Re: [Leica] Re: Re: contax G2?

[InfinityDT@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/1/99 9:08:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, roger@beamon.org 
writes:

<< Same here! The operative question is what would you buy and 
 use IF you could only have one system? The reasons for one 
 system be damned! Be it financial, weight/volume considerations 
 or the appreciation for what will get the job done in the absence of 
 the other, the answer, to me, is obvious. There is precious little 
 that the G2 will do that the M6 won't, whereas the flip side is a no 
 brainer.
 
 Bespectacled as I am, my short use of a friend's G2 was very 
 uncomfortable. Its owner, likewise, quickly sold off the G2, 
 returning to his Nikon system as his sole source of 35mm images. >>

Bespectacled as *I* am, I find the M's finder a real pain, too.  I really 
don't see how it cold be *that* hard for Leica to make it HP.  The reason I 
don't cotton to the Contax is because a non-SLR with no way to judge DOF 
except by memory or consulting a notebook is of no use to me, there's no 135 
lens, and no provision for a reflex mirror attachment (Viso) for occasional 
macro or telephoto use on a long excursion which means having to take an SLR 
as well.  I used a 353mm SLR as my sole source of  images for many years even 
though I always had M equipment.   It wasn't until I started using 
medium-format a lot that I rediscovered the Leica M for handheld shots which 
were nearly as sharp as tripod shots with the 35 SLR using MLU.  Nowadays 80% 
of my 35mm work is with the Leica and I only use the SLR when I want long, 
fast telephoto, AF and/or computer flash and/or the 5-8fps motor drive, such 
as with wildlife.  For static shots, if I'm going to use a tripod and MLU 
anyway I just go straight to MF.
DT