gabrielma

I'm with Dave on this one. The Leica 50mm f/1 Noctilux. They claim the Lux is dead, yet people pay an arm and a leg to have an evening with the King. The Bokeh is high cholesterol, and the photographer pats him/herself in the back muttering, "thankyouerymuch".

colon dash capital D

<i>"I have been granted custody of a collapsible 50mm Summitar"</i><BR>

Take the money and run. This Richelieu Cheney is a gem. I'm still too groggy to fiddle around with curves and stuff, so here it is "direct"; it's more contrasty than your sample mainly because it's developed in Diafine.<div></div>

Mea Culpa: I confused this lens with the 35-70 f/3.5 ; I'm interested to know if Leica made this lens or was made elsewhere too.

<B>Wee: No need to shout</B></B>. Yes, that lens is made by Minolta (some say Sigma, who you gonna believe?), most people don't like that particular lens.<BR><BR>

<i>I agree with Tim. Because of the flair, this picture has a unique quality to it. I like it.</i><BR>

Yes, this particular picture is taunting the flare with flair.

Easy. Lensbabies.

Bokeh underdog<div></div>

<i>I would not buy anything more than $10 on E Bay. The Lu[x] is not sharp `til 2.5.</i><BR><BR>

I needed to laugh tonight.

Leica CM for $1000? And an M7 for $3000? Did I get on the wrong time tunnel again? Who's the President?! oh, I hate it when that happens...

fleeting shutter while changing lens...<div></div>

almost with a speed and dash theme...<div></div>

Yeah, I thought Nikon users didn't need to prove anything to anybody, with Nikon glass being superior to anything on this Earth and everything, why would they ever think of burning their scrimped cash on such a thing? ;)

Thanks Dave.

David: last time I checked Toronto was in the American continent, so it is indeed American grafitti. ;)

I wonder why is it that your W/NW threads don't get moved down to the W/NW category when all others' do? Great job, btw.

But what happens when Ikon's arrival is known? Metaphysical plane is covered.

<i>His website suggests he's an average-competent B&W journalistic photographer who shoots unusually handsome couples in unusually handsome settings.</i><BR><BR>

You have a very good point. But what does that say about journalistic or street photographers that shoot the largest body of their work in NYC? Would they fare as well in, say, Salt Lake City, or Mobile, AK?

<i>After all, if they're giving them away, why buy one?</i><BR><BR>

~Anything that is given away should not be purchased~. Got it. Now to channel-surf and find Barney...

Interesting, I must have a Special Edition R8, for the shutter isn't that loud on it. It's not quiet, but it is quieter than my R5 was, and definitively quieter than an EOS 3.

<i>"One thing I noted in the Puts review is the need for lens quality is greatly lessened with digital because the image can be enlarged by software without loss or distortion, thus average lenses can take great digital shots."</i><BR><BR>

Many people think that computers can generate something from nothing, just like the alchemists once thought they could summon gold if they could only find the philosophal stone (or governments can pay their bills if they only crank the money-making machine). You can only extrapolate. Extrapolating mediocre quality just gives you more mediocrity.

<i>I get a belly laugh out of guys using the most over priced camera you can find griping about the cost of film.</i><BR><BR>

<b>Using</b> an expensive camera means you have money?

Yes.

(fe de erratas): snip the "does"

I was going to say. How many nails does this noneucledian coffin has it had? It's alive! It walks!!! RUN!!!

What about the post right below yours?<BR><BR>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DNAY">FS Black 35 Lux</a>