Hi Mark,Excellent point. Obviously what it is you want to accomplish weighs heavily on the choise of equipment.
I shoot mostly portraits, city/landscapes and tourist photos (I travel a lot, or used to).
You won't find my name on Google, I'm not a working professional photographer. I've worked as one years ago, on a free lance basis for customers in Norway, as well as for an opposition newspaper in the former Yugoslavia that no longer exists. Photography has always been a hobby for me, and I've had a tendency in all of my hobbies to pursue them to professional levels.
These days I use a 6008 and tripod when I go out with the intent to create images. When I travel I almost always bring along the 2.8D I bought a few years ago, and I like (and use) it more and more as time goes on. It's a great little camera. Light, small, unobtrusive, and with wonderfully big negs :-). For walking to work or around town or just to take snaps of family and friends I use a Contax IIa, sometimes the Bessa, sometimes a Nikon FM3a. It depends what plans we have and what I know about the day ahead of me. I try to plan accordingly.
The blurry Contax shots I haven't published, haven't posted. Haven't even bothered scanning all of them. I can't imagine what a Leica could do for my work either, but am curious what it could do for my photography.
I'm not Leica bashing, but rather incredulous after reading a little and checking it out more, and seeing the prices - which I can understand in one way, and the Leicaphiles going on about their magic cameras - which is harder for me to understand. As a sometime musician, hearing about people colecting Leicas (and never using them) is like hearing about great old vintage Fenders bought up and put behind glass. It's a shame, and it puts great instruments out of reach of people who might have created art with them.
I prefer your picture (guy with holes in pants and brassy Leica) to the one I find quite a few places on the net and in reality (like the retired doctor in NY a few weeks back), but am not sure which one is accurate or most common. Perhaps both.
Akhils explination makes perfect sense, so there's no problem there. Anyway, thanks for the talk. Thorp.s. If you're getting $10k to shoot a wedding, well, wow... But from what I've heard and read, US weddings (expense wise) have grown out of all bounds the last 10-20 years.
On 21. nov.. 2009, at 21.50, Mark Rabiner wrote:
Its "specific areas" which I noticed was missing from the picture. Rollei vs. Leica to shoot what? City scapes? Street photography? Portraits on the sidewalk? Landscapes? Tourist pictures?A discussion of tools with no mention for the jobs they are intended to beused for gets me nowhere.To be able to see some of a persons work is also a big help when they are talking about this or that camera they'd get use out of. A URL. I google imaged Thor was not able to find anything. No blurry Contax shots. Nothing.So I cant image what a Leica could to for his work.Also the price point and Leica glass varies tremendously on how old and usedit is. They go back to the 1930's. You can pick your price point.I don't picture a millionaire using a Leica on the street I picture a guy with holes in his pants using brassy gear who bought it used a long time agoand it not likely to sell it any time soon if ever. Mark William Rabiner --- Rollei List - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org- Online, searchable archives are available at //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
