Re: [Leica] M vs. G Comparison

[Vondauster@aol.com]

Hi Folks,

Time to add my two cents worth to this discussion. I also own both systems,
though mine is a G1. The G1 is a slightly smaller, somewhat less capable
version of the G2, but has a few charms of its own. It functions as my
Minilux, as it were, and as a point and shoot it outclasses its competition.
Currently a G1 and 45mm are available for less than $1K US (Don Chatterton
sell these, too). 

My impressions are that the M6 is a more serious photographic tool, for some
of the reasons already cited. You are more certain of the plane of focus, it
has a far greater selection of fast lenses, and the 50mm Summicron outperforms
the Planar 45mm wide open. On the other hand, I think the Planar is sharper at
f8, and is not an embarassment at wider apertures. The Gs offer TTL auto
exposure, which in spite of the lack of matrix metering is often useful,
especially for street photography. Both offer TTL flash metering and higher
flash sinc speed than any M, 100th for the G1 and 200th for the G2. In my
experience, the wonderful 28mm Biogon is at least as good as the excellent
current 28mm Elmarit-M, even wide open. The 90mm is very close to the superb
90mm Elmarit-M, though I agree the more accurate focus possibility of the Ms,
especially the M6HM, give the Leica the edge at wide apertures.The Zeiss 21
and 16s are also first rate optics. The 35mm Planar begins to equal the ASPH
Summicron only at about f4; the Summicron is a better lens. The Zeiss lenses
are much less expensive, which is still a factor for most folks.

The Gs are quirky cameras. The Ms are quirky cameras. I like them both, and
look forward to getting a G2 in the near future. But I have no intention of
putting down either my M6 or R8 systems.

Will