Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/01/28

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

Subject: [Leica] Leica-Users List Digest V2 #125
From: Mike Johnston <70007.3477@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 11:04:08 -0500

>>>Please, one more time, why is the Leica R superior to other SLR
cameras?   Dale<<<

 Dale,
 They're not. It's the lenses that are superior. If you can't see the
difference, or don't care, then there is little reason for using Rs instead of
one of the oftentimes cheaper, more capable, and more ergonomic Japanese AF
cameras.
 If, however, you're addicted to the very finest lenses, then the Leica R line
is, overall, the world's best--yes, folks, even better than the M line <g>.
Other lens lines have specific designs that approach (or in rare cases exceed)
Leica's equivalent offerings (the Olympus Zuiko 50mm f/2 Macro, for instance,
is a better lens than the Leica 50mm Summicron-M IMHO), and the Leica R line
does have its relative weak points, but, for the most part, the best R lenses
are the _ne plus ultra_ of what is available to consumers in the 35mm format.

 --Mike

P.S. To Jim Brick: I agree with you about filters, with the caveat that it only
really makes a difference with the best lenses and presumes that the
photographer cares about--and knows enough to recognize--optimum optical
quality. With some lenses a filter will add unacceptable flare or reflections,
or cause contrast reduction, and in some other cases its effect may not be
noticeable. But as many LUGgers have no doubt discovered, the better the lens,
the more likely it will be that you won't want a filter on it. To quote
Kornelius Fleischer of Carl Zeiss, "No filter ever _improved_ the technical
performance of any lens."