[LRflex] Re: Violent agreement...maybe
- From: Philippe Amard <phamard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 14:02:30 +0200
Doug,
You are unique, and I understand your points alright.
But frankly, how many Birdmen such as you hang around?
Douglas Sharp spoke of FTB last weekend, I'm afraid you must sometimes
be feeling lonely then, and even though everything you write makes good
sense, the future of Leicas might not be there, unfortunately. What
you're asking for is a niche that is so tiny I doubt Leica could survive
within it. Hence the option of the Leitz vsLeica optics perhaps, or
maybe ...
Your dedicated.
Phil...x
Douglas Herr wrote:
>KEITH LONGMORE <keith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Whatever the performance of the Leica product in l/mm, USM on the=20
>>Canon product, in practice, will probably result in sharper pics,=20
>>unless you always use a tripod.=20
>>
>>
>
>OMG I could not possibliy disagree more, and I hardly ever use a tripod!!! =
> I have absolutely no interest in buying any lens no matter how good a valu=
>e it is that incorporates either AF or an optical IS by any name and there =
>is far more to optical performance than the l/mm metric that the average co=
>nsumer can comprehend and the handling and ergonomic design alone has me ru=
>nning away from Canon's products screaming for even the slightest bit of sa=
>nity! Then we can talk about the viewfinders of the cameras that are put b=
>ehind those lenses and I'll be more emphatic that there's no (expletive) wa=
>y I'd spend even a dime or waste even 10 minutes of my time on Canon equipm=
>ent.
>
>For what I do and for the kind of results I want in my photos the optical c=
>ompromises nessesary to incorporate IS in a lens are completely unacceptabl=
>e, and the compromises in focussing accuracy and composition and viewfinder=
> clarity resulting from the incorporation of AF in the camera are likewise =
>unacceptable.
>
>What the IS does is DOUBLE the number of air/glass surfaces in the lens, we=
>akening color quality and increasing the lens' succeptability to flare, and=
> the priciple behind IS requires de-centered lens elements meaning only the=
> center of the picture stays sharp, the outer regions are sacrificed BECAUS=
>E of the de-centering. If all your photos have a centered subject and you'=
>re careful to avoid backlighting it can help but I have no desire to have m=
>y compositional options restricted by a technology I don't need. I'm using=
> a combination of shoulder stock & monopod which allows me to use my long l=
>enses at shutter speeds much slower than the conventional "wisdom" says is =
>possible, and the monopod keeps the weight of the equipment out of my hands=
>. Many Canon users have figured out that IS isn't the godsend it's been hy=
>ped as; for example the demand for the older 300mm f/4 non-IS is still quit=
>e good despite Canon's track record of abandoning support for older equipme=
>nt, simply because the current IS version of the lens is optically compromi=
>sed.
>
>I could go on about the failures and compromises of AF and the abysmal ergo=
>nomics and handling of Canon's long lenses (which contribute to the perceiv=
>ed "need" for AF and IS) but I've ranted long enough. The bottom line for =
>me is that I'd much rather develop good technique in myself that can be app=
>lied to whatever equipment I'm using than rely as so many thousands have on=
> buying electronic conveniences that not only fail and limit my options but=
> also must be bought for each piece of equipment if it's going to be of wid=
>espread use.
>
>
>Doug Herr
>Birdman of Sacramento
>http://www.wildlightphoto.com
>------
>Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
> http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
>Archives are at:
> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>
>
>
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
