Re: [Leica] M6 or R6.2?

[Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com>]

Eric Welch wrote:
> 
> At 11:06 AM 9/17/98 +0200, you wrote:
> >Sincerely and though I am NOT Eric Welch, I cannot resist the temptation
> >of giving my opinion.
> 
> Stop spreading this disinformation, and I'll stop complaining about it.
> Everyone's opinion is welcome to be here. Personal attacks are inappropriate.

Don't exactly know what disinformation you are refering to when I read
the 15 words you left of the original post ;-) I repeat, clearly: "I am
NOT Eric Welch". Is that disinformation ? Or is it a personal attack ? 
:-?

> The R system is great, is not nearly as heavy as any MF system I've ever
> seen (that's an SLR) and is optically the equal of the M system. 

The R system IS great, I agree (check the size of the new 35-70 f2.8).
The M system is small. We agree there as well, I believe. I argue that
depending on the body and lens cocktail, a full R system is almost as
heavy and cumbersome as some medium-format systems, and I maintain that.
if you want we can go through the specs of quite a few MF setups (SLR,
TLR, RF). No, not a Pentax 67 with 400mm lens ;-)


> Gives more
> precise compositional control

Than the M ? Yes, certainly. But exactly the same compositional control
as a 30 USD Praktica (another German classic).

> has the best zooms in the world by a long
> shot...there are lots of reasons to opt for the R system. 

Maybe so. i'm not even going to try to challenge this. But the question
is: if you have the bucks, and the main application is landscapes, what
should you choose ? I argue: if weight and volume are main concerns to
you as a hiker, choose Leica M; if weight and volume are not important
constraints, if you go the heavy tripod way, choose medium format rather
than a high end 35mm SLR setup. You will get obvious imaging advantages,
as opposed to marginal imaging advantages if you opt for a high end 35mm
SLR setup (read R if you wish).

> Maybe it's not
> for you, it's certainly not for Alan. That's great. But let's knock off
> this M is superior to R line of thinking. It's not. 

It was not my point, you are not answering to my mail, though you use my
first sentence to introduce your own hymn. I'm not dumb enough to waste
my time on that sort of argument. M is smaller (yes/no), M is mirrorless
(yes/no), M is lighter (yes/no) : you do the editing, please.

> They are different, and
> complementary. More complementary than any Japanese system, because the
> "color" is more similar that the lenses render on film than trying to
> compare M to N or C. There is a Leica look, regardless of what others might
> say. That doesn't mean there aren't differences. But there is a family
> resemblance.

One clear family resemblance, for sure: the price range. Okay, sorry,
that was easy. For the rest maybe you are right, maybe after
development, printing and whatever other manipulation, there might be a
way for some superior observer to recognise a leica look based on
"color". I am not such a superior observer.

> Ask someone who uses both, not those who don't, if you want to know. There
> are lots of us, and many greater photographers than I.

In your left hand a M, in your right hand a R, and I'm left with the
freedom to choose ? My opinion is just as relevant as yours on the
points introduced by the initiator of this thread. And I repeat: I have
never taken a picture through a R system, and would be very happy to own
one, thank you. I would love to get my hands on a 100mm f2.8 macro R and
a R8. But if the discussion is about doing landscapes, I say use the
bucks to the best of needs...

Alan.