Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/06/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>Snipped some: >>Once again, I am very impressed with the Canon AF system. At one >>section, I was using the 300 2.8L hand-held with server AI autofocus. The >>rafts were coming so fast, that most of the time, they didn't look in focus >>to me when the shutter actuated, but predictive AF was doing its job. The >>system accurately predicted the focus point when the shutter fired. Focus >>on many shots was good enough to see minute detail, like graduated markings >>on water bottles. Just amazing. >> >>I was never good enough in the old days to get such a high hit rate of >>in-focus images of subjects moving toward me with manual-focusing systems. >> >>On topic...Though I use and admire the R system, I think Leica will >>eventually have to compete at this level. Would an R8, even with motor, and >>in the hands of an experienced user yeild as many usable photos as the EOS1n >>in this case? I wonder. It would seem that with this advanced AF stuff, >>you can concentrate on composition, which is really hard when you're sitting >>in a moving boat. >> >>--Jim > >It seems to me right now that there are 2 different camera system types >in the 35 mm SLR world. >1. Nikon/Canon/others Auto Focus cameras - Action cameras >2. Leica R (maybe Contax/Zeiss also) - Highest quality image cameras > >The AF cameras are great for photographing what you have described above. >Use them outdoors with enough light to stop down a bit and the results >are really good. I have the F5 and 80-200 and use it this way. I get >many, many more correctly focused pictures than I ever could with >manual focusing. I can work on composition and capturing the moment >instead of focusing. I thought this was heaven until I realized that the >new zooms are not much better (if at all) than all the 25 year old Nikon >glass I traded off. > >These AFs are wonderful machines. But my Nikon gear does not give great >results at apertures larger than f5.6. (I want GREAT results, all caps) >I really miss (compared to Leica) being able to use the lens open and get >great sharp pictures. folks, why does leica have to do what canon and nikon et al are doing? it is necessary that leica compete with them? is comparing manual rangefinder cameras with autofocus slrs not comparing the proverbial apple with the proverbial orange? if i needed to photograph white-knuckled rafters shooting through boiling rapids at 2000 mph i would certainly not grab my m6; clearly, an autoeverything slr is going to give better results. but for the type of photography i'm interested in (and i suspect this is true of most of us on this list, otherwise we wouldn't be here), the leica m is great. there seems to be a perception amongst lugnuts that, to compete in a global market, leica has to give nikon and canon a run for their money. and they would have to, if it was their goal to become the camera of choice among sports and other photographers who need a machine that responds extremely quickly, allowing them to squeeze off a dozen shots per second while only thinking about keeping the subject in the frame, and i frankly wonder if that's what most photographers, pro and/or amateur, really want. the manual rangefinder camera is a unique tool. it is not inherently better or worse than automated slrs, it is just better or worse suited for particular photographic tasks. whatever direction leica may take in the future, i hope they will not abandon the m line, because there doesn't seem to be a better rangefinder camera available. guy