Re: [Leica] M6 or R6.2?

[Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com>]

Eric Welch wrote:
> 
> At 08:56 PM 9/17/98 +0200, you wrote:
> 
> >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 ;-)
> 
> It doesn't come close to the weight of an MF system, with the same
> capability as far as magnification (long and short lenses - some of which
> are wide enough there are no equivalents in any MF system). That's my
> point. My point about my objection is why do you have to bring up my name
> at all? There's sarcasm and offense seemingly offered is such a statement.

Uh ?! Eric: you have a problem with the management of the cut and paste
of the extracts of posts you are reacting to. 

The first poster had addressed his question by starting with a "To Mr
Eric Welch", but added at the end of the post that anyone was welcome to
answer. It did not seem illogical to me to give the precision that I was
maybe not the person the first poster expected or wanted, but that I
could not resist the temptation of bringing my grain of salt. If I was
sarcastic, it was not at that point. Sincerely, you make debate
difficult by not pasting the sentences you are actually responding to:
it sometimes is funny, sometimes gets tense.

Regarding the substance: I maintain without remorse that FOR LANDSCAPES
(which usually implies at least some hiking), there is a choice to make
regarding the volume and weight of what is carried around. And that from
a certain option up (when you decide on a heavy tripod  and certain
selections of lenses), the thought of jumping to larger formats is by no
means ridiculous: it offers the LANDSCAPE photographer a MAJOR imaging
advantage. With the budget implied by the Leica R option, one could
argue for example in favour of a Hasselblad SWC on the wide end and some
setup with a medium tele on the other. One could also argue in favour of
a Mamyia M7 setup for a weight/volume/price mix very similar to a R
system, one could also argue in favour of TLRs, I would personally jump
on the Contax 645, etc, etc, loosing a marginal advantage in mobility
(if any) but gaining DECISIVE advantages on the imaging side.

> 
> >Than the M ? Yes, certainly. But exactly the same compositional control
> >as a 30 USD Praktica (another German classic).
> 
> Hey, I learned to make my first pictures on a Praktica before I bought my
> own first camera. Don't knock it. Your point ignores why I said what I
> said, regardless of how true it is.

Compositional control is an advantage of SLRs against RFs, it is not
particular to the R system, that is all I said. Did not knock that other
German system. Furthermore, compared to good RFs, with a well corrected
parallax, this advantage is MARGINAL. Even more so in LANDSCAPE images,
which do not usually concentrate on subjects closer than 1 meter.

> >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
> 
> Oh, did he say he was a hiker? I focused on the R6.2 vs. Nikon vs. M6
> question. Slipped by on me.

He did not say "hiker", he said "LANDSCAPE". I stated that if he did a
lot of hiking, and had no one to share the load with, the M system was a
dream setup. I never mentionned the word "Nikon" in this thread, but the
original poster did state he owned a N90s. Phhheew, this is tiring....
 
> > And I repeat: I have
> >never taken a picture through a R system, and would be very happy to own
> 
> Then please, don't go around telling people that Japanese cameras are just
> as good. Use the R system, then you have a valid opinion.

Not using the R system does not prevent me from seeing images shot
through R systems, and THAT gives me EVERY right to have an opinion.
Agreed: I do not see the original slides or the negs on a light table,
but I see printed images (magazine prints, exhibition prints, etc) and I
see digitalised images on dozens of web sites. In those images, I do not
see any visible imaging advantage against similar images produced
through other middle to high end 35mm SLR systems. My ETERNAL point is
that there very well might be an advantage on the light table (I have
some doubts but cannot argue on that), but that this advantage is not
major enough as to give a competitive edge to Leica R images beyond the
light table. That is how I end up questionning the investement in a R
system. The prices are ridiculous for such a marginal potential
advantage and only explain themselves by a passion for optics for optics
sake. 

I know you do not agree with me on this but I feel you are a bit too
unconditionnaly enthusiastic for anything Leica. I have always had a
hard time with believers. You state you recognise Leica images after the
whole pre-press and printing process. I do not. But I am not a believer:
the holy glow escapes me.

Alan.