[Leica] I was bored so i wrote this...

[Weirs99@aol.com]

David Rogers talking about lens comparisons made me smile. I'm selling an 
FM2T and a Nikon 35mm f1.4 because I'm just not getting results that are even 
close compared to the m6/35f1.4 combo. Don't know whether its me but shooting 
the FM2 at anything less than 60th is giving unsharp pix. I can quite happily 
shoot the M6 at a 30th without even thinking about it and when i do go for it 
its at 15th. I loved the FM2 until the M6 arrived and now it just has to go!  

Another thought about print repro. As far as I'm concerned if an image is 
being used for the web or newspaper and to a degree magazine/book repro the 
make of lens is irrelevent. Every modern lens today is capable of producing 
an acceptable quality image. Every image seen has been scanned so it is 
nothing more than a 'digital image anyway'. What I love about M images is the 
handprints they produce...and that when a pic ed is looking at my slides they 
just look different !! Need I say more?

I remember shooting a story about English 'soccer'  fans. The home team had 
just lost. I was shooting a 50 lux' M6 and TriX rated at 1600. I shot an 
image of 3 fans at 30th/f1.4. The printed exhibition image was only 30% of 
the original but you never would have known it. I've shot with a Nikon 
35/f1.4 for a long time and there is no way that same image quality is 
possible with Nikon (guess I'm already preaching to the converted !!?).   

Shooting low light theater? TriX and Fuji 800 (fuji 800 rated at 1600 is 
better than fuji 1600..!) We do after all live in a perverse world. 

For Sale ~ Nikon FM2 Titanium (Mintish) @ £400 and Nikon 35mm F1.4 Excellent 
condition @ £325 (I don't really expect any buyers but you just never know)
   
Stewart Weir
w:www.portfolios.com/weir