Re: [Leica] Leica R or Leica M

[Five Senses Productions <fls@5senses.com>]

I have both an R8 and a M6 0.85 now.  I have used an SLR (Nikon and
Leica for 2 years now) and an M6 for a month now.  I agree that an SLR
can do certain things that an M camera cannot do......macro, super-tele,
fisheye-superwide, superfast winder, and high-speed flash sync.
I shoot models for a living, and a bit of travel, street, landscape, etc. 
on the side.  In only a month I have become an M convert!  For the type
of work I do with models (candid, outdoors, natural, non-posed, no flash)
the M6 is PERFECT.  The $40 Nissin flash I bought for the M6 is good
enough and has worked perfectly.  With the 25 to 100 speed films I use,
a 1/50 sync is not a problem at all.  I have had no bad results from the M6
at all.  My only wishes are for a small motor winder/rewinder.  I don't call
doubling the height of the camera body a good solution.  The lenses I have
used are superb.  Performance is better than the R cameras because of
the lack of mirror vibration and fewer restrictions in lens design.  I can
actually
handhold down to 1/15 and get a beautiful photo....amazing!
I switched from Nikon SLR to Leica SLR in order to improve the quality of 
my images by using Leica glass.  It worked.  I am now moving from Leica
R to Leica M in order to keep the Leica glass, but get even more compact
and portable.  It is also working.  I have a feeling the M system will be the
optimal system for me and my work.

At 07:17 PM 3/27/98 -0800, Jim Brick wrote:
>I don't wish to start a war, this is simply my educated and experienced
>Humble Opinion. I use a 4x5 Linhof Field View for the majority of my
>landscapes, My R camera for the rest. My M camera is not in this class. But
>my view and my R cannot do what my M can do. The greatest landscape camera
>available is a view camera. The R camera is closer to the view, by a long
>shot, than the M. I think the bottom line is that the R camera has better
>tools for landscape photography. Yes, a good photographer can do good
>"limited" landscape things with an M camera, but the R camera opens up
>another dimension, that simply cannot be done with an M camera. Perhaps
>adding a Visoflex would help. But even an M plus Viso is outclassed by a
>whole bunch of R lenses (15mm - 800mm, TTL) that produce exquisite
>landscape photographs, assuming the photographer is capable. You can see
>your DOF, see a filter effect, change film without disturbing your tripod
>set-up, composition on a ground glass with a grid (like a 4x5 view) is
>super, PC lenses to extend DOF or straighten that old water tower or red
>bard, all viewable TTL, this list could go on for pages.
>
>Don't get me wrong, as I said, a good photographer can indeed make good
>landscapes with an M camera. But they're limited in scope and tools. But an
>R camera is a whole lot easier, under far better control, and simply in
>another dimension for this type of photography.
>
>Look at the M6 and R8 (or any R) full color brochures side by side. The
>illustrating photographs, for these two types of cameras, basically depicts
>the kind of photography that each camera is best suited for. Street stuff,
>fast moving, candids for the M; landscapes, macro, superwide, and telephoto
>for the R. There, of course, is an overlap, but clearly, the two different
>camera systems are more comfortable in their respective areas of intent. 
>
>Jim
> 


Francesco Sanfilippo,
Five Senses Productions
webmaster@5senses.com


http://www.5senses.com/