Re: [Leica] ....M vs R's...

["claire" <clairetm@singnet.com.sg>]

- -----Original Message-----
From: Mark E Davison <Mark_E_Davison@email.msn.com>
To: Leica User Group <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 4:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] ....M vs R's...


>TMLee writes:
>
>"Can someone summarise what's teh basic diff between M photography vs SLR
>photography... Just read that someone said it takes some time getting used
>to M -use......"
>
>I use an OM4Ti SLR and an M6. Here's what I find are the significant
>differences:
>
>The M6 has a very bright rangefinder. It is much easier to focus wide angle
>lenses precisely  in dim light with the M6 than with an SLR.
>
>The M6 is quiet. You can photograph musicians and they won't notice at all.
>
>The current M6 lenses (I have 24/2.8 ASPH, 35/2.0 ASPH, 50/2.0 and 90/2.8)
>are optimized for low light, relative to the corresponding OM lenses. The
>Leica lenses appear to have less flare, and better contrast when shot wide
>open. Many on this list will claim that they always have a magical edge
over
>the Olympus lenses, in every situation, but I have not been able to see
>that.
>
>I can shoot hand-held shots with the M6 at slower shutter speeds than with
>the OM4Ti. There is no mirror slap with the M6 (since there is no mirror).
>
>The M6 is a relatively stable technology, seems to have very high build
>quality, and it may become a family heirloom. (I also have an M3 from the
>60's which operates perfectly and can still be repaired.) Photojournalists,
>who are very hard on equipment as a group, all seem to praise the M6 for
its
>ruggedness. The point is that you can expect the useful economic life of
the
>M6 to be very long. This makes the high purchase price easier to swallow.
>
>
>On the other hand:
>
>The M6 can only focus down to .7 meters with short lenses.
>
>The built-in metering with the M6 is, roughly speaking, a very wide spot.
>This metering system is primitive compared to the OM4Ti.
>
>It takes a while to get used to loading film from the bottom.
>
>There is no depth-of-field preview since you don't look through the lens.
>You'll actually have to use the depth-of-field scales engraved on the
>lenses.
>
>The M6 and lenses are such mechanical joys to operate, that you may become
>caught up in a very expensive case of Leica lust. A single 50/1.0 lens for
>the M6 (the famous Noctilux) costs more than a fairly complete OM4Ti kit.
>
>
>What is confusing about all this, is that either an M6 or an SLR can be
used
>for a great deal of general purpose photography. The M6 is the best for
>available light photography, especially for photographing people
>unobtrusively in dark places. SLRs are the way to go for closeups,
telephoto
>work (anything longer than 135mm), and use of fancy color filters.  For
>anything else, you could use either type of camera with good success.
>However, the M6 is small, and the black lenses (made of aluminum) are
>particularly compact and light compared to any other camera (including the
>OM4Ti!), so I conclude that for general purpose travel photography, where
>size, weight and reliability are important, the M6 is the best camera
>available, bar none. Especially true if you want to photograph in museums
>without flash.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Mark Davison
>
Dear Mark,
Thanks for the reply..... appreciate it...... Its heartening to hear from
another OM + Leica user ..... OMers are rare pple these days... sigh.......

The replies to this thread so far have this in common - ie, the M is
unbeatable when it comes to focussing at low lite levels....  sorry... but
why is this so ?

Also, "best suited to wide angle pics..." - does this mean that the RF isn't
suited to telephoto lenses ? Again, why is this so ? Is it due to the
'limited' rangefinder distance (58mm is it ? ) ?

TMLee