gsgary
Been spending a lot of time on here!
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2008
- Messages
- 16,143
- Reaction score
- 3,004
- Location
- Chesterfield UK
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
Are these just Reuter's images then?Reuters is a "Canon house".
Are these just Reuter's images then?Reuters is a "Canon house".
Interesting, whereas Canon has long been the go-to choice for sports photographers, Nikon has always reigned supreme in the PJ world. It would be interesting to see if there are any 'unlisted' factors. I find the use of the 16-35 especially interesting. I know Nikon's version is nothing to write home about; it's decent, but that's about it. I can't imagine passing up the 14-24 in favour of anything else when you need to shoot UWA...
I have read the Leica M9's images are simply OUTSTANDING, in every way. Malleable, great color rendering, high acutance, and a gorgeous "look". I would love to be able to afford a Leica digital system with some really awesome lenses. But, I'm pretty well stuck using what I've got.
I have read the Leica M9's images are simply OUTSTANDING, in every way. Malleable, great color rendering, high acutance, and a gorgeous "look". I would love to be able to afford a Leica digital system with some really awesome lenses. But, I'm pretty well stuck using what I've got. Right now, my only good rangefinder is my 15 year-old Bessa R, which is LTM, not Leica M, and all I have lens-wise are the 35/1.7 aspherical, the 50/1.5 Nokton, and the 75/2.5 Color-Heliar. I just wish I had a digital body to use them on.
I have read the Leica M9's images are simply OUTSTANDING, in every way. Malleable, great color rendering, high acutance, and a gorgeous "look". I would love to be able to afford a Leica digital system with some really awesome lenses.