On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Paul Stenquist <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jan 27, 2011, at 1:51 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: > >> On 11-01-27 12:03 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: >>> My real objection is generalizations like "equipment doesn't matter". >>> For some shots it doesn't matter and for some it does. My opinion is >>> that for a great majority it does make a difference. Better equipment >>> is far less likely to be inappropriate for a particular photographic >>> situation than lousy equipment. >> >> Agreed, completely. I don't think that I've ever said "equipment doesn't >> matter" myself, I certainly didn't intend to. ...
I've said "... Equipment often gets in the way of Photography. ..." quite often, never that it "doesn't matter". >> I feel that equipment matters up to the point where it is not getting in the >> way. ... Exactly. > I'm definitely not a collector, but I can appreciate the beauty of the Fuji > X100. Of course I'd never buy one. It's too limited as a photographic tool. > And in terms of pretty cameras, a Barnack Leica is more handsome, and an > excellent one can be had for about a fourth of the Fuji's price. > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2870904&size=lg A Barnack Leica is a pretty thing, but having shot with three of them for a period of 15 years I'd not want one again other than as a shelf decoration. The viewfinder is pretty wretched. I don't see where you're finding them for $300 ... The lowest prices I find for a usable condition IIIf body and lens seem to be in the $500-700 range. But I haven't looked very hard. Of course, they use film and I no longer work with film, so an X100 is far far more sensible as a photographic tool at $1200 than a Barnack Leica is for $300. At least you get a really nice viewfinder for that price. ;-) -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
