Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In response to this thread, I'd offer a mere one-word suggestion: CL. (And I wish Leica were listening.) Art Peterson - ----Original Message Follows---- From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <ramarren@bayarea.net> Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us To: "Leica Users Group" <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Subject: [Leica] re: Leica M - small and compact?? thoughts (long) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 08:40:20 -0700 >>I keep hearing the argument that the M is light ... >> >>I believe that if you want to compare the M for weight, you shouldn't >>compare it to the traditional SLR, but to a modern point and shoot. >>Because that's what the M competes with: > >In a pig's eye it does... The M competes >with top of the line SLRs, in terms of its optics, and in terms of what most >people use it for. It is a top quality all mechanical camera, that because >it is a rangefinder is smaller, lighter, and more compact than any of the >other top quality cameras around. I don't think the post was intending to compare the M *as* a point and shoot, rather *to* the size and weight of the current generation point and shoot compacts. That's what most people nowadays think of as small and light. I have wrestled with this idea a lot as well. The Leica 35mm camera was a miniature camera by the standards of the day when it was introduced. Those standards meant that the average professional camera was something large and heavy like a view camera or 4x5 press camera. The Leica rangefinder camera was quite a bit smaller and faster operating than anything like that. Even when the Rolleiflex TLR's star ascended, the Leica was a smaller camera which you didn't have to load so frequently and which could be operated very quickly, opening a new realm of still photography aesthetics. That size and weight advantage has eroded since the SLR tidal wave swept 35mm in the '60s. Compared to the top line professional 35mm SLRs, the Leica M has a size advantage still but it's much less than it used to be. Compared to professional calibre 35mm SLRs like the Nikon FM2n, the advantage is virtually non-existent. A Leica M with 28, 50, 90mm lenses consumes almost exactly the same space as a Nikon FM2n with the same lenses in my camera bag, and the weight difference is mere ounces. I have owned and sold several Leica Ms over the years. I think I understand why I sold them now ... it finally dawned on me why I was unhappy with them. You see, I was trying to think of the Leica M as a more compact Nikon FM with fabulous Leica glass and a rangefinder, just limited to lenses shorter than 135. That's the wrong concept. The M is just as much bulk to carry as the FM was and when it comes down to it, it isn't as flexible as the Nikon FM. So I was lugging around a kit that didn't fit my concept of what it really was and was frustrated when I wanted to do things with it that is just wasn't really suited to. Nowadays, I'm seeing things from a new perspective: "Pick the cameras that do what you want with the most ease." An SLR is a instrument of technical flexibility, particularly notable for its ability to frame and focus accurately with any kind of lens but particularly with long lenses. What sets an SLR apart is that viewfinder system flexibility, so I've moved up the Nikon scale to the F3 model to exploit that asset with interchangeable finders and 100% viewfinder coverage. I carry it when I'm going to need what it specifically offers as an advantage: speed of operation, long lenses, close up focusing... Those times when I know I'm going to want a pack mule because I need the equipment to achieve the goals I have in mind. The Leica M now competes when I want that other kind of flexibility: when I don't want and will not hire the pack mule, when flexibility is defined by using as little as possible to do as much as possible, when freedom is defined as being able to stop thinking about lens choices and concentrate more on what a lens can see. Here is where it competes with the modern generation of compacts on size, weight and flexibility. I'm not talking the $100 PnS cameras ... obviously, they do not have the lens sophistication to compete with Leica RFs ... but in the Rollei 35S, Nikon 35Ti, Minox 35GT-E, Ricoh GR1, Contax T2, Leica Minilux fixed lens cameras, you are approaching comparable lens quality and much smaller, lighter packages. If you only need one lens and that lens is fast enough ... Where the Leica M shines in this company is that you trade off a bit of size and weight for the advantage of lens interchangeability, superior lens speed and quality. What it comes down to is that if I'm in a walkabout picture mood and I want to carry the minimum, a Rollei 35S or a Ricoh GR1 is all I need. If the additional flexibity of a superwide lens is important to my mood, the Leica M (or CL in my case, or Contax G) with a 35-50 and a 15-21 lens is is the right choice. And if I really don't want to carry anything, just want to go for a walk and see things, a Minox submini fits invisibly in my pocket. The greatest camera in the world is of no value if it's in the closet when you're in front of a picture opportunity... Sorry for the long ramble. Godfrey ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com