Re: R vs Zeiss lens prices

[Godfrey DiGiorgi <ramarren@apple.com>]

>> [talking about the notion that the Leica R8 provides me
>>  more options now than just Contax if I want to move from
>>  Nikon SLRs]

>I did just that about five months ago, trading in my Nikon F4 system for
>a Contax RTSIII.  

I didn't mean to start a Leica vs Contax thread, or a Nikon 
vs either of the above thread, as all of these are fine cameras. Which
one appeals to you and which one provides the system capabilities that
you need for your work or play is a toss up . The lenses are more
different in subtleties than resoundingly better or worse than each
other ... I've owned Contax SLRs before, have owned several cameras
with Zeiss lenses and Leica lenses, have a lot of Nikon lenses, and 
find that the qualities of the lenses are different certainly, but 
used in the manner that they are best at, results from each of them 
are difficult to distinguish. My experience, anyway.

That being said, I never liked the F4 and don't like the F5. My Nikons 
are FMs, I've owned Fs, F2s, F3s and FEs as well. The F4/F5 are simply 
not targeted at my kind of usage. I find them to be too bulky and 
complex, 
don't really like the control layout much. I like cameras with simpler
controls. The FMs which I have now have stood the test of time (since '81)
well and feel good in my hands. They're just getting a bit dated and
if I start to use SLRs more again, I think I might want the option of 
exposure automation which I lost when I sold my last FE2. Nothing in 
the present Nikon lineup really appeals to me like the FMs and FE2 
did. 

Leica R bodies have a wonderful feel but the control layout has never 
before fit my hands very well. The R8 really impressed me with it's 
excellent control placement and balance. It's the nicest of any current
high-end SLR body I've tried. 

The Contax 137ma that I owned was a wonderful camera with beautifully
laid out controls. I sold it only because I already had a large investment
in Nikon gear, which was still quite current in 1983-4 (AI-S lenses, FM
and FE2 bodies). I couldn't afford to populate a Contax system at that 
time and decided to sell it off rather than the Nikon gear as I was using
my SLRs a lot at that point. I've admired the RTS model for years, 
haven't handled the current version but I expect it will be excellent.

Anything that makes it easy for me to focus and set aperture/shutter 
speed is all I really need in the end.

>Working on the assumption that R lenses are as good as, if not superior
>to M glass, I tallied up the cost of the 1 body, 6 lens system that I
>wanted.... about US $20,000.  Groan.  My only alternative was Contax,
>and a similarly configured system came to about $10,000 -- half the
>price of the Leica R system.

Nowadays, I find I want an SLR only when I am looking for flexibility
that is inappropriate for a rangefinder or fixed lens camera. That is, 
when I want a longish lens, a very wide lens, or macrophotography. I 
hardly use my Nikon SLRs anymore, even sold my Leica M as I didn't need
the system camera... most of my photography is well served by a Leica
Minizoom or a Rollei 35 as I only need other than a slightly wide normal
lens on rare occasions. So the reason I can now look at moving to a Contax
or Leica R8 is that I won't be buying 6-7 lenses and lots of accessories. 
A body, a normal lens (or macro-normal), a very wide angle, and a medium 
to long tele is all I generally use an SLR for. Having the other 
components available for rental or purchase as necessary is useful
but not a big factor in my personal needs. I do photography for fun/art 
and find that my equipment needs are more 
towards "lightweight, always available" rather than full features and 
massive 
complements of lenses and accessories. Carrying little equipment places
more of the challenge on what my eye can see than what I can do with 
equipment, which I enjoy.

Obviously, I'm not a professional photographer now. Did that for a little
while years ago, gave it up and became a bit banger instead. ;)

>I had tested the Contax G1 when it came out, and while I was severely
>underwhelmed by the camera, I was blown away by the lenses.

I have played with both the G1 and now the G2. They're not really 
my cup of tea either ... for an RF type camera with interchangeable 
lenses, I like the feel and features of the Leica M more. The glass 
in either is superb, I have no complaints with them. However, for me,
a Contax TV-S in the Contax lineup is superior, and would give me 
features and capabilities not matched by my Leica Minizoom or the 
Minilux, and would suit me very well as an adjunct to my Rollei 35s 
and Nikon SLRs. I'm seriously considering the TV-S now, having done 
a lot of research on them in the past couple weeks. It's a very 
well thought out camera and from what I've seen of lens quality
it's very satisfactory, albeit not a particularly fast optic.

>This raises the issue mentioned in a message here the other day about
>why R lenses may not be selling well.  Someone, with their tongue not
>firmly in their cheek said, could it be the price?  

Leica equipment prices today are too high, I agree completely. Whether 
it's worth it to you, and whether you can afford it, is a very subjective
issue. I was taken with the R8 body, haven't even looked at the price
of lenses, etc. as the body is more than I can afford just right now 
anyway. 
If I get serious about doing something like this, I'll make a more 
serious 
study of it. There are tradeoffs in either system.

A small system would likely be accessible to me in either Contax or Leica
if I really felt that there was value in changing anything of what I own 
already. I'm not convinced of that yet, but it's nice to have more options
than I did. 

Godfrey