Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/07/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 09:16 PM 7/10/96 -0700, you wrote: >I thought the only "real" Leica was an M. I thought the superiority of the >optics was largely a matter of the design possibilities that a rangefinder >allows. I mean if you are going to shoot SLR, why not Contax or Nikon? First of all, that's pure nonesense. Modern lens design makes that old saw no longer true. The R7 is a vastly superior camera to anything Leica has built before, in the SLR line. The R6.2 is a close second, but it's different enough to justify owning both kinds. Some of the R lenses are clearly supeiror to their M counterparts. Like the 19 2.8 (newest version) is probably the best wide angle they make, except maybe the 35 Summilux M ASPH and the 35 Summilux R. Leica has made some of the best lenses they've ever made on the R. The 180 f/2 Apo Summicron is amazingly good, and better than anything else in it's class, including the vastly more expensive Contax 200 f/2 and the Canon 200 1.8 (less expensive by about $1,500.) The 100 Apo Macro, the 70-180 2.8 Apo Zoom, the 280 f/4 (and 2.8) 400 2.8, etc. All are amazing optics that justify owning the Leica R system. The only reason I don't have much in the R system is my job requires an autofocus camera and 1/250 flash sync. If you buy a camera system for the bodies, and not the optics, you're not a photographer. The M6 is wonderful, and I'd never give it up for the Mamiya or any other MF camrea. Why? Speed. Case closed, for me. =================== Eric Welch Grants Pass (OR) Daily Courier NPPA Region 11 JIB chair 98% of all statistics are useless.