smc_.

For those of you who think Meyerowitz looks like Batman or a carjacker, you should realize that he is "invisible" in midtown Manhattan on a winter day. Lots of people wear lots of black in the winter in NY, so his clothing wouldn't draw much attention.

Whether or not your so-called attempt at "humor" was racially tinged, a mature adult would *not* think to make fun of a fellow forum member's name. Doing so was downright immature and dunderheaded.

 

Please-- If you think your little zinger is funny, it probably isn't. Keep it to yourself.

The Pix Channel interviews are fascinating.

 

Of interest, I think Nick Ut says in his interview that his colleague missed a shot of the young girl running from a napalm attack because the colleague was changing the film in a button rewind M2.

Steve:

 

As Back Alley said, the Ikon is similar to the CLE in many ways -- squarish shape, bottom loading, 28mm framelines, etc. It seems like a natural replacement for the CLE. I use it in tandem with an R3A. The Bessa covers 40mm and 75mm, the ZI handles the rest. I'm a happy camper.

 

One more thing. I would strongly urge you to post this kind of question at RangeFinderForum.com, not here. Over there, you'll get much less chaff to wade through in the responses.

 

Sad to say, but for some reason, whenever the topic of the Zeiss Ikon (or its lenses) gets raised on the Photo.net Leica forum, a few people get wild with anger at the very existence of the camera. The threads then degenerate rapidly, usually including at least one posting of a picture of (1) a sailboat, (2) a child dropping a letter into the Royal Mail, and/or (3) a baboon or other non-human primate.

 

So, unless you want that spectacle, avoid discussions of the ZI on this forum at all costs!

Rami: Asking for a portfolio critique on PNet is potentially asking for displays of dyspepsia, aggression, and abuse. And the *worst* of the PNet boards in that respect is the Leica forum. You'd get more gentle (and more helpful) constructive criticism over on APUG or RangeFinderForum.com.

 

My 2 cents: Your nudes/semi-nudes/bedroom shots are intriguing, and a little disturbing. I like them, because they draw me in. The shot of the two manequins is very well done. The photo of the woman in front of the Balthus painting is also a nice catch.

 

The rest didn't grab me in part because of the choice of subject matter, but more so because of the framing. On many of your shots I either wanted to go wider to see more around the central subject or I wanted to get closer. But that's just a reflection of my preferences.

"This is not rocket science; rather an issue in the cross field between law and ethics: If the item is still available, and a buyer unconditionally accepts a seller?s price and all other conditions stated, the seller is obliged to sell to that buyer!!"

 

Really? I know of no such rule of law or ethics.

 

As far as I'm aware, under American (and English) law an advertisement is *not* treated as an offer by a seller that can become binding once a buyer accepts it.

 

Rather, an advertisement is an *invitation* to potential buyers to make an offer. The seller can decide either to accept or reject a potential buyer's offer. There are exceptions to this general rule, but they don't apply. So, the proper way to think about this situation is that your offer to buy was rejected, not that your acceptance of an offer was rejected. Big difference.

 

So, there's no legal problem here--at least as far of the law of contracts. As for ethics, this is a commercial transaction among (hopefully) competent parties, and there was no sleight of hand on the part of the seller. The seller resold (apparently) at the same price to another buyer. The seller's explanation for refusing to sell to you seems reasonable and was openly communicated.

 

So, please, let's move on. There's nothing to see here.