[Leica] why users love it

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

On 3/12/07 11:02 PM, "Don Dory" <don.dory@gmail.com> typed:

> Coming in late to this discussion there are several points to make.
> First, both lenses were stopped down to F11 at which point diffraction
> should be leveling the playing field so differences are due to the on 
> camera
> imaging chain.
> Second, in camera sharpening or lack can have an effect.  Both images where
> sharpened alike in LR so there is an optimization opportunity.
> Third, while trekking in Death Valley last week my bag with a body and six
> lenses was considerably smaller, lighter, faster optics, and less unwieldy
> than my companions carrying a simple two lens SLR outfit 17-40/70-200 or
> equivalent.  Plus, IR was but a filter away.
> Fourth, rangefinders float my boat and make me happy.
> 
> 


I'm with you but there are DSLRs and there are DSLRs.
These two lens you mention could be monsters 17-40/70-200
Like many feel they have to have to do serious photography.
2.8's Yuban coffee cans.
Or they can be very compact lightweight cheap with maybe not such a great
build but featherweight and with very good imaging quality.
Those are the lenses I prefer when I do DSLR work. Often consumer "kit"
lenses.
And those lenses are only slightly bigger than Leica m glass and I think not
as heavy. The BUILD you just don't want to talk about.

But its apple and oranges rangefinder vs. SLR work.

Still mirror bounce aside the right choice of SLR and you have something
which has some real class. A real contender for elegant usage. And the
optics wont embarrass you.
A D40+ looks real good to me right now.

And never in my life have I ever shot with such an image making enabling
machine as I have with my Nikon D200. The 12-24 lens amazing.
Kyle will concur.
Pete will pontificate.
Marvin will Marvel.


I have often a two lens kit.
An 18-55 whatever it is kit lens. And a
55-200. Tiny light cheap.
And gets into those hard to reach places.
In effect you've got everything covered from
28mm to 300mm for just a few small ounces. And very few bucks.

If I bring my 12-24 along that's still half the size of the 2.8's its a 4.

But my lenses I've mentioned above are a quarter the size of the 2.8 I
think. And weight.

There are not ultrawide zoom compacts out that I know of.


Mark Rabiner
8A/109s
New York, NY

markrabiner.com