Fine.
Right.
I'm a real idiot with inconsistent arguments and desires.
You win the intellectual discussion.
I still want what I want.
It's still exactly what I described.
From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Bob,
> You're usually one of my favourite correspondents to PDML, but this time
> you've gone off half-cocked. The inconsistency of your argument is a
> joke.
>
> On one hand you say,
>
> > I am willing
> > to pay the extra necessary to obtain what I want.
>
> But later you contradict yourself thus,
>
> > Your solution is to have multiple camera systems for the
> > same format - a rangefinder to be small, light and quiet and an SLR to
> be
> > large, heavy and noisy. So... ah... you got a rangefinder that uses
> the same
> > lenses as this SLR? I don't have much good to say about having to
> duplicate
> > about six very expensive lenses.
>
> So not only do you actually begrudge spending more money to get the
> tools most suited to each specific task (although at first you talked
> like Daddy Warbucks ready to spend any amount to get exactly what you
> wanted), but your arguing point is the crock you accused mine of being.
>
> I never wrote that it was the purpose of an SLR to be "large, heavy and
> noisy". Only that it was the forte of 35mm rangefinder cameras to be
> small and quiet. One set of attributes ~does not~ force the alternative
> design of camera to possess diametrically opposite attributes. The
> Olympus OM-series is proof enough of that. No Pentax was ever so quiet
> :(
>
> > I don't have much good to say about having to duplicate
> > about six very expensive lenses.
>
> What would be the point of having a duplicated kit of lenses for both
> camera types, if you did in fact have both? Obviously if
> photomacrography was one of your tasks/interests you would only get
> macro lenses for your SLR. There would be no point to having a macro
> set-up for a rangefinder system if you had the option of an SLR system
> to hang it on. If you had a need for super-telephoto lenses you would
> only want them for your SLR system. Your choice for the wide to
> ultrawide range would have pluses and minuses with either system.
> Rangefinders as a rule have better wide lenses because their designs are
> not compromised by deep camera bodies, but I realise that some
> photographers feel a need to preview wide/ultrawide shots through the
> lens to avoid any nasty flare surprises. So some hard choices to be made
> there and perhaps one or two focal length duplications.
>
> But the fast-standard to short telephoto choice is a no-contest if it's
> for quiet and inconspicuous photography. Get the rangefinder lens. This
> is firmly in the realm of stealth photography, whether it's to avoid the
> edge of Greg Norman's tongue after you've upset his ten foot putt for
> the championship on the last hole of the last day of a tournament, to
> avoid a hissy-fit from surrounding theatre patrons who've paid to hear
> Kenneth Branagh's dulcet tones and not instant-return mirror, or to
> avoid being worked over by the dope-dealer you've just immortalised in
> gelatin and silver.
>
> Noise no problem? Then what's your point? Don't get a rangefinder and
> butt out of a exchange of views about "times when small and quiet are
> paramount".
>
> > I don't like rangefinders. Not best suited for macro work. Won't take
> large
> > lenses
>
> Did I tell anyone to ditch SLRs for rangefinders? Use the SLR where it's
> best, why wouldn't you? Once again you misrepresented my argument to
> score some cheap little point where in fact you had none. Everything
> else you wrote is deliberately provocative, self-aggrandising tripe. You
> know the answers to the mock-naive questions you posed. But for the
> record:
>
> * I believe Leicas can take SLR lenses with an appropriate adapter
> (scale focussing only) so by default Konica Hexars and the latest
> Cosina-Voigtlandter can too. Leica screw thread can be adapted to
> anything with a longer back focus so that includes the first two
> Cosina-Voigtlandters and countless ex-USSR knockoffs of Leicas.
>
> * No brand recommendations from me as I've no experience of ownership to
> base opinions on;
>
> * Not AFAIK.
>
> > Your points may be good market points. Nevertheless, I know what I
> want.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bob...
>
> And I know what you ~won't~ get, and that's a manually wound new Pentax
> 35mm SLR. The mechanical age is finished. Get over it.
>
> Regards,
> Anthony Farr (who has no rangefinders or AF SLRs but ~can~ read the
> writing on the wall)
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
