Re: [Leica] Leica v Nikon

[Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net>]

Deborah Dion wrote:
> 
> I guess that one could go on forever "canning" Leica R systems. There is a
> quality in Leica R lenses that I have not seen in any of my photos taken
> with Nikkor or Zeiss lenses. There is a richness, depth, a focus that is not
> the sharpest, but lends a comfort to the eye with the R lenses. In spite of
> this I sold my Leica R7 and 3 R lenses in favor of a NikonFM2N (35mm 2.0,
> 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4, 180mm 2.8 and 105mm macro). I need an SLR to shoot
> reference photos for my work as an illustrator and the R just wasn't an
> economic feasibility. I only did this because I purchased an M6 with 3
> lenses and fell in love with the camera, the lenses, ease of use, ability to
> travel overseas with it etc. I use my M6 with with 3 lenses 28mm, 50mm f2,
> and 90mm 2.8 for fine art photography (and to shoot reference in spite of
> the SLR equipment...); will add the 35mm. The focus is the easiest I've ever
> used; the sharpness, the richness, the exposure of the M photos out do any
> Nikon system. I've compared shots that I've taken of same subject, using
> same film and developing as my husband did with his Nikon F100. So I think
> it's kind of inane to keep comparing apples to oranges.
> Debby Dion

So tell me/us what a "reference" photo is so I'll know why it can't be shot with
an M.
If it's what I think it is I would think it could be let alone R! It needs autofocus!?
Speaking of "illustrator" I've been having great fun fooling around with the
program "Illustrator."
I almost feel like taking a course in it. A nice antithesis to Photoshop. Any tips!?
Mark Rabiner