In article 2006100322373016807-notreallymeNOSPAM@ixnetcomcom,
Michael Weinstein wrote:
On 2006-10-03 19:21:57 -0400, (Philip Homburg) said:
In article ,
Paul Rubin wrote:
In car terms, a Leica is like a vintage British roadster while a
current Nikon SLR is like a new computerized Toyota Prius. The Prius
gets much better gas mileage, is more reliable, can go just as fast,
and can take you anywhere the roadster can take you, but it's nowhere
near as interesting to drive. As a pure utilitarian transportation
device, the roadster is ridiculous. But that's not why people buy
them.
Last weekend, I spend most of the time looking through a 300/2.8.
I sort of doubt that any range finder is going to provide anything close
to that experience.
On the other hand you could look through the Hubble Telescope and
that's more of an experience than your 300 f/2.8, though I must admit a
300 f/2.8 has a lot of style to it. Nevertheless, photography is not
all about telephotos, and the rangefinders have never been about more
than moderate telephotos. They have their own appeal.
Yes, but the analogy was wrong. Range finders are much more like motor bikes
if you want to compare SLRs to cars.
A motor bike can be a lot of fun, does have some advantages over a car,
but as a general purpose transportation device, the car is more practical
and more convenient.
It's the same thing with RF and SLR. RF does have its advantages, but the
system supports only a limited range of focal lengths. (And an SLR tends
to warn you that DoF is going to be an issue).
Once you get outside that range, the SLR is the only sensible option.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency