Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/11/16

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: Why A Leica M
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 21:25:52 -0500


I use a Minox ML and could not agree with you more. The XA, I can't comment
on since the only one I owned (it was brand new) I gave to a close and dear
friend. I can not understand the following comment regarding the CL, though:

 Leica CL. None of them equals the image potential of my M3. Could elaborate
on this remark, please. I think that if you pop the same 50 Summicron on
each, the result should be the same. Are you really talking about the design
limits re: inability of the CL to work with a 135mm? Or is the remark more
towards the standard CL lenses vs. M lenses? The Summicron test was done
with my CL and a friend who had a M6 and who borrowed the CL for the test.
The conclusion that there was no difference was his, not mine. The purpose
of the experiment was the result of a question regarding the design of the
loading and film handling system of the M6 posed by one of his students.

The test was also done with a RTSIII and RTS and there was a discernable
difference in favor of the RTSIII. (again same lens - 45mm 2.8 pancake).

No, I don;t know the specifics of the tests, since I did not have a direct
interest in the outcome, though it did bouy up my belief that dispite all
the CL is a great lens holder.

Brian Levy, J.D.
Agincourt Ont.