Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/05/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 06:17 PM 5/4/97 +0100, Pascal wrote: >I have been using my new Leica M6 and Summilux-M 35 mm f/1.4 ASPH for over >six weeks now with a variety of films (Color photo: mostly Fuji Reala 100 >new, but also Kodak Ektar 25, Ektar 200, Agfa Optima 400; slides: Fuji >Sensia 100). > >On the risk of hurting some other people's feelings, I must confess that >the results of this lens do not appear to be significantly different from >my Nikon SLR equipment (Nikkor 50 mm f/1.8, Micro-Nikkor 55 mm f/2.8, >Zoom-Nikkor 28-50 mm f/3.5), and this with a variety of subjects (travel >pictures, available-light, night). Pascal This is a complex issue, but deals with a lot of factors, not just lens qualities. I happen to find SLR's clunky and cumbersome and delight in the svelte size and RF of the M6 (and of my IIIc and IIIf) -- but others detest an RF and prefer an SLR design. Some folks hate the small size of the M6; I love it. It's a matter of choice and shooting style. As to the quality of the lenses, if you can't spot a difference, then go back to Nikon, please. Before you do, though, I would take twenty-five of your best Nikon prints and twenty-five of your best Leica prints. Mix them up and give them to people who don't know anything about these prints. Ask them to sort them by the quality of the pictures. I suspect you'll find, as have most of us who have done this, that folks select the Leica prints as being better. It's a classic 'blind test' -- and it works! But the bottom line is, if you prefer Nikon, please shoot Nikon! Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!