Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, <aderca@s...> wrote:
> Hi Jack
> 
> I have been a long time user of the G1 crap, as you say.
> I then upgraded to the G2 crap, 

The G2 is the camera they should have made in the first place-G1 as is reflected in 
used equipment prices at the time (pre digital prices)-wasn't worth the money. The 
value of "my" G1 dropped from 1100 to 550 in less than 2 years-not because of the 
digital impact on  prices of all things digital.

which is obviously more expensive.
> What I liked about the G crap is that it was light and compact,
> nice for travelling, you can have the full complement of lenses in
> your pockets. I used the crap to shoot slide film, which as you
> know has little latitude for exposure. I was content with the crap
> except of course the slow focus, I was aware though I would not
> be getting a sports event Canon or Nikon.
> I must admit that I'm a bit of a snob, in that I like titanium finish
> crap, which is well built. Maybe it was me, but I rarely got out
> of focus pictures.

Thats because the G1 wouldn't let you make an exposure unless the thing was 
focused-a really irritating and amatuer feature

> Besides being a snob and flaunting that logo about, I used
> the crap because it allowed me to mount some of the sharpest
> lenses around, bar none.
There have been sharp lenses since the days of Galileo-you can't say a japanese made 
zeiss is sharper than  any other major brand-you just can't. You know that.

 Had I been better off, I would've used
> the Leica crap, for the same reasons shown above.
> I for one will miss it.

Don't get me started on LEICA!!