Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/06/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I agree with you. I seem to have a much higher success rate with my Minolta 9 and my 100/2.8 macro lens, when using it as a portrait lens (which I do virtually 100% of the time). I find with the Minolta that I forget about the camera, and concentrate much more on what the model is doing (in the case from last week, she was quite hyper-active), and what else happens to be in the picture frame. I know for a fact that the 90/2 AA is capable of taking incredibly sharp and beautiful photographs, it is just harder to do so, without a lot of practice (speaking for myself). On the other hand, the Minolta 100 is no slouch either and the AF of the Minolta makes things really easy. I seem to get best results with my Leicas when I use them in a more leisurly mode, walking about town, looking for interesting subjects to photograph, without worrying about fidgety models. For the latter, my SLR seems to be more appropriate for me. Dan C. At 03:30 PM 13-06-00 -0700, drodgers@nextlink.com wrote: > >Dan, > >>>I consider the 90/2 AA one of the best lenses I own. Yet, I used it last >week to photograph a friend, and many of the pictures are out of focus or >just plain blurry.<< > >This is one of the biggest problems I face when using a 90 at max >apertures. The problem tends to manifest itself more using a rangefinder. I >just don't have the same problem using a 90/2 on my R7. I think it has to >do with the ttl viewing. > >It's as though it's easier to both focus and compose [snip]