Re: [Leica] MD-12 and -- No Subject --

[lucien <lucien@ubi.edu>]

Walter S Delesandri wrote:
> 
> I find it amusing that the photographic community insists on
> referring to the FM, FM2, etc. as "professional" equipment...
> 
> The Nikkormat, which was ten times stronger than the FM, etc,
> never got the "professional" moniker!! (even tho pros and repair
> people considered it second only to the F series in SLR strength)
> 
> You Leica types will understand, even the "feel" of the FM-2etc
> didn't inspire confidence....Nikon announced the FM as a nikkormat
> replacement during the production of the F2....only after the
> demise of the F2 was it billed as a "pro mechanical body" --
> which it CLEARLY wasn't/isn't......

Walt,

Once again you have the 'chic' to formulate clearly my own
feelings 
about some camera like the OM and FM2.
(I had and used an OM4 and FM2)
As a Leicaist, I prefer to forget what you said about the M6....
;-)

But I disagree about the following statement:

> Just like there's no PHOTOGRAPHIC difference in lenses from l970 and today...
> By photographic, I mean that shots taken at the same time/same place, 
> on 100 print or E6 or tri-x, handheld, etc.....there's no difference..

I can see a real difference between a 35/1,4 and a 35/1,4 Asph.
(OK, that's not a good example) or between a 35/2 (1980) and
a 35/2 Asph. 
wide open or regarding the flare in the condition you described.
The 21/2,8 Asph. is also better than the 21/2,8 (1980) at
f2,8 or f4.
The Elmarit win against the Tele-Elmarit (1974) (even if I prefer
to use the T-E because of its size and because mine don't
seem 
to be prone to flare).
And I'm prepared to bet that the 90/2 Apo will be visibly
better than the 90/2 (1980) at f2 or f2,8, the day we will
have a chance
to compare them.

Now, is it important with TriX ?
I tend to think it is. 
Certainly the flare improvement is important for me
and that, specially with a rangefinder camera.

Now, maybe this is not true for Nikon lenses ?
;-)

Lucien