Re: [Leica] Musings on the role of photography

[Walter S Delesandri <walt@jove.acs.unt.edu>]

Oh, BTW Bill, The difference in an M3 and an M6 is about the same 
as the difference between a new car with a luggage rack and 
one without.....they're the same damn camera....only the finish 
and adjustment on the M6 is suspect....O/W, the M2/4/4-2/4-p/6
is NEARLY the same camera, and the M3 is the same but with 
a different finder....I do like the little crank on the 4-and-later,
but it's mechanically no better than the (dubious) rewind on the 
others.  I've used them all, even a -5, and they're all great, 
if all is in order.
Walt
On
Thu,
31 Dec 1998, Bill Franson wrote:

> >I am puzzled why modern photographers revere these old names of the
> >distant past.  Their images for the most part are second rate when
> >compared to the awesome results produced by many current, known and
> >unknown, photographers today.
> >I wonder how many of the old masters would succeed with todays
> >competition if they (hypothetically) had to start now.  I suspect that
> >the versatility of modern equipment would render their flair for
> >peeling paint pictures totally obsolete.
> 
> 
> Hey Alan,
> Tell us why the images of "the old names of the distant past" are "for the
> most part second rate"? How are we modern photographers getting "awesome
> results"? And how different is a Leica M6 from its ancient cousin except
> for the fact that it has a meter?
> 
> Bill Franson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>