[Leica] Re: f*** the gauntlet! [long, rambling]

[Alexey Merz <alexey@webcom.com>]

> if you don't think that leica cameras/lenses/red dots/
> whatever produce *special* results (however you choose
> define that), why use them, especially as less expensive,
> equally functional (and arguably equally *special*) 
> camera equipment is widely available?

> so what is the reason if image quality is not?

That's an easy one. The result is important but so is th 
process. I love *using* my M, and I am *also* pleased with
the results. 

BUT- For what it is worth, I spent a couple of hours
last night reviewing in the neighborhood of 100 rolls of 
transparency film taken over a 10 year period (I'm preparing
to move and was moving the slides into a form suitable for 
shipping - couldn't resist looking through them.) 

About 2/3 were taken with Nikons - 'mat FT2, FM2, FE2. Over 80% of
the film was Kodachrome 64, my longstanding favorite, and about
70% were taken with the 35/2 AIS Nikkor or the 35/1.4 Summilux
ASPH. The photos overwhelmingly confirm what I've read and what
my controlled tests say and what Erwin's tests say. Under optimal
conditions the lenses may be slightly different in character but
neither is "better". Optimal means f/5.6 (maybe 4) or f/8, shutter
faster than 1/125 th or a well damped tripod (no I am NOT takling
about what the legs are made of, Mike). Yes, the Nikkor 35/2 is
a really good lens at the middle apertures. Superb, even. 


But the average picture made with an M6 is, in my hands, technically
better than the average picture, in my hands, made with the Nikons. 
Particularly in marginal conditions - low light, wide apertures, 
backlight - the Leica photos are more likely to be sharp (my 
experiments suggest that I get discernably less camera movement 
at 1/15th-1/125th with my M compared to my FE2) - and generally have 
higher contrast. 

More controlled tests show the same things, especially at f/1/4 and
f/2. From f/4 the differences are negligable. 

But the *real* reason I like the Leica is the *same* reason I love 
my handbuilt steel road bicycle. It feels right. And I have spent a 
lot less on my Leica and 2 lenses AND my two bicycles AND my car 
together than a lot of you have spent on your car. Really, a couple
of thousand bucks is not a lot of money for a vocation or avocation
that lasts decades! What does a new notebook cost? The same as an
M6! And the computer will be obsolete in a year, 3 at most! I fully
expect to last at least as long as my Nikkormat, which was purchased
by my ma in the 1970s and still sees regular use.

Alexey

PS- Steve, Erwin, Mike: I really value your participation in
the LUG. You each make unique and valuable contributions. So
don't get your undies in a wad over the present discussions!