Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/10/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Marc--you wrote: > >The M system is all-but-infinitely flexible; the R system is a lot more >limited. > Whatever do you mean? The M system is of very limited use compared to an SLR--it cannot do closeups or use long lenses without the Viso, which, while fun to use, is a pain compared to an SLR. Also, since the Viso is long gone, the lenses available for it get older and older (you don't see any 100 2.8 APO-Macro lenses there!). In addition, it has no TTL flash, a very basic light meter, and no automation of any kind. These things may be from one point of view virtues, but there are many jobs the camera simply cannot do to contemporary standards--pro sports photography, architecture (no shift lenses, inaccurate wide-angle clip-on finders), some kinds of photojournalism (note the late lamented Eric Welch's situation--he has to own a Canon SLR to do his work!), weddings (which require sophisticated flash today), etc., etc. SLRs do all these things well. I don't usually like Popular Photography very much, but I think they got it right when they last tested the M6. They asked themselves why anyone would buy an M6. In their answer, they compared the M6 to a classic sports car--does what it does brilliantly well, cannot really do other things--and SLRs to family sedans--can do a wide range of jobs. The M's strengths are travel (small size, unobtrusive) and people work (quiet, not intimidating, accurate focus in low light). While Leica attempted for many years to make the RF cameras complete systems, there are reasons why the SLR won that battle, and Leica gave it up. I think we do best with the RFs if we use them for what they do well, and don't try to seat 6 people in the sports car! Charles E. Love, Jr. 517 Warren Place Ithaca, New York 14850 607-272-7338 CEL14@CORNELL.EDU