RE: [Leica] Chance from R to Nikon?

["John Brubaker" <photoman@novagate.com>]

A good SLR alternative is the Contax system.  The Zeiss lenses are, for the
most part, excellent.  They have a nice solid feel, that's not possible with
auto focusing lenses.  Also, Contax makes an all mechanical body, as well as
electronic, and even an autofocusing  body, for those who need it.  - JB.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Joe
> Berenbaum
> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 1998 3:19 PM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Chance from R to Nikon?
>
>
> At 00:59 25/01/98 -0800, you wrote:
> <snip>
> >Then to satisfy my urges for autofocus/exposure, I bought a Canon EOS-1n
> >about>two years ago (the F4 seemed too big and slow).  Great camera,
> >excellent>ergonomics, sharp lenses (but lots of light fall off wide
open),
> >focusing in>the same direction as Leica, decent flash system.   Probably
> >should have kept>it, but sold it.  Why?  Sentimentality (I'm a Nikon and
> >Leica guy) and>everything on that Canon system felt lightweight and made
> of >plastic.  Not that>there's anything wrong with that (as Jerry Seinfeld
> would >say).  The EOS-1n>took great pictures -- I just didn't enjoy using
> it.  I >know I may feel the>same way about the F5 and Nikon lenses after a
> few >months use.  We'll see.  But>sometimes we have to learn the hard way.
> >Still love the Leica equipment very much.  But try taking a photo of my
15
> >month old son with an all-manual R6.  When I tell him "Move slower John
> >Clark!"> he just won't listen :)
> >John McLeod
>
> I have had an af system alongside Leica kit for when I need it, first
> Nikon, then EOS, then Nikon again. I really liked the Canon lenses and the
> 1n and RT bodies I had but somehow I didn't feel right with the system.
> There was too much dependence on electronics for my taste and I felt that
> at least with Nikon I could minimise that and all the Nikon lenses could
> still be fully usable on a completely mechanical body, so they would not
> become obsolete. The thing that bothered me about the EOS lenses was that
> they depended for their continued functioning on the viability of the
> electronics that they had inside, and at some point an electronic problem,
> if not repairable, could render an EOS lens unusable even if there was
> nothing mechanically wrong with it. Although I like the usability of
> electronic cameras I also like the idea that most of my stuff will work
> without batteries if need be, so I suppose I'm a Nikon guy rather than an
> EOS guy at heart. Also, and this is quite interesting- (to me anyway)-
even
> when I had the EOS system I couldn't let go of two favourite mf Nikon
> lenses- the 105/2.5 and the 70-150 E zoom, which lived in a drawer, until
> in the end I just had to get a body to use them on again. Actually I don't
> like the "look" of some Nikon lenses that much- to me it seems punchy but
> flat, and the out-of-focus areas with the three 50mm Nikkors I've used
> looks totally awful and has ruined several pictures. But the way I get
> round this is I don't use 50mm Nikkors. With the other focal lengths it
> doesn't seem nearly so bad, and I can get usable images. I think my 50/3.5
> Micro-Nikkor (that I foolishly gave to my daughter) was ok, and I might
try
> the 50/1.2 sometime to see what its like. But the 50 1.4-1.8 Nikkors I
> cannot use.
>
> Joe Berenbaum
>
>
>