Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 12347 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 162

Thread: If You Don'T Own A Leica You Are Not A photographer

  1. #21

    Default

    Plucked this out of photo.net

    "Leica is a commodity; Contax is a Camera."



    But honestly, I think that the same applies to all cameras, not just Contax.

    At the same time, looking at the prices of second hand Leicas, I can't help but think that it is true to say Leicas are comodities which are not much different from Rolex watches.

  2. #22

    Default

    no point getting worked up over Leica! get the real facts and hear the true leica users say their piece at photo.net. What's the point speculating it when you know nuts about the system? it's just another tool which one users to create images. Different systems have different suitabilities. Don't expect to shoot wildlift and sport or archi efficiently with it, let alone impossible. So why are they many leica die-hards, u need to talk to or find out from the users, not collectors or ah-pei who displays these stuff at home. Once you begin to understand the difference, constructive discussion can flow-in. else, it's just another canon vs nikon wasting crap.

  3. #23

    Default

    Originally posted by rochkoh
    i wonder if ansel adams ever owned a leica..
    no he didn't since he did landscape, what best to shoot this? LF maybe. Maybe u can ask another question, did Marc Riboud shoot with a leica, he's a street guy. perhaps the answer might shed some light? what about HCB? he does lost of portraits. bottomline, use the right equipment and be happy with your shots created by it.
    Last edited by greg; 12th January 2003 at 09:27 PM.

  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    293

    Default

    er...if you don't own a Ferrari then you're not a driver?!?

    read my signature below
    |
    |
    |
    v

  5. #25

    Default

    Originally posted by Parchiao

    But honestly, I think that the same applies to all cameras, not just Contax.
    also not just leica, be fair.

  6. #26

    Default

    Originally posted by ninelives
    was redawn "laring" kopi with the group of old man ?
    dun drag Reddawn into this, he's a leica user who has great works done with it. He's not a collector or ah-pei.

  7. #27

    Default

    Originally posted by greg
    also not just leica, be fair.
    Hmmm. . . quite possible. I don't think that there are as many modern camera's that can hold their value like a Leica can.

    But then, thinking of Leica like a commodity is a good thing isn't it?

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    L2TPYSG
    Posts
    4,057

    Default

    let's try the other extreme:
    If You Own a LomO, yOu Are NoT a PhOtOgraPhER.
    "I'm... dreaming... of a wide... angle~
    Just like the ones I used to know~"

  9. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Sgp/China/TW
    Posts
    659

    Default

    Ha.....wat a stupid comment from the ah peis.......i own a leica....but i am still a photograhper ......in fact ...a whole of my company's photographer do not own leicas at all.....

  10. #30

    Default

    Originally posted by denizenx
    let's try the other extreme:
    If You Own a LomO, yOu Are NoT a PhOtOgraPhER.
    Lomography, take pictures of your 'Lo mo' is it?

    Will owning an aps camera qualify one to be a photographer?


  11. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    We might as well extend it to:

    You are NOT a photographer if you :
    1. don't process film yourself
    2. don't print yourself
    3. don't own a Hasselblad, Sinar, etc
    4. don't have lenses covering everything from 8mm to 1700mm.

    and so on.



    Regards
    CK

  12. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    L2TPYSG
    Posts
    4,057

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang
    We might as well extend it to:

    You are NOT a photographer if you :
    1. don't process film yourself
    2. don't print yourself
    3. don't own a Hasselblad, Sinar, etc
    4. don't have lenses covering everything from 8mm to 1700mm.

    and so on.



    Regards
    CK
    u mean u dun??????
    "I'm... dreaming... of a wide... angle~
    Just like the ones I used to know~"

  13. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by denizenx


    u mean u dun??????
    I don't what?

    I used to process and print my own B&W, but that's so long ago.... too much of a hassle. Hmm.... maybe I should rephrase 1 and 2 to:

    You are not a photographer if you can't operate a Fuji Frontier or Nortisu digital minilab machine.

    Regards
    CK

  14. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Under your skin
    Posts
    533

    Default

    my take?

    If you don't take photos, you're not a photographer.




    Originally posted by ckiang
    We might as well extend it to:

    You are NOT a photographer if you :
    1. don't process film yourself
    2. don't print yourself
    3. don't own a Hasselblad, Sinar, etc
    4. don't have lenses covering everything from 8mm to 1700mm.

    and so on.



    Regards
    CK

  15. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by rochkoh
    my take?

    If you don't take photos, you're not a photographer.


    Aiya, this one standard one, we all know. Must post those tongue-in-cheek, nonsensical types!

    Like "You are not a programmer if you can't code in machine language".

    Regards
    CK

  16. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    L2TPYSG
    Posts
    4,057

    Default

    why do they call it Fuji Frontier?? because u never know what you're gonna get? haha
    "I'm... dreaming... of a wide... angle~
    Just like the ones I used to know~"

  17. #37

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang


    Aiya, this one standard one, we all know. Must post those tongue-in-cheek, nonsensical types!

    Like "You are not a programmer if you can't code in machine language".

    Regards
    CK
    Oooooo . . . this one is good.

    I can't help but that there must be some definition of a photographer. So I took out the Oxford Advance Dictionary and gues what

    Photographer - A person who takes photographs, especially as a job.

    So if you do some photography as an occupation, or for some event, you are officially bestowed upon the title of a photographer by the humble Oxford University Press!

    Now I can't figure out what I should call myself when I snap those pictures during those holidays . . . . . .

  18. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Under your skin
    Posts
    533

    Default

    Originally posted by Parchiao

    Now I can't figure out what I should call myself when I snap those pictures during those holidays . . . . . .

    a tourist.

  19. #39

    Default

    Originally posted by rochkoh



    a tourist.


    Kek kek kek.

  20. #40

    Default

    Originally posted by rochkoh
    i wonder if ansel adams ever owned a leica..
    Ansel Adams did not own a Leica, but he did own and shot a bit using a Zeiss Contax rangefinder. One of his famous shots of Georgia O'Keefee and Orville Cox was taken with the Contax. For example, this one: http://www.twbookmark.com/books/84/0...630/index.html

    He shot using a variety of cameras, from 35mm to 8x10", but was famous for his work on 4x5. In his later years he shot a lot of 6x6 on a Hasselblad. In fact there's a whole series of photographs called the "Ansel Adams Hasselblad series". For example, this one:
    http://www.photographymuseum.com/adamslg.html

    He didn't limit himself to any brand. If you look at some of the excellent work he has done with some old Goerz Dagor uncoated lenses, you will be amazed. I don't think anyone will even touch those lenses today.

    HCB did some excellent work with his Leicas but for him, the Leica was just a tool. To paraphrase, "It is LIFE and the people around that concerns me, not photography"... or something like that. He would have done just as well with a $100 Canonet rangefinder, or even a digital camera had he been shooting today.

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 12347 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •