Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/10/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
At 08:12 PM 06/10/96 -0400, you wrote:
>David Young wrote:
> I've have
>> had M's (M3-DS & CL) in the past. Then got hooked on an R3, then the R5 (w/3
>> lenses) that I have now. You'll never get me back to the M-system. :>
>
>What is the difference between the R and M series?
>
>Donny Levan
>
>
M vs R lenes?
Can't say I've compared a whole bunch of 'em, but from what I've seen, not
much. All very fine, arguements pro & con on this list not withstanding.
And all with that undefineable Leica 'snap' that Nikon lenses lack.
M vs R bodies...
I like to shoot quite tightly, and use the 90 Sumicron as my "standard"
lens, with the 180 being my second most used. I find composing in the M
viewfinder difficult - the image is too small. (I rarely use a wide angle.)
I also like the bigger body size - as I've got big mitts.
More importantly, I chase Solar clipses for a hobby, and bundling an M on
the back of my 1000mm just doesn't seem like a good idea! :>
Let me say that both the R3 & R5 have had their share of niggly little
foibles, and neither is solid as my old Nikon 'F'. But both are *much* more
dependable than the CL which took wonderful photos when it worked! The M3
was a tank.
-----------
David Young: youngs@IslandNet.com Victoria B.C. CANADA
I cook with wine. Sometimes
I even put it in the food!