Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/11/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>Even look at Nat Geo. Pop Photo had a write up on >their photogs and found that a great many (more than half) have moved away >from the Leica M camera. WHY! Because with an SLR, what you see is what >you get. No compromise. The SLR revolution happened 40 years ago, with the introduction of the Nikon F. This is ancient history. >All that an SLR gives you is a large, clunky, nasty, and unfocusable body. - - As we've discussed before, the Nikon FM is almost exactly the same size and weight as a Leica M camera. Many others are smaller and lighter. Many others are larger. On average, the differences are not as big as might be imagined. - - "Clunky" and "nasty" are judgemental descriptors designed to provoke an emotional response. Many old SLRs were clunky and nasty. The good ones weren't, there are many current one which are silky smooth and very pleasant to operate. Your mileage may differ as that is an opinion. - - It's far easier to focus and frame with any lens longer than 100mm (arbitrarily) with an SLR than any rangefinder camera. Or Leica would not have gone to all the trouble of making Visoflex housings, etc. >Very few SLR's, incidentally, have EVER provided a 100% VF. Most are >around 90%. Hence, your basic premise is wrong. Most of the professionally oriented SLRs (Nikon F/F2/F3/F4/F5, Canon F-1/EOS-1n series, etc) always provided a 100% viewfinder screen. The less expensive models reduced the size of the prism and viewfinder to save money, size and weight. The approximation of framing information they display to the user is no worse than the approximations implicit in a viewfinder camera, and is considerably better with longer lenses. Godfrey