Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/10/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Greg.Chappell@bankofamerica.com wrote: ><Snip> ght lens focal lengths and a couple of additional choices in lens speed... > > Is the M a terrific camera? Yes. Am I willing to pay what Leica charges? > Obviously I am, as I now have two M6s. But am I getting the value for my > money that someone purchasing an F5 is getting? I don't think so. The M6 is > the much more expensive camera. > > B. D. You are making the mind boggling statement that the M6 is a more expensive camera because it is less of a high tech value. You stand in front of a tree with your F5 and I'll stand in front of it with my M6 and ASPH glass and lets both make 16 by 20s and see who's got the value. Or smaller even. Let's both go into tricky situations which involve much tact and see whose equipment does better for them. For all it's modes and micromotors the F5 is a clunker next to the M6. The M6 is a technology of tradition and proven trial and error decades long tweaking. My Nikon autofocus system bores me. It collects dust. The batteries are leaking through the camera and seeping through the floorboards of my house. I just like the way the film rewinds itself back into the cassette. That makes me smile. Mark Rabiner I have a winder for my m6. I know what my work looks like now and what my work looked like before when I used to use Nikons. Does a camera which takes worse pictures than mine have more value becuase it has more gee wiz stuff in it?