cd thacker Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 I'm glad you didn't take offense to my comments. Glad, also, that you are satisfied with the images you produce. But clearly there is something in those images you're not seeing - satisfied or not. You still haven't accounted for this mass delusion that is apparently the case. I wouldn't be too smug, if I were you, about what you don't see - just to be frank. And people are well advised not to get so heated about such matters; but, let's face it, photography is a pursuit of passion, so it shouldn't be surprizing when the passion spills across the electronic transom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted February 18, 2003 Author Share Posted February 18, 2003 Well, there you have it. All I did was to post a sense of enthusiasm for my little Leica and it's lenses, (on a Leica forum BTW), along with an image that I clearly stated wasn't a world beater...just an example of a nice glow and tonality I often didn't get from other cameras. Cameras which cost a shit load more money than the little Leica I might add (so that eliminates the mindless "status" angle forwarded by some). And out of the woodwork come those who's "witty repartee" includes personal insults and insults about the looks of someone; references to drug taking; a dependence on pure mathematical equasions to evaluate an art form; and so on. I guess it takes all kind to make the world turn. To each his own. Me? I'm just a lucky guy I guess. Most of my wedding clients are creative people, painters, musicans, designers, art directors and writers. They appreciate and see the difference, which for me is justification enough to keep at it. With (as Doug says), passion. A passion I don't mind showing with actual pictures.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted February 18, 2003 Author Share Posted February 18, 2003 Another of my "creative" wedding clients...thank God.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted February 18, 2003 Author Share Posted February 18, 2003 Another wedding shot, one beloved by the "designer" client.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Marc, people who knows what you are trying to prove knows what you are trying to do here. ;) Count me in as one of them. Don't sweat the small stuff. I'd say many here do enjoy the M lenses for different reasons though. And I agree with AL Feng their qualities may not be easily /readily appreciated. And this kindda argument will never end, neither will anyone benefit from it. Liked I said earlier, if one cannot see the light, one can't, no matter what. cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 "At the risk of being flamed, I have to share an enthusiasm for this little M camera and the glass it holds." Since you regularly post "I use X but I love my Leica" posts, you're evidently not worried about the risk of repeating yourself. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted February 18, 2003 Author Share Posted February 18, 2003 Bailey, did you bother to read the original post? I specifically referenced a new experience with a 50 Lux. Couldn't be a repeat, as I had never shot a wedding with it before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Same old, same old (same new). You periodically post these same type of "I use X but I love my Leica" posts, whether or not you use a new lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted February 18, 2003 Author Share Posted February 18, 2003 So what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 So that's my (accurate) point. Don't get so defensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted February 18, 2003 Author Share Posted February 18, 2003 Okay, Bailey no defence meant. I just wondered what your point was, which I still don't get. What's your point? I took a trip throught my posts over the last 5 months and can't find what you are talking about. I did a post about film compared to digital. Is that what you're referencing? Others have commented on those who compare gear, but never used the other stuff. When I express an opinion it's based on using the stuff. Isn't that a fair reference point? How do I express that without referencing the other experiences? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 If you still don't get the point you may never. Based on your replies I'm sure we'll see another one of these posts from you in a few days, just as you seem to do every few days, preaching to the choir, telling people what they want to hear while reminding everyone how you love Leica despite using x,y, or z equipment as well. Fine with me, but I was just noting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted February 18, 2003 Author Share Posted February 18, 2003 Okay, Bailey...I'll "curb my enthusiasm" just for you. Because it apparently bothers you enough to post personal innuendo on this thread. I don't quite understand why personal remarks are made here, not to just me, but toward a lot of people who dare speak in a positive manner about the very equipment that this forum is dedicated to. I understand when someone disagrees with the content and writes a rebutal based on their experiences. But the personalization of comments baffels me. Actually, what has been aimed at me is lightweight compared to the downright nasty insults layed on some others. I guess it's the anonymity of the web. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 So much for your not being defensive but merely 'curious,' Mark. <sigh> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Rowlett Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Um, Baily. Your posts of late seem idiotic, but I'm sure that's not how you intended them to be. