Re: [Leica] Leica vs. Contax wars

[Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com>]

john wrote:
> 
> Mark Rabiner wrote:
> >
> 
> > Mystery John:
> > With such hair splitting trivial differences between the Leica M and Contax G
> > systems and lack of that ultimate convenience of zooming we wonder why you
> > bother with the Leica's at all! They cost a lot of money and they don't zoom!
> > Why not just sell them and get on the Contax list?
> > Mark Rabiner
> My MY are we being testy.  The differences in lens performance between fine
> performing lenses is, in real world photography, hairsplitting.  There are so
> many factors in the chain from seeing an image, photographing the image,
> developing and enlarging the negative and printing the image on photo
> sensitive paper that affect sharpness and contrast far more than the
> differences in the performances of the lenses in question that it becomes an
> irrelevancy.  All these feel good "my leica is better than your whatever"
> sound like just so much justification for having spent so much money on our
> equipment.  WE DO NOT HAVE TO JUSTIFY LOVING AND USING LEICAS. Leicas are not
> jealous cameras, they don't mind at all being used alongside other cameras. We
> Leica lovers don't need to put down the competition based on differences in
> performance between lens systems that are both recognized as being excellent,
> we would still love our Leicas what ever the competition. Why, because they
> suite us, they feel right in our hands, they handle in a familiar and friendly
> way, their viewfinders are comfortable to use, and they are made very well indeed.
> 
> I have been using Leicas since 1957 or so. In my time, I have owned and used,
> lllg, lllf. lllc. M3,M4, M4-2, M2, CL, XL, R4, R4s, and many or these I have
> owned and used several of over the course of years.  One CL I owned twice. I
> will continue to use and enjoy using Leicas in the foreseeable future. I am
> very comfortable with my fondness for Leicas and do not need to justify my
> liking and using them with lens performance charts and reliability tests,
> other than to know the equipment I am using will perform far beyond my
> photographic needs and abilities. Some of you obviously know more Leica
> history, lore, and fantasy, as well as Leica nuts and bolts, than I, but my
> credentials as a Leica user and lover are in order. I can find nowhere in the
> FAQ for this list that I must bash non Leica cameras and lenses to continue
> reading, contributing, and enjoying this list and I do intend to do just that.
> Do you have a problem with that?
> 
> I am not defending the Contax G2 as being a superior rangefinder camera, it is
> not a range finder camera, it is an outo-focus camera with a manual
> rangefinder capability. Comparing Leica Ms and Contax Gs is like comparing
> apples and cheese. I am saying that I like my G2 and will continue to use it.
> There I some times I prefer using it to my Leicas. There are some features the
> Contax has my Leicas don't and there are times I can appreciate those
> features.  But don't try to separate me from my Leica or fists will fly.
> 
> This Leica Contax war thread began with " More to the point than Leica vs.
> Nikon is the question of Leica vs. Contax,
> namely the G2.  It's become apparent that the Japanese-made Zeiss optics are
> equal or better than many/most Leitz offerings.  Coupled with a better view
> finder,  a very good auto focus and much less money, Contax has to be the
> leader  among  35 mm rangefinders. Right??"
> This strikes me as a troll, but he misses the point completely because the
> Contax is, as I and others have said, not a rangefinder camera. On this basis
> I dismiss the paragraph as purile nonsense.
> John
> John


The "defense" above does not begin to be an adequate explanation for John John's
below consecutive and complete posts which is what I was addressing and which
inanely blurs the deference between the quality and use of the Leica system
against the Contax G2. It's approach and tact reflects his sitting on the fence
on the issue to his coy use of no last name on a forum where we all know who we
all are:
"Except for the 90 mm lens, the image in the Contax is bigger for the 90mm.
There is also a zoom lens available, though I have not yet tried it. I have
and use both and each seems to have its own particular forte.  I love my Leica
for in close work with people, but I like the Contax to walk about with. They
are just different and nitpicking lens quibbles not withstanding both are
obviously capable photographic tools.  Sometimes I like being able to see
beyond the frame line in my Leica, but I can't see beyond the 35mm frame, and
sometimes I like the isolating the black surround of the Contax forcing me to
concentrate more on what is in the frame.
John"
"How does the Leica M zoom lens compare to the Contax?
John"