Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/06/27

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica - R8 not quite right M6 only just perfect
From: Eric Welch <>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 23:02:17 -0500

At 08:27 AM 6/28/98 +0800, you wrote:
>Oh dear oh dear no insult whatever - I guess I better spell it out more 

Okay, maybe my journalistic tendency took what you said too literally.
Sorry 'bout that.

>by which I mean that perhaps one in a thousand pro photographers that I 
>have seen working in the 50 or so countries I have worked in the last 15 

>of pros. The flash system is also, with the exception of the (excellent 
>and very useful) metering feature the same as mid-80s Nikon only the Metz 
>flashes are more cumbersome, slower and have poorer user interface IMHO 
>(I use and dislike the 40MZ-2!).

How is Canon's any better than Leicas? Nikon has the edge in some ways, if
you're using one flash. But start using multiple flashes and Metz/Leica and
Minolta has Nikon beat.

Oops, you can do Metz/Nikon too. :-)

I don't see how one can do better fill flash than what my R8 can do, so
there is not a lot Nikon can do for me that would justify giving up Leica

>Japanese made 21-35/2.8 is coming for Photokina) a fast standard zoom 

Ohh, baby, now yer talkin'. :-)

>such as 28-70/2.8, fast wide-angles wider than 35mm, a 1.4 teleconverter 
>that works with the 70-180 and 180/2.8 APO just to name a few areas from 

That WOULD be handy, but a 1.4 converter is less useful than a good 280 2.8.

>line: Leica's reputation was after all founded upon an ability to 
>innovate not simply to catch up.

Catching up to some things is one side. The other is they don't adopt a
bunch of dumb ideas because they prove themselves to be useless by other
camera manufacturers. Leica's so small, it makes sense that they use
other's manufacturer's successes and failures as tests. And also, we users
tend to be a bit conservative anyway. I don't see that as such a bad thing. 

>You don't need to get so hot under the collar when people criticize the 

You don't need to assume we get hot under the collar because we don't hold
the same opinion as you do, or when  you make unfounded statements like the
R8 is based on 15 year old technology. It's simply not true. I'm sure the
lack of AF might mean something, buy the microprocessor inside, and the
matrix metering is certainly not 15 year old tech.

>R8 - if it works for you then that is good. I wish it was the camera for 
>me and feel it is quite legitimate to weigh in with my observations on a 
>discussion group that exists for the purpose of discussing such matters. 

That's fine, don't let us stop you from weighing in. But don't expect to
say things we don't agree with without us also weighing in.

- -- 

Eric Welch
St. Joseph, MO

"Why does the eye see a thing more clearly in dreams than with the
imagination, being awake?"
- -Leonardo daVinci