Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/07/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]SNIP> <<I use the Leica M6 because I like it, and it matters not a bit if it's someone else's 3rd-place choice. I'd sooner try the competition myself, and come to my own conclusions.>>SNIP - -------------- We tend to also think of this within a context whereas everyone (at least assumedly) has a somewhat professional or seasoned understanding of...cameras. That's why we (I do) ask what is wrong with the people - the professionals - who are in one way or another anti-Leica. Or they will come up with some complaint that puts Leica further down the list. Advertising aside, I will not speak for them, but perhaps it has to do with personality. Why do professionals rarely use Leicas? Well the reason is NOT that so many non-professionals do so! This is where I can merely say...nothing. But of course there are proportionally very little professional or likewise photographers. The person who is so fascinated by canons ability to focus where you look gains much attention. But that has much to do with exposure, the best next thing. This doesn't deprive the real best thing of its worth only its reputation, or lack of The increase of digital and/or automatic may be chosen out of ease (even though I would find them=infinitely difficult to use) - of use, but they will, if given the choice, refer to the M6 as a "real" camera. I usually see people quite fascinated just holding an M6 (like me!) If not, then I'm wrong as it applies to your experiences. But when we have people who are professionals and they can afford a Leica at a snap then I get suspicious when the respect is not there. They aren't defending themselves because they have the choice to buy a Leica . I am NOT saying this is either/or but some 'laugh off' the Leica. Why? Why does every professional use other brands? If one needs telephotos or other stuff why is the R system not so well accepted? It can do anything (but focus?)! Now if one is talking format it's a bit different. The large format (and med) users which many of us are, well when they posit that Leica is not first, it's tough to disagree in terms of image quality under 'proper' circumstances. When one says that Leica is the "best" camera (M's..or R's) is it automatically implied that this is within 35 format? Or is this a greater statement saying that Leica's ability to do what they do with a 35mm is amazing and the Linhof can't compare as it applies to it's own group? In other words, Is Leica better at 35mm than others of 35mm and ALSO better at 35mm than X is at MF and Y at LF? If this is so (or for another reason(s)) is Leica 'better'? There are so many factors, but that gets a bit complex. We can't compare apples to oranges but can we say that one is a better , in spite of different, fruit? Is this "it depends on what you're application is, one is good for this the other for that"? But then that would put one back at the beginning and the question remains is Leica "the best"? I take sides out of illogical fanaticism, so yes, the M6 may be the perfect camera even though it's not so good in abc situations. There is no why - one can take a side in any case... Dr. Blacktape?