When you look at most legends closely you usually find a grain or two of truth
behind them. Leica is a legend in terms of quality, precision and image
quality.
There is probably some basis for the legend. I would not like to bet any money
on
there not being a visually discernible difference.
I entirely agree that some brands like Leica become the target for rich
collectors
and the price/value factor gets a bit distorted but these are human foibles
which do
not change the fundamentals of a products quality, just the price.
Some zuikos, like the 250mm f2, 180mm f2, 90mm f2 macro, 100mm f2, 50mm f1.2,
50mm
f2 macro, 28mm f2, and others probably have levels of performance on par with
Leica
glass but they tend to be quite expensive also.
You are right though, the tools are far less important than the craftsman who
wields them and we get hung up on the equipment but I think it is far harder to
discuss the non technical aesthetic aspects of photography with words than it
is
to discuss the technical side of things.
Giles
> Also, I don't doubt that Leica make superb cameras. The point is that when
> I take a photo with my OMs and with a Leica it may be impossible to see a
> difference. Which begs the question of what is the Leica owner paying for?
> But if they're happy.... I think far too many people are hung up on brand
> names above other aspects of photography (and watches and cars and tennis
> racquets and shoes and... ad infinitum).
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|