Noctilux does NYC

3 Comments

1. mingmac
   Posted December 10, 2009 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

   $ 10,000 Oooooooooh

2. John Koelsch
   Posted December 10, 2009 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

   Hmmm, wondering back a bit to the days of the ailing and starving Edward Weston on Wildcat Hill near Carmel. Wonder what EW would think of all these rich city boy shutterbugs…who’ve never taken a decent picture but have all the latest toys.

3. David
   Posted December 11, 2009 at 1:28 am | Permalink

   Do you need such an expensive lens to take a good picture in most situations? Obviously not. You don’t even need a Leica (dare I say!) (Chase Chavez with an iPhone is awesome). (I say most situations because you do need an expensive lens like a 400mm f/2.8 or a 600mm /4.0 to take decent wildlife pictures, and those lenses are expensive).

   Does it necessarily follow that if you are rich and have a bunch of camera equipment, that you are necessarily a bad photographer who has never taken a decent picture? Or that if you did it’s out of pure luck and skill? I don’t know, but I think that is a bit of stereotype. Is that much different than saying that poor people who have cheap camera equipment are more likely to take decent pictures? Again, I don’t know since I’ve never conducted a controlled study myself . . .