gif
    24.8 KB · Views: 0
X-Ray, you get more and more respect from me each day. I have both Nikon and Canon and have almost exactly the same experience.

x-ray said:
LeicaM3:

There's nothing wrong with Nikon or their lenses and the same is true of Canon. I've owned and used both profesionally for many years. It's certainly not true that Canon doesn't make great wides. They don't have a very good 20 but the 24 1.4L & 35 1.4L are the tops. Nikons 20 2.8 isn't a bad lens and the 24 2.8 is spectacular. It's one of the finest anywhere. I still use my F, F2 and FTN Nikkormat with only a hand full of lenses, 24 2.8 50 micro and 105 2.5. In my professional experience the 24 2.8, 50 micro, 105 2.5 and 180 2.8 are as fine as money can buy. I went so far as to buy an adapter to use them on my canon 1DsII. I enlarged the images on the screen to over 70 inches and confirmed my feelings that they are stellar performers. They held up resolution wise with my newest L series canon glass with less chromatic aberations but slightly less contrast. I would'nt change systems over a couple of lenses because they're so close you won't see the difference unless you're enlarging to huge prints. In my opinion the only reason to change is if you really want the full frame sensor.

The only reason I swithched a few years back from Nikon to Canon digital was because of sensor size and Nikons NPS repair service was really slipping. I went to canon, a $40,000 move and have not regretted it. I also like Canons philosophy on creating raw files and the design of the file itself. You might not understand this unless you've shot a lot of canon and Nikon digital raw files. There's a difference in how the camera executes the file and how it's biased to the over or under side and how it responds in processing. It's my personal preference and thats all. Both work fine and give excellent final results. There are advantages to a smaller sensor in some cases and for some shooters the larger sensor is the way to go. For most folks it's only a personal choice not a performance thing.

Just don't go chasing a system over this lens is better than that lens because both are superb. Where you gain with one system you'll loose with another system.
Click to expand...
 
Jorge seems to have sexual issues around photographic equipement (equipement fetish). Perhaps he needs new objects to obess out on---Luis Bunuel could make a wonderful movie about him.
 
good lord I left Fredmiranda's site because of the nonsense about nikon vs canon vs digital vs film vs sigma vs whatever the hell else! If you think you need a top of the line system in order to take a good photograph then you aren't much of a photographer.


Hey Jorge. I won $75 yesterday in a Super Bowl pool. What can that get me? :D
 
Well Magus, while I agree that in some cases a better lens or camera can make for a better photograph in the technical aspect, I would still say that the underlying shot. the subject and composition etc is seperate.

But now we are off topic so I guess we can agree to disagree or some such :p!
 
>If you think you need a top of the line system in order to take a good
>photograph then you aren't much of a photographer.

I totally agree. That's what makes all this hoopla about the M8, well, hoopla.

A top of the line widget might make taking photographs, well, maybe more fun or convenient or prestigious -- but not necessarily better...

Tried a Holga recently? Or a pinhole body cap?
 
AusDLK said:
Tried a Holga recently? Or a pinhole body cap?
Click to expand...
I have, but it doesn't fit what I like in a photograph. My photographs. I've seen good Holga photos, and very good pinhole photographs.
 
x-ray --

Which Nikkor "50 micro"?

Are you referring to the Micro-Nikkor P 55mm f/3.5 AI lens?
 
>I have, but it doesn't fit what I like in a photograph. My photographs.
>I've seen good Holga photos, and very good pinhole photographs.

Gabe --

That's cool... Such are fun sometimes, for a change.
 
AusDLK said:
x-ray --

Which Nikkor "50 micro"?

Are you referring to the Micro-Nikkor P 55mm f/3.5 AI lens?
Click to expand...

Yes the 3.5 is outstanding and so is the newer 2.8. All of Nikons Micro lenses have been outstanding including the 200. I still use the 3.5 and used the 2.8 50 & 105's for years with absolutely stunning results.

Nikkor glass is exceptional in optical performance and build. My vintage lenses are the early ones from the 60's. Now forty years old they're still performing up to todays standards. Contrast is a bit lower but they are sharp as a tack. I might have mentioned my favorites of all time are the vintage 24 f2.8, 50 micro, 85 f1.8 manual focus, 105 f2.5, 180 f2.8 ED, 75-150 E series f3.5 and my trusty 25-50 f4. Each are fantastic.
 
>Yes the 3.5 is outstanding

Coolio... I got me one of these for my 60's vintage Nikomat FTN.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom