Re: [Leica] Leica R: Is It Worth It? --> yes !

[Andre Jean Quintal <megamax@abacom.com>]

Andrew Moore wrote:
. . .
Has anyone else noticed the image quality to which referred, or is it just
me?  It's not that it's bad -- it's just different, and I definitely see
the difference when I compare R transparancies to M ones, even across
different lenses.

	--> Do you mean that you prefer Nikon SLR optics
	over the Leica R ones ? The FM2n is one classic
	camera we both agree on, especially at the affordable
	prices asked. [ Yet, Leica SLR products (very limited
	experience) leave me with a unique feeling of unique sturdiness
	and long-term durability, yet you say "too much plastic".
	Leica R6, Leica R-E --> too much plastic ? (You must hate
	Canon, if I get your point, with quite a % of high performance
	plastics, overall). The Leica SLR feel very much like a
	brick to me, and are still human sized (compared to some
	newer "bigger is better" "what's-this-gizmo-for" models
	from Japan: complicated simplicity ... ). ]

	I find it rather startling you were disappointed with the
	Leica R results. I was reading critiques on the
	Summicron-R 35mm f/2 just this Sunday (on the Internet),
	and it's difficult to deserve such superlative positive comments
	from people who are more or less blase over photo equipment.
	So the Summicron-R 35mm f/2 now is on my "must try someday"
	list, the sooner the better.

	Perhaps were you exposed to Leica R models that have failed
	to generate enthusiasm in the photo community, while
	spoiled with Leica M reference models ???

	I'd like to get Summicron-R 50mm f/2 performance in N...,
	but which model would that be ???

	My own Nikon brand optics, after working with Contarex
	for >6 months, were a major moral catastrophe at the time,
	after almost ten years' worth of double-page spreads and 3 page
	fold-outs Nikon indoctrination in Modern and Popular Photography
	and numerous French language magazines of all kinds ...
	That's when I (really) learned advertising was just advertising,
	even for "all the professionals use it" Nikon.  :+(

	Thirty year old K-II & AGFA CT-18 slides show a very marked
	difference in favor of the Contarex, crisp, accurate "clean" color,
	excellent highlights detail, skin you can almost touch (peachy
quality),
	edge definition that simply grabs you and there's a light quality
	(or dimensionality, "liquidity"?) that's hardly ever there with Nikon,
	in spite of other positive image factors / components
	that may have more to do with photo talent as such
	and our eyes trained to appreciate photos as printed in magazines.
	My Nikon ones (I bought a FTn) even have a certain color defect
	I've never really accepted (I don't know for sure what it's called,
	probably "slight" color shift or cast), even compared to my own
	Rollei 35 or Yashica Lynx-14 (RF) slides, not just Contarex.

	In those days, still a teen, I was too poorly informed
	to really appreciate Leica enough to buy one then (at C$1800+)
	and my priorities then shifted away from photography for a while:
	such is Life.

	So I really wonder.

	It's not (at all) that I want to antagonize you... I'm still
	learning and have grown to envy people who swap expensive
	photo equipment as if they own a bank or gold mine ( ... but don't
	really produce interesting photos US$10K-25K (and more) later).

	Andre Jean Quintal