Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/02/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 01:55 AM 23-02-97 -0800, you wrote: >I don't totaly agree: The first thing I think about when I compare >different cameras is the 'look' (on picture) of the lenses and Leica >lenses have a look different than other good quality cameras. > >In my mind the second attractive thing about Leica M's is their >mechanical precision and durability, being able to buy an M-6 is like >Nikon offering an improved F with a modern meter. Mechanical cameras are >MUCH easier to keep up and running. > >Thirdly, Leica M's are tiny compared to modern giants like the Contax >RTSIII and Nikon F5. It is much more practical to carry a small >rangefinder than an enormous 3kilo slr. > >Forthly Leica more so than any other 35mm company concentrates on the >maximum quality market - think how many books are available on advanced >technique with the Leica vs the other admittedly good cameras out there. > >Also, Leicas are nearly silent in operation, with a focusing system that >is much better than manually focusing slr's, especially with wide >angles. And some AF slr's are very obtrusive with their focusing noise. > >And on and on: Leica represents a unique approach to maximum quality >photography which allows the photographer to bond with the tool like no >other camera. > >Just my opinion, Mark > > No argument here. Its just that of all the virtues of the M6 (and there are many), being able to produce phenomenAl pictures is probably the least compelling. Dan C.