Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/02/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I don't totaly agree: The first thing I think about when I compare different cameras is the 'look' (on picture) of the lenses and Leica lenses have a look different than other good quality cameras. In my mind the second attractive thing about Leica M's is their mechanical precision and durability, being able to buy an M-6 is like Nikon offering an improved F with a modern meter. Mechanical cameras are MUCH easier to keep up and running. Thirdly, Leica M's are tiny compared to modern giants like the Contax RTSIII and Nikon F5. It is much more practical to carry a small rangefinder than an enormous 3kilo slr. Forthly Leica more so than any other 35mm company concentrates on the maximum quality market - think how many books are available on advanced technique with the Leica vs the other admittedly good cameras out there. Also, Leicas are nearly silent in operation, with a focusing system that is much better than manually focusing slr's, especially with wide angles. And some AF slr's are very obtrusive with their focusing noise. And on and on: Leica represents a unique approach to maximum quality photography which allows the photographer to bond with the tool like no other camera. Just my opinion, Mark - ----------------------reply sep----------------------- Dan Cardish wrote: > > At 10:46 AM 22-02-97 -0700, Ben wrote: > ...[snip] > > My point was that the Ms > >were designed with the capability to produce phenomenol results - whatever > >the style or subject. Unless folks continue to produce these results by > >actually using the cameras, the legend becomes just that. > > There has to more to M Leicas than this. Many 35mm cameras today are fully > capable of producing phenomenol results, and perhaps at much less expense > and much more convenience. > > Dan C.