In Reply to: Here's 'da low down posted by xenon101 on January 15, 2002 at 06:02:44:
*** I probably do more in one week with photography than you do in a month.Very possible I severely and intentionally am abandoning photography.
*** I have the luxury of being able to use and compare multiple formats and multiple brands of 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, 6x12, and 4x5 (using multiple lens brands).
I can’t not to miss opportunity to boost myself by mentioning that I use to work at regular basis with 20X30 cameras. It dose not make me more qualified but the point “The Sizeâ€, this IS important. :-)
*** I have never thought that I've missed a shot because the Nikon focus system was "too slow." So - frankly you have your opinion, I have my experience, and I don't agree with you.
“Miss a shot†is not an issues. The issue is (at least for me) that between an event that YOU consider should be “monumented†and the event when a camera executes your will ....there is a default delay or proxy process that you are not controlling. The longer time this delay the more opportunitys that the Reality will be changed when the camera will be ready. It is NOT so critical for sport, where the events are most of the time are structured and predictable. But if you actively shoot journalistically and candidly Life (I did for "artistic" purpose) then the speed of autofocus is absolutely critical and the most of the time is the major factor of failure.
*** Personally, I find Canons difficult to use because the controls do not seem to be layed out very well.
As a person who used practically all Cameras I assure you this is a mater of couple days of shooting and you’ll get comfortable …unles it is F2 :-). It is like a driving a new car…. 2-3 days and you feel that it was built specially for you.
*** It all comes down to personal preference, my preference is for Nikons because I like the way they operate and the ED series glass is very, very good.
Well, from certain prospective the FM2 was the best camera ever was produced….
*** In fact, in many instances, if you do not know what to look for in a picture, you could not tell the difference between the Nikon ED glass and Leica glass. In most cases, Nikon will be sharper if measured in lp/mm (yes! it's true!) but - the Leica picture will have more depth and apparent sharpenss to the eye because the lens contrast is slightly better. Leica designers know that contrast improves the "look" of the photo and will often tradeoff MTF for better contrast (and color balance).
What bothered me with Nikons lenses was the polygraphics-quality of their images (similar to the quality of Soundstage when you place the full size ported monitors write next to the back wall). The threshold between the densities looked like it was using a screen as a background. It is wonderful for the technical aplications or for SACD lovers but has nothing to do with reality. Unarguably the Leica’s lenses are more interesting but the way Leica’s body designed drive me creasy….
*** How about you???
I am photography for 20 years and worked in many areas of it: commercial photography (still have no idea what it is), advertising photography (serious studio and location works), havy technical photography, heavy processing… Use to be a hard-core photography artist (the Americanism “artist†is totally BS word to me) and had fairly interesting collection of works. Use to supervised and own some studios and labs. Have some researched and invention in photography was well.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Here's 'da low down - Romy 19:38:58 01/15/02 (4)
- The "decisive moment"? - xenon101 06:11:05 01/17/02 (3)
- Re: The "decisive moment"? - Romy 11:00:30 01/17/02 (2)
- Reality... - xenon101 09:13:49 01/18/02 (1)
- Re: Reality... - Romy 09:47:03 01/18/02 (0)