Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/03/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Well, now I know why I've ended up with a Leica! Reared on my Olympus OM-1 system and lenses since the age of 17! Thanks, Richard, for presenting your observations about the two camera systems to us. Makes me look at all my OM System equipment with a great deal of fondness. Maybe since I can't give my son a Leica, I can start him out with a top-notch set of OM-1 bodies, lenses, winder, flash, etc. Kit - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Richard F. Man Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 4:49 AM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: [Leica] Quickie M7 impressions and comparison to OM-4T Background - I have used an Olympus OM-4T on and off since 1986. Taking a few years off to the autofoucs land when the kids were too quick to catch otherwise. Last year I added an OM-4 as a backup. For about a year, I agonized over whether to get an M6 or M7. The types of photographs I normally take, the mid-life crisis, and the lack of digital systems that are compelling (to me) added up to a new M7 purchase. Warnings, this is only after a week of light uses, a good number of shots were done indoor using Studio flash since it's still pretty groomy outside. Opinions may and probably will change. Rangefinder System - - Definitely a different feel than a SLR. Have not gotten to the style of prefocusing and snap-shot away that some RF users are fond of. However, the ability to see outside the framelines definitely gives more flexibility in terms of quickly changing composition. - - RF focusing is very good for wide angle. For 50mm and above though, the ground glass focusing of the OM-4T is better since the whole glass is used for focusing. Additionally, the fixed magnification of the RF viewfinder (.72 in my case) hampers 75mm focusing on the M7. Of course, I can get a 1.25x magnifier if I use the 75mm (or higher) a lot. Also, at low light, even though my SLR lens are almost all F2 or wider, it is no match for the brightness of the M7 RF (equivalent of F1?). - - It is nice not to have mirror blackout! Blinking or wandering eyes are caught immediately! (the minimal shutter lag helps) General Handling - - The size and weight is remarkably similar to the OM-4T. Actually, may not be so surprising since Maitani-san supposedly was inspired by the Leica M when designing the OM series. In fact, the OM-1 was originally called M-1 until Leica objected. - - I use the auto-mode 70% of the time on the OM-4T and the spot mode the rest of the time. I have not done much shooting in difficult lighting situations yet with the M7. So I can't say how well its auto-exposure performs. From what I understand though, its metering pattern is fairly well centered and should perform better than the wide center weighted pattern on the OM-4T. - - No problem with the weirdo-bottom film loading. My hands are small so there is no problem with extracting film canister out either. - - Generally speaking, the M7 handles and works as well as the OM-4T. - - The quietness and the speed of the shutter (12 ms vs ~120ms) is definitely a big PLUS. Lens - - 95% of my shooting are done with Provia 100F and scanned using a Nikon LS-4000 4000 DPI. One of my favorite pass times is to blow up a picture and admire the lack of grain of the Provia film and the sharpness of certain lenses :-) - - 3 lens so far for the M7 - 50/2 Summicron, 75/2.5 Voigtlander Heliar, and Canon 35/2 (will sell this one if possible :-) ) - - no detailed systematic tests yet. General comments though: - - the 35 and 50 mm RF lens are teeny compared to the Zuiko lens. Even the 75/2.5 Heliar is a bit smaller than the Zuiko 85/2. Of course it's only a F2.5 vs. F2. Note that Zuiko is known for its small sizes, not so much on its "fast and wide" F2 lens, but still compactness was a design goal. - - the 50/2 Summicron is very sharp. The sharpest OM Zuiko lens I have is the 50/2 macro. It would be very interesting to do a detailed test. I think the Zuiko can hold its own but the Summicron is definitely world class. - - the 75/2.5 Heliar is quite nice. Performance wise it seems to be at least as good, and may be better than the Zuiko 85/2. - - the Canon 35/2, is, well, it is a 1960 era lens and it shows. Much worse than the Summilux 35/1.4 I rented once, and worse than the Zuiko 35/2. Then again, it's about 1/3 or less of the size of the Zuiko 35/2! Now to save up more money to buy a proper 35mm lens.... - - Anycase, more testing will surely be done at various apertures and lighting situations. Last Comment - - I was surprised to hear that a good number of Leica and Cosina Voigtlander users were and some still are OM users. I no longer am surprise. I can see the strength and weakness of both systems. It is so "obvious" once you use them. // richard <http://www.imagecraft.com> <http://www.dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo> On-line orders, support, and listservers available on web site. [ For technical support on ImageCraft products, please include all previous replies in your msgs. ] - -- 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