Why A Leica M

[Afterswift@aol.com]

<<I need a small, simple, and discrete in-pocket camera, which I can
always bring with me. I am a little fed up with *shoulder cameras* and
photobags. Even the M is too heavy for everyday use. I want a
point-and-shoot that gives me creative control as well as the ability to
take a brainless 1 second picture.  I want to be an "invisible"
photographer, able to take a picture unnoticed.  This is the original
Leica/Barnack concept as far as I can see. In my opinion a new
*Minilux-x* is the best way to update this concept. --Oddmund Garvik>>

Oddmund,

I believe the operative difference between truly porfessional cameras -- such
as the M -- and others is the degree of technical quality they produce. When
traveling light I use a Minox GT, Olympus XA or a Leica CL. None of them
equals the image potential of my M3. So choice of one type of camera over the
other is a tradeoff.

Very few P&S, even the Minilux, have shutter speeds in excess of 1/300. Most
are locked into battery operation. No power, no performance. Those are
tradeoffs. 
Imagine a concert pianist who, because he prefers to travel light, plays a
small, portable amplified keyboard instrument with only two octaves instead
of the 8 on a full scale grand. Sure he can perform a Beethoven concerto, but
what will it really sound like to his audience, particularly against a full
symphony orchestra!?

Where the score called for the two octaves his instrument is capable of, he
gets away with it; but when he must sound octaves on either end of the scale,
he can interpolate with those same two octaves on his limited instrument, but
his audience will be disappointed because they were deprived of the full
Beethoven power and message. 

I think this analogy is sound. However, the more we know about technique and
the limitations of P&S's, the better we can compensate for their limitations.
When I'm doing fulltime work, I use my standard Leica M and Nikons. I admit,
when working in NYC, I'll sometimes employ the Leica CL. Most P&S perform
best with ISO 200 films or slower. Even the oldest M's operate well with much
faster stocks. 

The Minox GT and Olympus XA are with me when I'm not doing photography
exclusively. Both these models turn in excellent negatives when used with
imagination and skill. The Minox has a 35mm lens equal to that of Leica
lenses for all practical purposes. The XA and Minox shutters go up to 1/500.
Both these cameras use separate aperture and shutter assemblies. Most P&S AF
cameras use a combined aperture/shutter assembly. That compromise sometimes
shows. There are other tradeoffs, such as viewfinder area and clarity and the
accuracy of the Leica M rangefinder optics. 

I hope these observations are of some use to you. When it comes right down to
true image quality, the focal plane shutter is supreme in 35mm work. No P&S
sports such a shutter.

Bob Rosen