Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/12/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]No, I don't think that Tim Page is Nachtwey's equal - he's very very good, but I really think that there is only one Nachtwey at this time. That said, Page isn't the only one who has gone the Rebel route...if you are beating the hell out of your equipment day in and day out, why not go for a more than functional body for under $300 that you can replace a half-dozen times before you've paid for one top-of-the-line body that you will also destroy in a year? - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Jem Kime Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 12:06 PM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Leica] Reflex vs. RF Interesting to recall that Tim Page (who most would say takes pictures every bit as good as James Nachtway) talked of his recent switch to using (alongside his M4 with Super Angulon) a Canon Rebel (EOS) as it's cheap, it bounces, and the Canon lenses give results every bit as good as he needs. If it gets broke it only takes a few pounds to replace rather than a Leica price! Jem - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dante Stella" <dante@umich.edu> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 1:26 PM Subject: Re: [Leica] Reflex vs. RF > Wow. How dogmatic. > > 1. Cameras have no souls. After seeing War Photographer, I am not > convinced that James Nachtwey has one either. But he takes better > pictures than anyone with some kind of plastic EOS. > > 2. Do you really think that Leica would adopt a body casting > (relatively cheap) and then design and manufacture all of the > internals itself? > > On Tuesday, December 3, 2002, at 03:14 PM, Jeffrey Fass wrote: > > > Yes, so I've heard. > > > > I wanted an inexpensive body to carry the lenses is all. I can tell > > that, in working the deal with Minolta, Leica made a body with the > > soul of a consumer > > Japanese model, at least that's how it feels. What's going on inside > > is a > > different story I'm sure. > > > > I think if I wanted to go full-SLR again, I'd get a R9. > > > > Cheers, Jeffrey > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Douglas Herr" <telyt@earthlink.net> > > To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 2:27 PM > > Subject: Re: [Leica] Reflex vs. RF > > > > > >> On Tue, 3 Dec 2002 14:17:45 -0500 Jeffrey Fass > >> <happy.eyeball@verizon.net> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> After having used the M for only several months > >>> I was struck how different > >>> and strange the R felt. The viewfinder is > >>> darker, the 90 makes everything > >>> *big* in the viewfinder (I've become used to > >>> the M 90 frameline). Most > >>> significant is the *slonk* of the > >>> mirror/shutter. It's got quite a kick to > >>> it. The M is so stealthy by comparison. > >>> > >>> Mind, in general I think, at least comparing > >>> the R4, Nikon has the reflex > >>> thing down. Quieter, smoother, faster. The > >>> lenses are a whole 'nuther story, > >>> though. > >>> > >> > >> If you want a real Leica reflex, try a Leicaflex SL. Much brighter > >> viewfinder, smoother mirror/shutter action, less shutter lag, and > >> it feels solid the way a Leica ought to. The SL even smells like a > >> real Leica. > >> > >> > >> Doug Herr<BR>Birdman of Sacramento<BR>http://www.wildlightphoto.com > >> -- > >> To unsubscribe, see > >> http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, see > > http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, see > http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html