[none]

[Tom Bryant <tbryant@pars5.gsfc.nasa.gov>]

Hi Luggers,

> 5: Which is the better of the two aforementioned lenses? And why?
snip
>     The Summilux. Snip

> Charton Heston you aint buddy. This particular commandment aint written in
> stone yet. The Sumicron for Leica is the Kodachrome for Kodak: its
> main... (I forgot the word) deal.

    Well, I hope not.  Rumor has it that the great yellow father is getting
ready to kill Kodachrome.  

    Actually, I do have a Summicron.  The 90mm variety, the old long focus
design, and it performs very well.

    The deal for me is speed.  I find myself shooting wide open much of the
time in available light.  There never seems to be enough speed, even at f/2 or
1.4.  In insane moments, I consider the Noctilux.  In saner moments, the
Summilux is good enough, barely.  My classic 50mm f/2 collapsable Summicron
lasted 3 months before I sold it, and it was a sharp, compact lens.

> DD or SD?. The people who work in the factory think DD. But their... <snip>

    I had a mint- early M3 for a while, and it was the best made of all the Ms
I've ever seen.  The hinged back fit more precisely,  the double stroke wind
was buttery smooth, and the shutter was whisper quite.  However, the non
power-of-two shutter speeds, the smaller viewfinder window (I wear glasses)
and a handsome offer at a photo show sent it on it's way.

    My current cameras are a couple of single stroke M3s, #876,878 and
#1,090,813.  The former has been converted to single stroke by Ken Ruth (Photo
on Bald Mtn) and the latter was just overhauled by Sherry (both do *excellent*
work, BTW).

> particular expertise is not in the shooting of the cameras is it? As far
> a the using of the cameras go the Leica M is widely considered to be
> very much a wide angle camera; problematical with the needed eyes on the
> M3. I'm not saying its not a great camera.

    When you're a speed fiend, accurate focusing is paramount.  Thus the M3,
the most precise rangefinder Leica ever made (see Steve Grady's site, or
Sherry's article).  I also find the almost life sized M3 image easier to use
with both eyes open.

    Go to Bill Pierce's site for an excellent article about shooting with an
M.  Bottom line, is that you wander around with the camera *not* at your eye.
When a good shot starts to happen, you prepare the camera (lens and shutter),
raise it to your eye, focus, and shoot. 

    I find that I frame before the camera hits my eye.  If I have time, I
switch lenses, or zoom with my feet.  The lack of the wide angle frames is not
a problem for me, but I suspect that this is a matter of temperement, and
practice.  I've been shooting Leica Ms for decades, and after a while you
learn to take advantage of the inconveniences.

> The guy who gave us the Gaussian Blur Filter in Photoshop undoubtably.

    Same guy, different mathematics.

Response to other comments:

> And Eric's R 19/2,8 ?

> Lucien

    It's a retrofocus design.  The M allows the designer to use less of the
retrofocus principal when designining the lens.  Translation: less flare,
greater sharpness. 

> There is the 15mm 3.4 Super Angulon. It's a Zeiss design,

    Ummmm. Isn't the Super Angulon a Schneider trademark?

> You haven't used the 70-180 2.8. You would not believe how un-fuzzy it is.

    For that price, it better be.  However, physics allows you to build a zoom
that at best can *almost* equal a prime, all things being equal.

    Tom.