Re: Leica, advice please

"John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Annika1980" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >From: "Leicaddict" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > >You know nothing about Leica. Nothing about Leica users. Yet want to
> > >generalize about something you have no knowledge about. Of course Leica
> > >isn't for you. You're too dumb to know how to develop and print film.
> >
> > Leica users remind me of the so-called audiophiles who swear that their
> $5,000
> > Litz wire cables sound better than your basic Monster Cable or Radio
Shack
> > cables.
>
> Can't comment on Litz wire but I know from experience that wires do change
> the sound due to the variations in capacitance, inductance and resistance.
> All these things effect a signal and the resulting sound. That you can not
> hear the difference does not prove that there isn't one.
>
> > IOW, they spend all that cash so they must be better, right?
> >
> > Well if Leica really is the shit then it must be easy to show us some
> examples
> > of that Leica superiority. So give us some examples of that awesome
Leica
> glass
> > that Canon can't match.
>
> I can just picture you with your arms crossed in front of you and your
heels
> dug into the ground, not willing to accept that you may be wrong.
>
> I just shot about 20 rolls on a Canon f2.8/70-200IS zoom. Superb lens,
> sublimly fast to focus when attached to a Canon 1v. And, the IS allows a
> combination of blur and sharpness which I could never achieve with any
Leica
> (reflex) lens I own, and I own a few. This is an amazing tool, cheap at
> twice the price and an invaluable tool to a working pro. BUT, none of the
> images had anywhere near the biting sharpness/definition I get with the
> Leica. Yes, you can see the backlit fine fuzzy hairs on the bums of the
> models wearing skimpy shorts, yes the images were all sharp, but I've
> regularly seen sharper from Leica. Canon also makes some ultra sharp
optics,
> eg the 180 macro and the 200 1.8 so maybe these are better used for
> comparison, but I don't have access to these optics.
>
> The problem with all this talk over the internet is that it is difficult
to
> illustrate relatively small differences unless the scans are very high res
> and you crop in to tiny sections of the image. Not impossible, but
> definitely impracticle unless someone is on a mission to prove a point,
> which I am not. Simply scanning images and displaying them whole often
> proves nothing. In most cases you can sharpen any image to any degree so
> that even an inferior source can look pretty damn good. Looking at
trannies
> side by side is still the only way.
>
> What the hell is the obsession with Leica in this NG anyway?
>
> Why all the pointless bickering?
> JJ
>
>
Well, if it makes you feel any better, the same kind of bickering goes on
from time to time on the trumpet players forum. (rec.music.malers.trumpet)
Only there, they are usually arguing over the merits of paying three times
as much for a Monette trumpet (made by Dave Monette in Portland, OR) than
the other pro instruments that run around $2000 each. Is the difference in
sound worth the extra $4000? If you can't hear the difference, then why pay
the extra money? - Can anyone in the audience hear the difference? & yada,
yada, yada.......