In article <48ksb8$sgk@news.cais.com>, ssives@ids2.idsonline.com says...
> Edward - I originally thought you were flaming me for not seeing the
>inherent superiority of the Leica just because it is a Leica, but
>actually you were agreeing with my argument. I believe your conclusion
>was that it is the photographer, not the equipment. I couldn't agree
>more!

Wa-a-all, yes, I think we can all agree with the above, but we all like
photo equipment, and we all like GOOD photo equipment - it just plain
makes it easier (and more fun) to make technically idealized photographs, not that that is necessarily desirable. APPROPRIATE technique for a photo is what is desired. For example, Bill Brandt in England is a "poor" technician in absolute terms (his photos lack tonal brilliance, are not particularly sharp, etc.), but the technique is appropriate for the photographic images he makes. There are many other examples of photographers whose equipment and/or technique were at the low end of an absolute scale of quality (look at Margaret Cameron's dreadful-but-wonderful portraits for an extreme example). But, ask almost any accomplished artist who depends on something mechanical, electrical, or optical for the performance of his art if he would
prefer a junk piano to a Steinway grand, a penny-whistle to a silver flute, a cheap fiddle to a Strad, a hardware store brush to a fine sable, wet sand to stone, a box Brownie to a Nikon (with a Nikkor lens, of course! :<), etc., and most will prefer the better equipment because of the greater range of possibilities more capable equipment provides. You can play country music with a Strad, and make snapshots with the Nikon, but you can also perform subtleties of sound with a Strad and make sharp, snappy images with the Nikon that could not be done with
the cheap fiddle or box Brownie - the range of possibilities is greater with better equipment, allowing more freedom to choose the desired capabilities within the greater range available.
Which brings us to the next level: Steinway vs. Baldwin vs. Bosendorfer
pianos. (Personally, I prefer the Steinway: greater range of expression.
It can "crash" on loud passages, and play sweetly on soft. The Baldwin
is a great "soft" piano, but isn't as convincing on the loud material.
The Bosendorfer is just too hard sounding for my taste. :<)
Or: Nikon vs. Canon vs. Leica........... (Personally, I prefer the
Nikon because of the quality of the viewfinders and because of having available the widest range of high-quality optics [range of choices
again...]).
But to return to the issue: it does make sense to compare products and product lines here. If you care about ultimate technical capability, some products and lines are somewhat more capable than others. Since
magazine reports are so nearly worthless in their evaluations, it is useful to have available user experience. It is not useful to engage
in "product wars", and we must all keep in mind a bit of perspective:
in the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter if Macs are,
or are not, slightly better than IBM clones - it just matters to some users.
Hope this helps.