Re: [Leica] re: Photographic skills

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

You would buy the Summilux because it will allow you to shoot with a Leica 
M, which is lighter, far quieter, and less obtrusive than the Nikon. If you 
prefer using a reflex to a rangefinder, than you wouldn't worry about the 
Summilux....

At 12:25 PM 1/19/00 +0100, you wrote:

> >>>>>>
>Larry Kopitnik wrote:
>
> >>>
>If in real-world photography, using a camera and lens the way I'm going to
>use it day in and day out, I will not be able to tell the difference
>between a photo taken with, say, a $2000 50 mm Summilux and a $300 50 f/1.4
>Nikkor or EOS, why in heaven's name should I -- or anybody not made out of
>money -- spend $1700 more for the Summilux?
><<<
>Doug Herr wrote:
>For me it's not just whether I can tell the difference under identical
>circumstances, but also whether the $2000 Summilux will allow me to work in
>a greater variety of circumstances.<<<<<<<
>
>Well Guys,
>
>I use both brands: The Nikon 50mm / 1.4 and the Leica M Summilux 50/1.4.
>Just last weekend I had an editorial portrait job for a newsmagazine and
>because of the circumstances I used my Nikon and my  Leica with a Ektachrome
>100, the Nikon because of the longer lenses and very fine flash technology
>and my Leica... well you know ;-) itīs just that special magic little
>thing...
>I also shoot some pictures with the 50mm of both brands. After processing I
>got the slides back in archive sheets to look at. I could see the
>difference! The Nikon is sharp, no problem, but when you see the Leica
>Slides, you see how sharp a picture can be. The difference is huge for an
>educated eye of a professional photographer! But when you donīt have this
>possibility to compare the results directy, then you would be also happy
>with the Nikon of course, which is a fine tool anyway.
>I cannot understand, why a Summilux would allow me to work in a greater
>variety of circumstances as a Nikon canīt?
>
>Best regards,
>
>Deniz