Re: Why A Leica M

["Charles E. Love, Jr." <cel14@cornell.edu>]

At 06:11 PM 11/16/96 -0500, you wrote:
>
>I believe the operative difference between truly porfessional cameras -- such
>as the M -- and others is the degree of technical quality they produce. When
>traveling light I use a Minox GT, Olympus XA or a Leica CL. None of them
>equals the image potential of my M3. So choice of one type of camera over the
>other is a tradeoff.
>
I see no reason why there should be any difference in image quality between
the CL and the M3--after all, they can use many of the same lenses, and,
while the CL is no tank, surely it is reliable enough to produce reasonably
accurate shutter speeds and strong enough to hold the lens in alignment!

>Very few P&S, even the Minilux, have shutter speeds in excess of 1/300.

Some of the expensive ones go up to 1/500.  The M goes to 1/1000.  If you
really want high shutter speeds, get a top-line Nikon or Canon SLR.

 Most
>are locked into battery operation. No power, no performance. 

Here we go again.  You don't complain because you have to replace the film
in your camera; you carry extra.   I don't understand this fear about
battery power.  Even Stan Tamarkin has a silly comment about it in his
latest newsletter, where he worries about replacing the battery for the new
Contax G2 he's reviewing while in Vienna, etc., etc..  As I have said
before, the answer is simple: carry spares!  They're small!

Those are
>tradeoffs. 
>Imagine a concert pianist who, because he prefers to travel light, plays a
>small, portable amplified keyboard instrument with only two octaves instead
>of the 8 on a full scale grand. <snip>

Well, who would deny that a particular camera is well suited for some tasks,
not so well suited for others?  There are always tradeoffs.  I wouldn't
carry a P&S for sports or closeup photography--but then I wouldn't carry an
M either; an SLR does these things much better.  If I want to photograph
people unobtrusively, I'd carry an M, not a P&S (too noisy) or an SLR (too
intimidating).  For ultimate quality in my landscape photography, I don't
use 35 mm. cameras at all.  But if I were going to do casual snapshooting on
a trip, and didn't want to carry much--maybe a P&S.  If you want something
in a camera that will play all 8 octaves, you won't find it.  Horses for
courses.

> Most P&S perform
>best with ISO 200 films or slower. Even the oldest M's operate well with much
>faster stocks. 

I have no idea what you are talking about here.  Of course, some P&S cameras
cannot use very high speed film (or, I should note, very slow speed film),
because they are designed to permit only a limited range of speeds.  But
even the cheapest let you use 400, and the best allow a large range.
There's no reason to think the variation between image qualities of, say,
200 and 400 films will be any greater with a P&S than with an M.  And of
course the age of the M is of no consequence; since they are all manual
cameras, they can all be operated with any speed film (I could have said
"even the ur-Leica operates well with much faster stocks" :-).
>
>I hope these observations are of some use to you. When it comes right down to
>true image quality, the focal plane shutter is supreme in 35mm work. No P&S
>sports such a shutter.

Well, if that's true it's not because of an inherent superiority of focal
plane over leaf shutters--each has its advantages, as any Medium Format user
knows.  Focal plane shutters usually have higher top speeds, but pose great
difficulties for flash synch.  Leaf shutters are quieter, cause less
vibration, and, if one goes south, you lose only one lens, not the camera
body.  (The vibration issue is very real--I know, because I use both a
Pentax 67 and a Mamiya 7.)  Theoretically the lenses for focal plane shutter
cameras should be cheaper (no shutter mechanism in the lens), although
Hasselblad seems to have forgotten about  this!--and so on.  The point is
that the lack of a focal plane shutter, by itself, does not make a camera
inferior.
>
Charles E. Love, Jr.
CEL14@CORNELL.EDU