Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/11/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>Bob Rosen >I believe the operative difference between truly porfessional cameras -- such >as the M -- and others is the degree of technical quality they produce. The only thing a camera body really needs to provide is an absolutely light tight, rigid box so that the lens and film plane are in perfect alignment. The shutter must simply be accurate. If you use the same lens on your CL that you do on your M and you set your exposure appropriately, there should be no difference at all in the picture quality produced. There might be a difference in how easily you can focus the lens, how rugged the mechanism is, etc, but the picture quality should not differ at all given accurate focus. >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. I'm extremely curious about this statement. Why would a shutter mechanism type make it "supreme"? On a fixed lens camera, as long as the shutter has enough range of operation for the film speed you are using, it should be immaterial. >Very few P&S, even the Minilux, have shutter speeds in excess of 1/300. The Nikon 35Ti includes 1/500 second shutter speeds. The Rollei 35 is not a point and shoot... The leaf shutter in a Rollei 35S or Classic has mechanical speeds from 1/2-1/500 sec, X flash sync at all speeds, and the Zeiss Sonnar lens on my Classic produces image quality the equal of any other camera I've owned. I rarely use faster than ISO 400 film speed ... f/16 at 1/500 works just fine for bright sunlight (and I have f/22 as well). If you want to use wider apertures with fast film, just use an ND filter. And the lenshood works well, makes the camera look incredibly cute. It's much smaller and handier than my M was. It's two 'drawbacks' are the lack of lens interchangeability and rangefinder focusing. I don't need the former in this camera, and with practice the latter is also unnecessary for a 40mm lens. There are many wonderful reasons to own a Leica M. To me the most important is that the camera and its accessories suit the ends which you want to put them to. I found that my M was not the right camera for what I wanted to do and an alternative was better for me. I didn't sell the M because I thought it was inferior, I sold it because I felt it was an awfully expensive system to have sit in the closet unused while I did photography with the instruments I found more suitable. Godfrey