Quote Originally Posted by Lee L
I told Don that I don't like to get involved in these arguments
You could have fooled me, judging from your tiny little reply... to this argument.

Quote Originally Posted by Lee L
The problem comes when people apply theory blindly, without regard for practical circumstances, and willfully misprise what someone else has said..
The only thing implying blindess is the absoulte disregard for pure and simple fact, backed by imperical data. You work in a physics lab, I assume NOT as a janitor, you should know what that word means.

Quote Originally Posted by Lee L
This is more of a case of physics be exploited with less regard for cost than physics be damned.
As opposed to those mass produced, econo-brand Zeiss lenses found on... oh, lets see... Hasselblads among others.

Quote Originally Posted by Lee L
Don's not stupid or inexperienced, even if he is only a photographer.
I don't know what you need to do in order to deal with your personal insecurities, but DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

Quote Originally Posted by Lee L
The professor shot mostly MF and 4x5 for the work he regularly exhibited in galleries and museums. When he came to one of my 11x14 prints (a Perrier bottle on a brick ledge with weathered wood, an election sign, and a screened door) he stopped and did the close inspection routine that we all do when evaluating technical quality; you know... the viewing an 11x14 from a few inches routine. After a few minutes he said, "You shot this with a Hasselblad, right?" I told him (truthfully in case you want to question that) it was shot with a handheld CL and 40mm Summicron C. He then asked about film and developer and looked closely for a while longer. So in the real world, at 11x14, with an experienced judge, yes, a Leica lens can rival a Hasselblad, despite the belief that it can't happen because of theory or physics.
In this case I would be much more inclined to see the state of the man's eyes than his academic standing. I find the very wording of it ridiculous: "...with a Hasselblad, right?". Should I believe that this deity with superhuman eyes can tell a Hassy picture apart from a Mamiya, or a Rollei? A THEORY is something that is backed by speculation and calculation. This is something that can be conclusively PROVEN. And if you don't want to look into numbers as means of judgement for some higher-level artistic reasons - fine. Sharpness is not the final judgement of an image. There is also tonality, etc., all impossible to duplicate with a smaller negative NO MATTER WHAT LENS you use to make it...

Quote Originally Posted by Lee L
I have a number of other similar anecdotes, but of course they too are theoretically and sometimes practically impossible. I know because experts have told me so. Both Don and I, and perhaps others, will likely continue along blindly, doing what we aren't supposed to do....
... So I probably just don't know what I'm talking about and you should take me to task for being stupid.
This is the part that takes the cake. Exactly how childishly insecure are you? That is what I take you to task for. If you also have the same complexes as to your IQ as you do in connection with your photography equipment, well, that is something that I have NO desire discussing. The statement to which any one with a brain would take exception was made as if factual and irrefutible. A is as good as B! No "ifs", "buts" about it. No disclaimers. Just a childish perpetuation of a ridiculous theory.

That said, I count myself among great fans of Leicas. I love them. I truly envy those fortunate to have theprivealge of owning them and using them. One day, I am sure I will to. I feel just about the same way about Hassys. And when I own those cameras, I will also know that neither can rival even a very pedestrian LF negative. Will I care? No. Will I make ridiculous, sweeping statements? No.

Enjoy your R6, Alien. Its an awesome camera.

Peter.