Re: New Rangefinder cameras

[Yau-Sun Tong <aq519@ccn.cs.dal.ca>]

If you really understand how and what Leica makes and puts in theri R and 
M Lenses then you will know that the Leica lenses are better than the 
Canon lenses including Canons pro lenses,  If you are not comparing the 
highest standards than you will not see why Leica lenses are better,  of 
course whether the best lens from Leica will give you the best pitures 
 or if a view of the pictures will be able to tell the difference that is 
another matter.


On Fri, 16 Aug 1996, Eric Welch wrote:

> At 02:49 PM 8/15/96 EDT, you wrote:
> 
> >I can't speak for others but I fail to see the relevance of the testimony
> >of a "sponsored" spokesperson.
> 
> This was a personal discussioin I had in the kitchen of my photojournalilsm
> professor, not some public lecture where Harry has to be a Minolta
> cheerleader. He was very candid about his relationship with Minolta, and the
> reasons he uses the cameras. And Harry is a good shooter, recognized as one
> of the top celeb. photograhers in the world. Shoot, he got Nancy Regan to
> ride a rocking horse for Life magazine!
> 
> >>course, he uses their top-line pro camera. Which is all metal, very reliable
> >>and extremely fast. Their lenses stand up to the abuse that Nikon and
> >>Canon's does. You played with the lates AF versions in either of those
> >>lines? Hardly rugged by any standard.
> 
> Pure poppeycock. I use the EOS1n with the 70-200 2.8 L series lens every
> day. Now for over a year. And I'll stack it up against anything out there
> except maybe Leica M and Alpa for ruggedness. Nikon's F5/4/3/2 were are
> super tough cameras. We're talking pro cameras here.
> 
> The Minolta SRT series had a reputation among professional photographers who
> actually USE cameras at work as built like tanks. I see people using them
> even today. And sure many of minolta's pieces are not terribly rugged. They
> have pretty much abaondoned the pro market with the demise of the XK. But
> they do have one pro quality camera in their lines at all times, and many
> pros use them. 
> 
> Leica also seem to have a reputation for not so good reliability, in some
> circles, as does every other manufacturer. Just depends on who you talk to.
> I'm sure your experience with Minolta's repair history is true, but what
> breaks most? An XK, 9Xi, or the X70, and other cheapies?
> 
> >I, in turn, wonder what information you based this conclusion on. I have
> >personally never found any of the AF equipment to be a reliable long term
> >investment. Admittedly, my requirements may be a little unusual as I spend
> >a great portion of my shooting time  in the Arctic creating work for
> 
> AF has nothing to do with it. You can buy Nikon and Canon and Minolta stuff
> that's built tough, and other stuff that's not. The Canon EOS1n will match
> the R7 or R6.2 for ruggedness, and pretty much beat it. But, there are
> advantages to a thumb wind in the world you shoot in. That's going the way
> of the dodo if rumors about the R8 are true. The lenses are another story.
> The Canon L series are close the the R and M lenses, but no cigar. You are
> right there, for sure.
> 
> But for most pro use, there can be argumetns that less rugged, more
> disposable lenses might be the ticket. Like maybe someone who shoot's in
> dangerous situtations where they lose a lot of hardware. We can come up with
> all sorts of reasons for going either way. 
> 
> For most people, it's a moot point. Anything would serve their needs. And
> besides, it's not the pros that support any camera system short of medium
> format.
> 
> ==================
> Eric Welch
> Grants Pass Daily Courier
> NPPA Region 11 JIB Chair
> 
> 
>