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. What point are you trying to get across, because I have no idea either? Backups? We don’t need no stinking ba #.’ _ , J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Rowlett Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 For those few here who seem to have forgotten, let me just quietly remind you that THIS IS THE LEICA PHOTOGRAPHY FORUM. What do you do at a football game, ask the yelling, screaming fans to keep their voices down? Backups? We don’t need no stinking ba #.’ _ , J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_chananie Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Hey, Marc, can we get some more pictures of those babes primping? They're kinda cute. It would be interesting to compare figure work you did with figure work the guy from Canada does with the lovely lesbians. who are so comfortable with each other. I see his work dealing with relationship while I guess weddings deal with process. BTW, there's nothing wrong with nicely muscled women in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Tony, your lack of comprehension undoubtedly informs your subsequent insult. It does fit in this thread, though: closing ranks to match the back-patting and choir-preaching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted February 19, 2003 Author Share Posted February 19, 2003 Tony, for Gods' sake let him have the last word or this nonsense will go on until next winter. Me? I'm out of here to go shoot some photographs...with, (dare I say it?)...my LEICA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix_erazo Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Hey Marc, Great Job!!! That is why I got rid of my nikon gear and switched over to the "M" By the way take a peak into this Aussie photographer. http://www.leica-gallery.net/heymanphoto/folder-list.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtodrick Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Sorry Bailey, but I to have no idea whatsoever your point is. Maybe you're so enthused on making your (perceived) point across that you are not seeing clearly that you've really not made a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Yes Tony, I can see you're sorry. Thanks for sharing. Perhaps one day you'll be sorry that people cannot make comments without others getting defensive and insulting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Marc has some very nice photos on this thread! I always like to see his nice work on this board. Why is there always a Leica bashing on this board? If I lended Marc my Zorki3C with Canon LTM 50mm F1.2 would his shots appear the same? Wide open MY leica glass is better......<BR><BR>Al's comment about me being in a time capsule is interesting. Most all the Leica Info I have read says the 1976 Noctilux F1.0 is the same as todays design; only the filter size was changed. Re <i>Ooops, "buddy", I didn't know your Noctilux is a sample from 1976, my mistake. I was assuming that you had a modern Noctilux with modern multicoatings</i> What is the story on this matter? My mid 1970's Noctilux has very very little flare; it is better in the flare dept than my 1973 Nikon Auto Nikkor 50mm multicoated SC; My new Minolta 50mm F1.7 AF; and sharper than my vintage 50mm F1.2 Canon LTM.........Since I like the great quality wide open with my "time capsule" Noctilux; I will never sell it.......Maybe Als' sample was bad; not every lens including Leica is perfect.....<BR><BR>There seems to be a real beef here if one likes lenses that are sharp wide open. That is one of the reasons I like to use Leica glass in available light work. I was given a Minolta AF 35mm slr with a 50mm F1.7 lens; wide open @1.7 the lens is very poor; even when on a tripod; and manually focused. The shutter/mirror has more camera shake than my 1950's M3....For low light work It gives average to terrible results...<BR><BR>My Nikon lenses span from the 1950's to present; If I could mount my nice 85mm F1.4 Nikkor to my Leica M3; I would..........The 105mm F2.5 on the Leica M3 is a nice combo; hand holdable at alot lower shutter speeds than my Nikon slr's. <BR><BR>At least for me; I tend to be able to get sharper shots at slow speeds with rangefinder and leaf shutter cameras. (ie non slr cameras). It is amazing that gun shooters will hone their accuracy process by actually shooting; while too many Photographers here dont do very much shooting of photos at slow speeds; and get actual feedback. We did this as kids in 4H in Photography; but decades later I get emails stating that "the good slow speed handheld performance is an urban legend." Shoot your own photos; and learn what your limits are; with different equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy m. Posted February 22, 2003 Share Posted February 22, 2003 I am impressed by all the photos that you posted, including "Bridesmaid Primps & Powders". I also think the subject is very attractive- and feminine. I have used Nikkors extensively over the last ten years. I do however have images shot with my Summicron 50mm that have a unique quality to them although I find that the Summicron does not perform brilliantly at infnity. I should mention that a Rolleiflex 3.5F Planar that I once owned was optically stunning.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin quinn san diego Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 This is the worst thread ever. You're all loons. My trustworthy Olympus C-2100UZ 2.1MP camera takes consistently unremarkable photos with lousy resolution, offensive dynamic range, all with a bland to mildly annoying picture capturing experience. But at least it doesn't get me into discussions like these. Why is that Mastercard "Priceless" commercial running through my head? I'd like the last 20 minutes of my life back, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now